Skip to main content

Full text of "Appendix to the Sixty-Fourth Volume of the Journals of the House of Commons Dominion of Canada Session 1926-27"

See other formats


CA;. 

DE 

NATIONAL L:: 



APPENDIX 



TO THE 



SIXTY-FOURTH VOLUME 



OF THE 



JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF 

COMMONS 

DOMINION OF CANADA 

DECEMBER-APRIL SESSION, 1926-27 



PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT 




OTTAWA 
F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING S MOST EXCELLENT MAJEST* 
1927 



.Q20fiA3 



LIST OF APPENDICES DECEMBER-APRIL SESSION, 1926-27 



No. 1, Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated 
and controlled by the Government, Recommending in their third and final 
report that their proceedings together with the evidence adduced before 
the Committee, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House. 
Printed. See Journals at pages 480-481, 483. 

No. 2. Special Committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons, meet 
ing in joint session, to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes 
of British Columbia, as set forth in their Petition presented to Parliament 
in June, 1926, Recommending in their second and final report that this 
report together with the evidence, be printed as an appendix to the Jour 
nals of the House, and also in Blue Book form to the number of one thou 
sand (1,000) copies. Printed. See Journals at pages 509-522, 527. 



17 GEORGE V APPENDIX No. 1 A. 1926-27 



HOUSE OF COMMONS 



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 



ON 

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 

OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED 
BY THE GOVERNMENT 



SESSION 1926-27 



PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE 



Printed by Order of Parliament 




OTTAWA 

F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 

1927 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Members of the Committee ix 

Order of Reference xi 

Reports of the Committee xii 

Minutes of Proceedings xv 

Minutes of Evidence 1-46 

Index of Evidence , 47 



MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE 

W. T. GOODISON, Chairman 

Messieurs: 

BENNETT, Hon. R. B. JELLIFF, L. H. 

CANTLEY, T. JENKINS, R. H. 

CHAPLIN, Hon. J. D. JONES, Hon. G. B. 

DUFF, W. MCLEAN, M. (Melfort). 

DUNNING, Hon. C. A. MILNE, R. 

FISET, Sir Eugene. POWER, C. G. 

HARRIS, J. H. STEVENS, Hon. H. H. 

H. D. DEWAR, 

Clerk of the Committee. 



ORDER OF REFERENCE 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 

FRIDAY, February 18, 1927. 

Resolved, That Rule 10 of the House of Commons relating to the appoint 
ment of the Select Standing Committees of the House be amended by adding 
to the Select Standing Committees of the House for the present session a Select 
Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated, and controlled 
by the Government, to which will be referred the estimates of the Canadian 
National Railways and the Canadian Merchant Marine for the present session, 
for consideration and for report to the House, provided, however, that nothing 
in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of dis 
cussion in Committee of Supply; and that the said Committee consist of Messrs. 
Bennett, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodison, Harris, Jelliff, 
Jenkins, Jones, McLean (Melfort), Milne, Power, and Stevens. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk of the House. 



FRIDAY, February 25, 1927. 

Ordered, That the said Committee be given leave to print their Minutes 
of proceedings and the evidence taken by them, from day to day, for the use of 
the members of the Committee and of the House, and that Rule 74 be suspended 
in relation thereto. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk oj the House. 



FRIDAY, February 25, 1927. 

Ordered, That the Estimates 1927-28, respecting Loans to Canadian 
National Railway Company and Canadian Government Merchant Marine, 
Limited, be referred to the said Committee. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk o/ the House. 



TUESDAY, March 29, 1927. 
Ordered, That the said Committee be given leave to sit while the House 



is in session. 

Attest. 



ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk oj the House. 



xu SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 



REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE 

FIRST REPORT 

FRIDAY, February 25, 1927. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated 
and controlled by the Government, beg leave to present the following as their 
First Report: 

Your Committee recommend that they be given leave to print their minutes 
of proceedings and the evidence taken by them, from day to day, for the use 
of the members of the Committee and of the House, and that Rule 74 be sus 
pended in relation thereto. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

W. T. GOODISON, 

Chairman. 



SECOND REPORT 

TUESDAY, March 29, 1927. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated 
and controlled by the Government, beg leave to present the following as their 
Second Report: 

Your Committee recommend that they be given leave to sit while the 
House is in session. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

W. T. GOODISON, 

Chairman. 



THIRD AND FINAL REPORT 

FRIDAY, April 8, 1927. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated 
and controlled by the Government, beg leave to present the following as their 
Third and Final Report: 

Your Committee to which was referred for consideration and for report 
to the House the Estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Cana 
dian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, held five meetings, in the course 
of which it examined sundry witnesses, including: 

Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., President and Chairman of the Boards, 
Canadian National Railways. 

S. J. Hungerford, Vice-President, Operation and Construction Depart 
ments, C.N.R. 

W. D. Robb, Vice-President, Departments of Land, Colonization, Develop 
ment, Insurance and General Matters, C.N.R. 

R. A. C. Henry, Director, Bureau of Economics, C.N.R. 

T. H. Cooper, "General Auditor, C.N.R. 

R. B. Teakle, General Manager, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, 
Limited. 

J. P. Doherty, Traffic Manager, Canadian Government Merchant Marine, 
Limited. 

F. Davidson, Auditor. Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING xiii 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS 

Your Committee has had under consideration Item 408 of the Estimates 
which provides for loans or guarantees of $22,500,000 to the Canadian National 
Hallway Company for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, and has in the 
course of its deliberations examined the operating statements of the company 
for the year ending December 31, 1926. 

Your Committee notes that the results of the operations of the Canadian 
-National Railway System, which includes for the first time the operations of 
the Central Vermont Railway, show a substantial improvement in the volume 
of business handled and a continued improvement in operating methods, result 
ing in an increase of $21,861,000 in Operating Revenue accompanied by an 
increase of only $7,079,000 in Operating Expenses. 

While not providing for interest charges due the Government on capital 
advances your Committee notes with considerable satisfaction that for the 
first time, the net earnings of the railway for the year are more than sufficient 
to pay all fixed charges due to the public. 

Your Committee is led to believe that the properties embraced in the 
system have been maintained to a standard commensurate with the traffic 
requirements. 

Your Committee agrees that the estimate of $22,500,000 (being a reduction 
of $8,500,000 from the amount asked for last year) is necesary for the purpose 
of the company during the coming year, and should be voted by the House. 

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE 

Your Committee has also had under consideration Item 409 of the Esti 
mates, which provides for a loan of $18,500 to the Canadian Government Mer 
chant Marine, Limited, and has in the course of its deliberations examined 
the operating statements of the company for the year ending December 31, 
1926. Your Committee notes with considerable satisfaction that the operating 
deficit has been reduced to $90,159, an improvement over the previous year of 
$858,893, and it is recalled that the improvement in 1925 in comparison with 
1924 was $492,826. 

From the evidence given, it appears that there has been an improvement 
in the earnings on the business handled in the case of practically all the routes 
operated and that this improvement has been accomplished at a relatively 
small expense. The increase in operating revenue was $1,114,735, while the 
operating expenses only increased $256,841. 

Your Committee draws attention to the fact that the amount of the 
appropriation for last year on account of the Canadian Government Merchant 
Marine, Limited, was $600.000 ; whereas for the coming year, the sum of $18,500 
is asked. Your Committee is of the opinion that this amount is necessary for 
the purpose of the company during the coming year and should be voted by the 
House. 

Your Committee notes with satisfaction that the Canadian National Rail 
ways continues to hold the confidence and goodwill of the public through the 
excellence of the service rendered and the courtesy extended to patrons. 

Your Committee further desires to express its appreciation of the manner 
in which the President of the Canadian National Railways and the Officers 
assisting him gave their evidence to the Committee. 

A copy is attached hereto of the Minutes of the Proceedings and Evidence 
of the attending officers. 

Your Committee further recommends that its proceedings and the evidence 
adduced before the Committee be printed as an appendix to the Journals of 
the House and that Rule 74 in respect hereto be suspended. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

W. T. GOODISON, 

Chairman. 

Note. For concurrence by the House of these three reports, see Journals at pages 167, 
422 and 483. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING XV 



MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 

FRIDAY, February 25, 1927. 

The, following Members were present: Messieurs Cantley, Duff, Dunning, 
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Goodison, Jelliff, Jones, McLean (Melfort), and Milne 9. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated 
and controlled by the Government, met, pursuant to Notice, at eleven o clock a.m. 

It was moved by Mr. Duff and seconded by Sir Eugene Fiset that Mr. 
Goodison be the Chairman of the Committee, The Motion was declared carried. 

Mr. Goodison took the Chair; thanked the Members for the honour accorded 
him and assured them that with their cooperation the matters referred to the 
Committee would be given every consideration. 

Mr. Dunning informed the Committee that the financial statement of the 
Nationall Railways and the Government Merchant Marine would very soon 
be available, and that if the usual procedure were followed, Sir Henry Thornton 
would be available for examination regarding his Estimates. Mr. Dunning 
suggested that the Committee might obtain leave to print their minutes of pro 
ceedings and the evidence taken. 

The Committee upon the Chairman s suggestion also considered the advisa 
bility of obtaining leave to sit while the House was in session. 

Upon the question of the day and hour of meetings, Mr. Jelliff expressed the 
hope that such would not conflict with those of other important committees and 
instanced more particularly that of the Committee on Railways, Canals and Tele 
graph Lines. 

After further consideration, it was moved by Sir Eugene Fiset, that leave 
be obtained to print the Committee s proceedings and the evidence, Motion 
carried. 

The Committee then adjourned until the call of the Chair. 



TUESDAY, March 29, 1927. 

The meeting came to order at 11 a.m., Mr. Goodison, presiding. 

Members present: Messrs. Bennett, Cantley, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodi 
son, Jelliff, McLean (Melfort) , Milne, Stevens 10. 

Sir Henry Thornton, president, R. A. C. Henry, bureau of economics, T. H. 
Cooper, general auditor, and several other officials of the railway staff were 
present. 

Sir Henry Thornton made a general statement and answered questions 
relating to the operation of the Canadian National Railway and to the Annual 
Report of the Canadian National System for the year ending December 31st, 
1926. An analysis of 1926 operating expenses as compared with 1925 to which 
he referred during his remarks was ordered printed in the evidence. 



XVi SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

The Chairman stated that he believed it was understood that they were ^ 
take up the report of the Canadian National Railways, which was before t 
Committee, and if agreeable to the Committee they would start at page 
" Railway Operating Revenues and Expenses ". 

Items 101 to 112 inclusive, 114, 115, 116, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 were 
considered and disposed of. 

On motion by Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. Fiset, the Chairman was 
instructed to present a report to the House asking leave to sit while the . 
is sitting. 

Motion carried 

The Clerk reported to the Chairman that there was not a quorum, and on 
motion of Mr. Jelliff the Committee adjourned until the call of the Chair. 



THURSDAY, March 31st, 1927. 

The meeting came to order at 3 p.m., Mr. Goodison presiding. 

Members present: Messrs. Cantley, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodison, Jelliff. 
Jenkins, McLean (Melfort), Milne. 9. 

Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., president, Mr. S. J. Hungerford, vice-president, 
Mr. W. D. Robb, vice-president, Mr. R. A. C. Henry, director of bureau of 
economics, Mr. T. H. Cooper, general auditor, and several other officials of the 
railway staff were present. 

Items, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 151 and 152 on page 16 of the Annual 
Report were considered and disposed of. 

Items under the heading of Railway Operating Expenses, were taken up and 
considered by the Committee. 

After discussion it was moved by Mr. Duff and seconded by Mr. Fiset that 
The Annual Report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ending 
the 31st December, 1926, be received and adopted." 

Motion carried. 

The Committee then proceeded to a consideration of Vote 408 of the Esti 
mates and after discussion, it was moved by Mr. Fiset seconded by Mr. Cantley 
that, " Vote 408 of the Railway Estimates, $22,500,000, be recommended to the 
House." 

Motion carried. 

The Chairman stated that Mr. MacLaren, M.P., was present and would 
like to ask a question of Sir Henry Thornton if the Committee would grant 
permission. In accordance therewith Mr. Duff moved, seconded by Mr Cantlev 
that Mr. MacLaren be heard. 

Motion carried. 

Mr. MacLaren desired information as to the practice of issuing passes t 
employees of the railway in the Maritime Provinces. 

On motion of Mr. Fiset the Committee adjourned until the call of the Chair 



RAILWAYS AXD SHIPPING XVil 

WEDNESDAY, April 6th, 1927. 

The meeting came to order at 3 p.m., Mr. Goodison, presiding. 

Members present Messrs. Cantley, Duff, Dunning, Fiset, Goodison, Jelliff, 
Jenkins, McLean (Melfort), Milne, Power 10. 

Sir Henry Thornton, K.B.E., president, D. E. Galloway, vice-president, 
C.G.M.M., R. B. Teakle, general manager, C.G.M.M., J. P. Doherty, traffic 
mafiager, C.G.M.M., F. Davidson, auditor, C.G.M.M. and several other officials 
of the staff were present. 

Mr. Jenkins, M.P., asked for certain information from Sir Hery Thornton in 
connection with railway matters in Prince Edward Island. Information to be 
furnished. 

The Chairman stated that the report of the Canadian Government Merchant 
Marine, Limited, was before the Committee. 

Sir Henry Thornton made a general statement and answered questions in 
respect to the operation and finances of the Merchant Marine. 

After discussion it was moved by Mr. Duff seconded by Mr. Cantley that, 
"The Annual Report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited for 
the year ending 31st December, 1926 be received and adopted." 

Motion carried. 

The Committee then proceeded to a consideration of Vote 409 of the Esti 
mates and after discussion, it was moved by Mr. Fiset, seconded by Mr. Jelliff, 
that Vote 409, which provides for a loan of $18,500 to the Canadian Government 
Merchant Marine, Limited, be recommended to the House. 

Motion carried. 

The Committee adjourned until the call of the Chair. 



THURSDAY, April 7th, 1927. 

The meeting came to order at 4 p.m., Mr. Goodison presiding. 

Members present: Messrs. Cantley, Duff, Goodison, Harris, Jelliff, Jenkins, 
McLean (Melfort), Power. 8. 

It was ordered that a memorandum prepared by Sir Henry Thornton in 
reply to certain questions asked by Mr. Jenkins, M.P., at a previous meeting 
be printed in the evidence. (See p. 45 herein.) 

The Chairman submitted a draft of the final report for the consideration 
of the Committee. 

On motion of Mr. Duff, seconded by Mr. Harris, the Third and Final 
Report of the Committee was adopted unanimously. 

The Chairman was thereupon instructed to present the said Report to the 
House, forthwith. 

The Committee adjourned. 



423242 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 

COMMITTEE ROOM 425, 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 

TUESDAY, March 29th, 1927. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping met at 11 A.M., 
the Chairman, Mr. Goodison, presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, we have a quorum, and if you will come to 
order we will open our meeting. I do not think it is necessary for me to ex 
plain to any member of this committee the object of our meeting; it is well known 
that this is the medium between the Dominion government and the Canadian 
National Railways. I am not going to make any remarks just now. It has been 
the custom in the past, for Sir Henry Thornton to give us a review of the 
business carried on by the railway during the past year, and we have all been 
pleased to hear from him. If that is your pleasure now, we will be glad to hear 
from Sir Henry along these lines. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the annual report 
of the company s affairs, which you already have, explains in much detail how 
those affairs have been conducted during the past year. I think perhaps the best 
way for me to proceed would be to give you a resume of an analysis which has 
been prepared, comparing the expenses for 1926 with those of 1925. It con 
tains a good deal of information and covers all of the essential points without 
confusing detail, detail which ; in many cases, would only be appreciated or under 
stood by those who are experienced in railway accounting. 



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS SYSTEM 

Analysis of 199.6 operating Expenses as Compared With 1925 

The accounts of the Central Vermont Railway have been included with those 
of the Canadian National Railways for the first time, hence the comparisons 
enumerated hereunder should be understood as including the Central Vermont as 
part of the Canadian National Railway System. 

The operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways are classified in 
accordance with the accounting rules of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and 
are divided into 140 primary expense accounts, these being grouped under 7 
main heads, with self-descriptive heads as follows: 

(1) Maintenance of Way and Structures 40 primary accounts 

(2) Maintenance of Equipment 24 

(3) Traffic 8 

(4) Transportation 50 

(5) Miscellaneous 5 

(6) General 12 

(7) Transportation for Investment, Cr 1 

Total 140 

4232421 



The comparison 
follows: 



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 
of expenses under these heads for the years 1925-1926 



Item 1926 1925 

Maintenance of W. & S $ 48,536,503 $ 44,753,310 

Maintenance of Equipment 51,211,821 49,324,911 

Traffic 7,026,004 6,902,502 

Transportation 111,393,758 110,386,975 

Miscellaneous 2,336,041 2,272,918 

General 7,881,496 7,520,303 

Transportation for Investment, Or 1,040,343 895,443 



Decrease or 

Increase 

Inc. $3,783,193 
1,886,910 
123,502 
1,006,783 
63,123 
361,193 
144,900 



Inc. 
Inc. 
Inc. 
Inc. 
Inc. 
Inc. 



Total $227,345,280 $220,265,476 Ino.S 7,079,804 



The expenses may be further divided, for purposes of comparison, into 
Employees Compensation and Other Expenses. This comparison follows: 



Employees Compensation Wages 

Item 1926 

Maintenance of W. & S $ 27, 181 , 100 

Maintenance of Equipment 27, 621 , 589 

Traffic 3,303,451 

Transportation 71,653,991 

Miscellaneous 1,169, 144 

General 5,061,032 



1925 

$ 24,708,160 

27,587,866 

3,089,203 

69,542,027 

1,161,850 

5,073,150 



Decrease or 
Increase 

Inc. 8 2,472,940 
33,723 
214,248 
2,111,964 
7,294 
12,118 



Inc. 
inc. 
Inc. 
Inc. 
Dec. 



Total $135,990,307 8131,162,256 Inc.S 4,828,051 



Material and Miscellaneous 

Item 1926 

Maintenance of W. & S $ 21,355,403 

Maintenance of Equipment 23, 590, 232 

Traffic 3,722,554 

Transportation 39, 739, 767 

Miscellaneous 1, 166,897 

General 2,820,464 

Transportation for Investment, Cr 1,040,343 



1925 

$ 20,045,150 

21,737,045 

3,813,298 

40, 844, 948 

1,111,068 

2,447,154 

895,443 



Decrease or 


Increase 


Inc.$ 


1,310,253 


Inc. 


1,853,187 


Inc. 


90,744 


Dec. 


1,105,181 


Inc. 


55,829 


Inc. 


373,310 


Inc. 


144,900 



Total $91,354,974 $89,103,220 Inc.S 2,251,754 



The expenses under the 7 general accounts may be further analyzed into the 
primary accounts, which are to be found in detail on Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, 
of the Annual Report. 

Some of the larger factors causing the variation in expense in 1926 as 
compared with 1925 may be briefly enumerated under the general accounts, the 
factors taken into consideration being: Variations in Traffic; Prices of Material; 
Wages; and Other Conditions: each of which would naturally be expected to have 
an influence upon the expenses necessarily incurred in the carrying on of the 
operations of the railway. 

It will be seen that from the standpoint of gross revenue, the traffic has in 
creased during the year 1926 to the extent of 8 . 62 per cent over 1925. 

MAINTENANCE OF WAY AND STRUCTURES 

Maintenance of Way and Structures Expense, 1926 $48 535 503 

1925 44,753, 310 

Increase in 1926 $ 3, 783, 193 



Principal Increases: Ties $ 1,388,614 

Ballast 226 349 

Tracklaying and Surfacing l,58o 289 

Station and Office Buildings *226 747 

Removing Snow, Sand and Ice 624 836 



Principal Decreases: Roadway Maintenance 

Bridges, Trestles and Culverts. 

Shops and Engine houses 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



100,337 

470,250 

49,855 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 

The increase in ties was due to the fact that there were over 1,000,000 
additional ties installed in 1926, compared with 1925. 

The increase in ballast was due principally to the fact that a program 
involving the provision of rock ballast on the main line has been commenced. 

The increase in track laying and surfacing was due to the installation of the 
additional ties, the rock ballast and a larger program of relaying of rail during 
the year. 

The increase in Station and Office Building was caused by the necessity for 
heavy repairs to sheds and piers at Halifax, renovating immigration quarters 
at Winnipeg, alterations to Annex Building, Main St., Winnipeg, and repairs to 
salmon shed, Prince Rupert. 

The increase in the cost of removing snow, ice, and sand, was caused by the 
extreme weather conditions in the early months of 1926 on the Atlantic Region. 

The reduction in the amount of roadway maintenance; bridge, trestles, and 
culverts; and shops and engine houses, was because of the occurrence of several 
items involving large expense in 1925 not recurring in 1926. 

The effect of the various factors are summarized as follows: 

Changes due to Price of Materials 

Ties... Dec. $ 226,700 

Rails Dec. 297,600 

Other Material Inc. 153,695 



Decrease $ 371 , 000 

Changes due to Variation in Quantities of Material Used 

Ties Inc. $ 1,832,000 

Rails Inc. 84, 000 

Other Material Dec . 57 , 000 

Tracklaying and Surfacing Inc. 1,191,000 



Increase $ 3,050,000 

Changes due to Weather . Inc. 625,000 



Total of above Inc. $3, 304, 000 

Balance of Increase ... 479 , 000 



Total Increase $3, 783, 000 



Serviceable Serviceable Improve- 

1926 1925 ment 

FreightCars 93-70% 92-91% 0-79% 

Locomotives 88-90% 88-20% 0-70% 

The improved condition of the Company s equipment, both freight cars and 
locomotives, has been attained, having regard to the increase in traffic, with 
decreased maintenance of equipment expenses relative to 1925. 

Maintenance of Equipment Expenses, 1926 851,211,821 

1925 49,324,911 



Increase. . . $ 1,886,910 



Principal Increases: Superintendence $ 117,562 

Freight Train Car Repairs 2, 459, 446 

Passenger Car Repairs 278, 698 

Pass. Train Car Retirements 121,430 

Motor Car Equipment Repairs 118, 200 

Principal Decreases: Steam Locomotive Retirements $ 854, 157 

Freight Train Car Retirements 389, 629 

Work Equipment Retirements 153, 072 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



4 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Summarizing factors affecting maintenance of equipment expenses, broadly, 
we have the following: 

Changes due to Price of Materials Inc. $ 664,836 

Changes due to Wages Inc. 408,490 

Changes due to Operation of Reserves in 1925 Inc. 1,095,893 

Relative decrease in expenses after correction for above factors. . 282, 000 
An increase in traffic of 8 62% might have been expected to increase 

the Maintenance of Equipment expenses by 2, 950, 000 

THAFFIC 

Traffic Expenses, 1926 $ 7,026,005 

" 1925 6,902,502 

Increase. . . S 123,503 



Principal Increases: Superintendence 

Outside Agencies 68,830 

Advertising 75, 099 

Principal Decreases: Other Expenses $ 72,710 

British Empire Exhibition 60, 100 



TRANSPORTATION 

Transportation Expenses, 1926.. $111,393,758 

1925... 110,386,975 



Increase $ 1,006,783 



Principal Increases: Train Enginemen $ 615,070 

Yardmasters and Yard Clerks 178, 110 

Yard Conductors and Brakemen 420, 111 

Yard Enginemen 397,788 

Trainmen 550,028 

Train Supplies and Expenses 268,564 

Principal Decreases: Fuel for Yard Locomotives $ 102, 791 

Fuel for Train Locomotives 1, 115,270 

Engine House Expenses Train 171 , 251 

Loss and Damage Freight 112, 166 

The transportation expenses are subject to the following corrections, due 
to the undermentioned factors: 



Increase in Rate of Pay $ 721 ,000 

Increase in Price of Material 750,000 



Total Increases $ 1 , 471 , 000 

Decrease in Price of Coal $ 2,366,000 

Decrease in Accidents 132,000 



Total Decreases $ 2,498,000 



Excess Decreases over Increases $ l , 027 , 000 

Relative increase in expenses after correction for above factors $ 2 , 034 000 

The increase in transportation expenses which might have been expected due 
to the increase in traffic was $7,900,000; so that there has been an actual de 
crease in Transportation expenses, due to increased efficiency and improvements 
in roadway and equipment, of approximately $6,000,000. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 



MISCELLANEOUS 



Miscellaneous Expenses, 1926 $ 2,336,041 

1925 2,272,918 



Increase $ 63,123 

Practically the whole of this increase is due to dining and buffet service. 

GENERAL 

General Expenses, 1926. .. ..$ 7,881,496 
1925 7,520,303 



Increase $ 361 , 193 



This is practically entirely due to an increase in Account No. 457 Pensions. 
There was an increase in pensioners from 1,326 to 1,417, involving an increase in 
expense of $76,000. The Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Rail 
way Provident Fund being unable to meet their expenses, it was necessary for the 
railway to implement the fund to meet current obligations to the extent of 
$308,000 in 1926, as against $46,000 in 1925, involving an increase of $262,000. 

Transportat ion for Invest ment , Cr. , 1 926 ... . . $ 1 , 040 , 343 

" 1925 895,444. 



Increase $ 144,900 



This simply means that during the year 1926 there was more construction 
work carried on by the Company s forces than in 1925. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I have only given 
the high spots of this analysis. 

I might venture the suggestion that we take each one of these 140 primary 
accounts and discuss each one in detail. That was the practice which was 
followed the first time that this Committee met. As the years went by rather 
less and less attention was paid to the detail of these expenses and last year, 
I think I am fairly safe in saying, they were only given a rather cursory ex 
amination. I think that more effective work would be done if, instead of taking 
each one of these 140 items of primary account, as shown in the Annual Report, 
we take this analysis and use it as a basis of discussion. This analysis shows 
all the fundamental and essential information but it avoids confusing details. 
But that is obviously a matter for the Committee to decide, and I only make 
that suggestion for what you may think it is worth. I have nothing further 
to add, Mr. Chairman. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: All the figures that you gave are found in this report 
on pages 16 and 17? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The totals of pages 16 and 17. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Yes. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Bennett will easily see that there is a great 
deal of detail. We have always tried to give the utmost detail in the Annual 
Report, but there are a lot of small items that represent increases of from one 
to five thousand dollars which do not amount to very much, and it is just a 
question whether you would like to devote your attention to that detail or 
whether you would prefer to deal with the essentials as I have tried to give 
them to you. All of the different figures given in the analysis, will be found 
in the Annual Report. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



6 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Perhaps you would bring one of the Interstate Com 
merce forms with you such as you make to the Interstate Commerce Commis 
sion in connection with the American lines. There is one variation in the 
form there. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: This report, Mr. Bennett, follows the accounting 
rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I might say that we do that 
because the Interstate Commerce Commission requires rather more detail than 
is required in Canada, and by conforming to their regulations we meet also 
the requirements of the Dominion Government and save the preparation of 
two sets of accounts. 

There is one exception, to which Mr. Bennett calls attention, and that is 
account No. 279, Depreciation. That will also be found in Item No. 337. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: It is not No. 337, it is right under it. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It will be found on pages 17 and 18, and it is noted 
as "Depreciation, United States Lines Only" on both sheets. That is the only 
exception to the Interstate Commerce system of accounting. What would you 
like us to do, Mr. Bennett? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I said that the form was the same as the Interstate 
Commerce, with one exception, and that one exception is the item to which 
you have directed attention. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You are right. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And the depreciation account, as I understand it, in 
the United States is fixed by certain rules of the Commission. I was rather 
curious to know what would happen if the same rules were applied to Canadian 
property. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I cannot tell you that offhand, but I can tell you, 
as bearing on that question, that the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commis 
sion require the American railroads to write off a certain arbitrary percentage; 
when I said arbitrary, I mean a certain statutory percentage which is fixed. 
Mr. Cooper, you understand that better than I, and perhaps you could ex 
plain it. 

Mr. COOPER: The present accounting rules of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission require a certain depreciation for rolling stock equipment, but there 
is no rate fixed. The question, as I understand it, is: What would be the effect 
on our accounts if we adopted the Commission s regulations. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Perhaps I can put the question a little clearer. What 
would be the effect on our accounts if you applied the same principles of depre 
ciation to the whole system as are applied to the American lines? That is, you 
applied last year $1,318,369.56 for depreciation on U.S. lines only, and I was 
curious to know what the effect would be if you applied the same principle to 
the entire system. I do not expect that you will be able to do that now. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: This American depreciation only applies to equip 
ment, does it? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. I cannot answer that just offhajid Mr 
Bennett. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I did not expect that you would be able to do so. 

Mr. Cooper, you are familiar with the keeping of your accounts for the 
Grand Trunk Western and Vermont Central; therefore you know exactlv what 
I have in mind. The rate of depreciation that you set up for your report to 
the Interstate Commerce Commission involves the writing off of $1 318 000 and 
if it is not too much trouble perhaps you might let the Committee know how 
that is done and what would be the result if you applied this principle to trip 
Canadian system. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.) 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 7 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: We can tell you what the application of that prin 
ciple would be to our accounts. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And you might give the percentages you apply to 
the various items to which they are referrable. 

Sir EL-GENE FISET: You do that for your Merchant Marine? 
Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Mr. Cooper, what difference is there in the United 
States system, between the manner in which equipment is financed; what I 
mean is this, your equipment is financed by equipment bonds and they are 
serial in nature; I understand the principal payments are made as operating 
charges. 

Mr. COOPER: No. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Not as operating charges? So that would make no 
difference to this question of depreciation,? 

Mr. COOPER: No. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Such a report, to be understandable, would have to 
give the details of the articles on which depreciation is charged. 
Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And the rates. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Do our other Canadian railroads apply the American 
system of depreciation at all, Mr. Cooper? 

Mr. COOPER: I do not believe the Canadian, Pacific do. 
Sir EUGENE FISET: I thought we did. 

Mr. COOPER: They do not follow the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Do I understand you to say that in the United States 
there is not a fixed percentage? 
Mr. COOPER: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is, written-off for the depreciation of equip 
ment? 

Mr. COOPER: On equipment only. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And the rate is not fixed at all? 

Mr. COOPER: Yes, sir. I might say that under a new order of the Com 
mission, which comes into effect on January first next, all steam railroad car 
riers will be obligated to a depreciation on fixed property as well as on, rolling 
stock property. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It goes into effect next year? 

Mr. COOPER: Yes, sir. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Some roads have been doing that already? 

Mr. COOPER: A few of them, yes. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: What has generally happened in the past, and 
before this became a matter of regulation, the railroads generally determined 
their depreciation by the extent of their operations. For instance, if they had 
a good year it was obviously good business to charge off as much depreciation 
as possible. If they had a. bad year they tempered the wind to the shorn lam b. 
That was open to both praise and criticism. It had its good points, because if 
you got rid of a large amount of depreciation in a certain year it meant that 
you could continue with your purchases of rolling stock an,d supplies, and so on, 
in a lean year on a more or less generous scale, and there was a tendency to 
balance hard times against good times. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : The stronger roads financially would charge off 
more than the weaker ones? 

tSir Henry Thornton.] 



8 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: They would undoubtedly follow good, sound busi 
ness principles and try to get rid of as much of the charges which might 
accumulate in a good year as they possibly could. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : And the roads doing more business, their 
depreciation would run out faster than the other ones? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Principally, yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: It does not work out that way. 

Mr. DUFF: Sir Henry has given a synopsis of the expenditures; what about 
a synopsis with regard to receipts? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is not often a contentious subject, especially 
if it happens to show an increase. Our gross revenue for the year 1926 was 
$275,570,310.28; in 1925 the gross revenue was $253,708,774.19. I might say, as 
is explained in the report, that this year our Annual Report includes, both in 
the various items of revenue and expense, the operations of the Central Vermont 
Railway, so that you have before you the operations of all the transportation 
lines of the Canadian National Railways. These figures represent an increase 
of $21,861,000. That increase is divided as follows; an increase of $19,400,000 
in freight; an increase of $1,464,000 in passenger revenue; a decrease of $5.290 
in mail; and an increase of $1,009,000 in miscellaneous revenue. The explanation 
of that, I would ascribe to the improved business condition throughout the 
territory served by the Canadian National Railway; there was more business 
and consequently larger gross earnings. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That, of course, includes the earnings from Chicago 
to Portland, all the American lines as well as including the Vermont Central? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Precisely. It will, perhaps, be of interest to the 
Committee to know that last year the gross revenue accruing to the Canadian 
National Railroads on what might be described as purely American (business, 
that is to say, traffic which originated at some point in the United States and 
was carried to another point in the United States 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Through Canada? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It may have gone through Canada or it may not; 
I do not know how much of it passed through Canada. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Purely United States business? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Purely United States business, which, as I say, 
originated at some point in the United States and was carried to another point 
in the United States, was represented by $45,000,000. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Of profits? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that is gross. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is the business we did for the people of the 
United States exclusively. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: There is no way, without very expensive account 
ing and a long investigation, to segregate that, but if you would apply and 
we are very conservative in doing so, 20 per cent of that as profit it would 
represent a profit of $9,000,000. Our whole operating ratio was eighty-two 
and a fraction per cent. This is lucrative business because it is carried over 
parts of the line where operating conditions are favourable I should sav 
that the net profit on that was accurately $9,000,000, but to get at it precisely 
would involve a lot of accounting expense and considerable time. 

. Mr - CANTLEY: Why the decrease in the mail receipts with an increase of 
business? Was there a reduction in rates? 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That statement does not include any international 
business, it just includes the business which was done for the people of the 
United States? 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 9 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. Now, if you added to that the business 
that crosses the border, either from the United States to Canada or from 
Canada to the United States, that is $42,000,000, so that the total business 
done is $87,000,000, either from points in the States to other points in the 
States or back and forward across the border. It represents a very large 
proportion of our total revenue. 

Mr. MILNE: Was the increase in business about the same in the States and 
Canada, or have you any way of determining that? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Well, it is a little difficult to get at that, but I 
should say that there was not very much difference in the general business. 
If anything, I think probably we had a little the best of it. Of course, a good 
deal of our American revenue depends on the condition of the automobile 
trade, because we serve all of the important automobile manufacturing centres 
in Michigan. A depression in the automobile trade probably has a greater 
effect on our United States revenue than* any other single thing. Fortunately, 
the thirst for automobiles in the States seems insatiable. 

Regarding the mail revenue, there was a decrease of $5,000, which was 
due entirely to reduced train service in Ontario; that is, we took off certain 
unremunerative passenger train mileage and, of course, the mail business went 
along with it. 

Mr. CANTLEY: There was no change in the remuneration received for 
mail service? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, the rates were the same. 

The CHAIRMAN: If you will refer to page 16 in the Report we will take 
up Items of Revenue there. We cannot do anything to-day with the expenses 
until we get the detailed report. Take Item No. 101, Freight Receipts, 
$207,157,000 for 1926 as compared with $187,763,000 in 1925. Are there 
questions to be asked on that? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Could you give us the receipts for that traffic west 
of the Lakes; a general indication of how much of that $207,000,000 originated 
west of the Lakes? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: How much of our total freight revenue accrued 
on traffic originating west of the Lakes? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Yes. 

Sir HKNRY THORNTON: In answering a question of that sort, Mr. Bennett, 
I can only give you figures which I am convinced, and which the accounting 
department are convinced, are sufficiently accurate for your purpose. The 
answer to your question is; $60,700,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: How much did you say was American business? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: $45,000,000 and $42,000,000. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That represents the gross earnings from freight on 
the western region, and I would take it that that probably is an accurate answer 
to your question. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: As nearly as you can get it? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : Even if you put a corps of accountants on you might 
find a variation of a million dollars, or something like that, but it would be 
within a small percentage of accuracy. 

Mr. JELLIFF: You could not subdivide that and give us the earnings on 
grain? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes, I think perhaps we can do that. I think we 
can get that for you by to-morrow, but it will involve further examination than 
we can do here at the table. 

[Sir -Henry Thornton.] 



10 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Would it be possible to differentiate between eastbound 
and westbound traffic? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That would be practically impossible. 
Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I just wanted to know if possibly you had it. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: You spoke of $60,000,000 as being the revenue from 
freight for the western region. You would require to add to that total the 
$45,000,000 of international United States business, I suppose? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No; that represents the gross total of the western 
region. There might be a lot of different kinds of traffic in that; that might 
involve a certain number of shipments from Winnipeg to Minneapolis, for 
instance, or Chicago. 

The CHAIRMAN: You mean Western Canada? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I mean that part of the Canadian National Rail 
ways which lies west of the head of the Lakes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Let us get the picture for each region in order to have 
it complete; $60,000,000 for the Western Region, how much for the Central 
Region? That is the Central Region apart from United States lines? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that includes the lines from Winnipeg to 
Duluth. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: But your Central Region does not include United 
States lines? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that is right. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The figures for the Central Region would be Canadian, 
figures? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The Central Region; $93,500,000. The Atlantic 
Region, $13,575,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And the United States lines? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The Grand Trunk Western line; $30,132,000 for 
the Western Region, which includes the D. W. and P., that is, from Winnipeg 
to Duluth, $62,780,000; Central Vermont, $7,153,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: For the information of the members of the committee, 
on the map in the back of the report the lines in each region are differently 
coloured, so that the members of the committee will know what the regions 
are. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Please add this to the report, that the D. W. and P. 
gross earnings were $2,088,000. I gave you the western region of $62,780,000 
so that if you subtract that $2,000,000, you will have the previous figure of 
$60,000,000 which I gave you as representing the gross freight earnings for the 
western region. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: To complete the picture, there is also the Central 
Vermont. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes, $7,153,000. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Of course, these freight revenues include the col 
lection of freight for all the freight traffic carried, but when you segregate 
these between the various regions, how do you arrange that? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You might have a shipment, we will say, moving 
from Vancouver to Moncton. That would pass over the three regions; it is on 
a mileage basis. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Ton mileage? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, mileage hauled. We apportion the revenue 
to each region passed over on the basis of mileage used in that region; it may 

{Sir Henry Thoroton.1 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 11 

not be quite an accurate way of gettting it, but it is accurate enough, and to 
get it any more accurately would involve a great deal of unnecessary expense. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That is what I wanted the committee to understand; 
for instance, grain shipments originating in the west and moving to the head of 
the lakes, would be considered as sole western region traffic, but if, in the 
winter season, it moved farther east, the other regions would get a correspond 
ing credit on a mileage basis. 

Mr. HENRY: But the rates break at the head of the lakes. In the case 
of traffic going between that region and the central region, the rate would be 
a combination of the two rates. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: But still applied on a mileage basis. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Generally speaking, yes. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: What is the Atlantic region again? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: $13,575,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is from Riviere du Loup east. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Right. 

The CHAIRMAN: The next item is Number 102 "Passenger" $39,427,264.87 
as compared with $37,963,479.53. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: An increase of $1,400,000 roughly. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That is not profitable traffic, Sir Henry. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, it is not, Mr. Bennett. As a matter of fact, 
curiously enough, passenger traffic generally on trunk line railways is not 
regarded as profitable, and it only becomes profitable where you are dealing 
with large suburban traffic in metropolitan districts like London and New 
York, but it is a thing that obviously has to be done. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Would your accounting system indicate what your 
losses might be in passenger traffic last year? Was it not something like 
$9,000,000? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We estimate that the loss on our passenger traffic 
last year was $6,500,000. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That included the whole system? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Does that include the other items in operating 
revenue which are creditable to traffic carried on passenger trains? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That occurred as the result of the instrumentality 
of passenger trains. Of course, in allocating the expenses charged against 
passenger traffic there is no precise formula for doing that: you cannot deter 
mine precisely how much maintenance expense is caused by a freight train of 
fifty cars, and a passenger train of ten cars, and you must apply a percentage. 
That is the usual practice in the railway world, so that the allocation of 
expenses as between freight and passenger is not precise. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Does that include the United States lines? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That includes the whole system. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Some of the United States lines are operated profit 
ably? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is true. 

Mr. MILNE: Generally speaking, are the losses greater on the trans 
continental trains or on local traffic? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I would say they would probably be greater on 
the transcontinental. Your most profitable business is generally the suburban 
business, because no expensive equipment is required; the trains are usually 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



12 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

filled in the morning toward the cities, and filled in the evening returning from 
the cities. On the transcontinental passenger trains, you have to haul day 
coaches, tourist cars, dining cars, sleeping cars and observation cars, and a 
service is provided which is necessarily more expensive per passenger than the 
facilities which you provide for suburban traffic. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING : The only places where we have considered suburban 
traffic are Montreal and Toronto. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And Detroit and Chicago in the United States. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Of course. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: You have a tremendous traffic between Levis and 
Quebec. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I would not call that suburban traffic. I would 
describe suburban traffic as the movements in and out of cities within a radius 
of thirty miles men who live in one place, go to their offices in the morning, 
and return in the evening. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Has there been any way discovered to lessen the losses on 
passenger traffic? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Nobody has yet discovered it. 

Mr. JELLIFF: What about the electrification? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Electrification is a greatly misunderstood thing. 
It is only profitable where your density of traffic exceeds the capacity of a 
steam operated railway. It is extremely expensive and has only been employed 
successfully and economically in serving suburban areas where there is a great 
density of traffic or where perhaps it is necessary to employ electricity in a 
long tunnel or on very heavy grades, or for some reason of that character. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Does the service pay in a congested city like New York? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Well, if you ask the suburban railways serving 
New York, they will tell you no, that it does not pay at all. The only 
experience I have had with suburban traffic was on the Great Eastern Railway 
in England. We handled in and out of the Liverpool Street Station an average 
of 225,000 passengers per day; they all came in in the morning and they all 
went back in the evening. We made money out of it; we made a lot of money, 
and it was profitable business, but it was only profitable because of the great 
density of traffic and the further fact that the equipment which was provided 
was not luxurious and was not expensive. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And they went longer distances. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes, they would go longer distances than you would 
find on this side of the Atlantic. 

Mr. CANTLEY: And the great density of traffic 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It was the great density of traffic which "brought 
home the bacon". 

Mr. CANTLEY: What success are you having with the Diesel engine? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is, to some extent, in an experimental stage. 
We have been giving an intensive study to the development of the Diesel 
electric engine, and we are convinced, from the result of our experience, that the 
Diesel electric engine represents generally the best type of motor self-propelled 
vehicle of which we know. How far that may be extended to through passenger 
services, we do not know. There are two large units in existence of which we 
know, and which we have examined; when I say "Large units" I mean Diesel 
electric locomotives which would compare in capacity to our 6,000 type loco 
motive. One of these is in Germany and the other in Russia; both were built 
in Germany. The great difficulty with the Diesel locomotive I do not want 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 13 

to get into a technical discussion of this unless the committee want to hear 
it- 
Several MEMBERS: Go ahead. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The great difficulty is with the transmission. No 
one has yet solved the problem of satisfactory direct transmission, although this 
last locomotive which has been built in Germlany offers some promise toward 
the solution of that problem. Consequently, we are obliged to employ in the 
Diesel electric locomotive, electrical transmission. That is the trouble with the 
Diesel electric locomotives to-day, but some time perhaps within the next two 
years some one will solve that problem, but that is the difficulty with the 
Diesel electric locomotive as applied to large units. Our experts have examined 
both of these locomotives. The one in Russia is faulty because it cannot be run 
faster than 30 miles an hour without overheating. There is something radically 
wrong with the cooling apparatus. I think that the Diesel electric locomotive 
is ultimately going to have a considerable effect on transportation. We ran one 
of our small units from Montreal to Vancouver without stopping the engine. 
The result was highly satisfactory; it made better time than our through 
continental trains. Some day somebody will develop a big unit which may 
perhaps have a large effect on transportation, but it is all yet in the experimental 
stage. The engineers of all railroads all over the world are working on it and 
studying it. 

Mr. JELLIFF: How expensive was that trip as compared with a steam trip? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: If you could get a large Diesel locomotive built at 
a price which would not exceed two or three times the cost of the steam loco 
motive, it would undoubtedly be profitable. In the first place, there is no engine 
house attention; for instance, if we had a large Diesel unit we could start a 
train at Montreal, hauled by such an engine, and run it directly through to 
Vancouver, just changing crews when necessary. You do not have to put it 
on the ashpit; there is no coal; fuel oil is much cheaper than coal; no engine 
house or ashpit attention at all, and you get a better mileage out of it. Theoretic 
ally, it is a much more economical unit than the steam unit. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Can you carry fuel enough to make a trip like that? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No; you would have to stop at appropriate points 
to put in more oil, but that is only a matter of ten or fifteen minutes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 103 " Excess Baggage "$242,890.44 as compared with 
$238,443.05 a gain of $4,000 roughly. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : That is a small percentage, probably resulting from 
increased traffic. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I assume that passenger rates are considerably higher now 
than they were before the war; apparently they are not high enough yet. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I should not dispute that. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Seriously speaking, the rates are higher than they were before 
the war? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Mr. CANTLEY: And you still have a deficit of about $6,000,000? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Mr. CANTLEY: So there is no likelihood of much reduction? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Quite irrespective of what we would like to charge 
for passengers, there is a limit beyond which one cannot go. 

Mr. CANTLEY: There is not much likelihood of a reduction in passenger 
rates in view of these figures? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I should hope not. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



14 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 104 " Sleeping Cars" $2,204,070.53 as com 
pared with $1,952,221.20. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is an increase of about $252,000 and can 
be accounted for by increased travel. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I was going to ask you about the sleeping cars. To 
what extent does the system own its own sleeping cars? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : We operate our sleeping cars over all the Canadian 
lines, and Pullman cars only where we run into the United States. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: All of your trains in Canada carry your own sleep 
ing cars? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Ana the only Pullman cars are the cars that run 
into the United States, to Portland, Chicago, etc.? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right, 

Mr. CANTLEY: You have some sleeping cars in the east that you cannot 
sleep in. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Then you would enjoy the beauties of the scenery. 

Mr. CANTLEY: No, you would not. because it is at night. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Sometimes people sit up all night and find it 
more profitable to stay up and play bridge than to sleep. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I am not referring to that at all. You have some old 
equipment in the east which is a disgrace. When are you going to remove 
them? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Most of them will disappear this year; we have 
provided for additional sleeping cars and practically all of the old equipment 
to which you refer will come out this year. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The sleeping car business is not profitable, is it? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I think the sleeping car business is profitable, if 
you get enough of it. Perhaps the best illustration of that is the success of the 
Pullman company in the States. They have made a good deal of money, and 
it is profitable. 

Mr. CANTLEY: When do you expect to take them off? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: By the middle of summer or the early autumn. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Do you keep a separate account in your system, as the 
Pullman company does, for each car? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: You take its cost and the cost of maintenance and 
equipment and everything, and then its revenue, and you charge the haulage 
as well? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: So that you know what you are doing with your 
sleeping cars with very great exactness? 

Mr. COOPER: The cost of haulage would not be kept separate. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: No? You charge it all up? 

Mr. COOPER: No. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: You get a profit without regard to haulage? 

Mr. COOPER: Yes; Account 403 shows the cost of operating sleeping cars. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: But that does not include, in any event, the haulage? 

Mr. COOPER: No. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is for porters, linen, and things like that. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 15 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Quite so; some of your cars are very good cars. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 106 " Mail" $3,688,356.86, as compared with 
$3,693,646.75. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I have just explained that, 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 107 " Express "$13,954,167.88, as compared with 
$13,504,380.15. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is an increase of $450,000, roughly, and repre 
sents increased traffic. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Where do you charge your equipment for express? 

Mr. COOPER: The upkeep of the cars? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: No, you have your express cars; they are built, and 
whatever ordinary appropriations you have for equipment do you segregate 
the business of the express with respect to the items of the cost of cars and all 
that sort of thing from the other accounts? 

Mr. COOPER: No, I do not think so; it would go into passenger train cars. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That is what I want to make clear, because the item 
of what you get out of express shows you got more money out of it, and it 
formerly was a very profitable business. I do not know whether it is now or 
not, or has been in recent years. 

Mr. MILNE: The express business is profitable? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Oh, yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: One of the most profitable businesses in the world. 

Mr. HENRY: Is it the cost of operation to which you are referring, Mr. 
Bennett? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: No. I do not want to take up too much of the com 
mittee s time, but you have your express cars and express revenue. What I had 
in mind was whether or not you charged the construction of each car separately 
or in the general equipment, 

Mr. HENRY: It is in the general equipment. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 108" Other Passenger Trains", $29,592.66 as com 
pared- with $125,183.91. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a decrease of about $100,000. The con 
tract with the Pullman company calls for a division with the railway of Pull 
man car earnings in excess of $7,500 per car per annum. In the 1925 account, it 
included $28,901 for the year to June 30, 1925; the 1926 account included a 
charge of $130,000 due to the new arrangement with the Pullman company 
under which the $7-,500 per car was raised to $9,000, and the arrangement was 
made retroactive for the three years to June, 1923, 1924 and 1925. In 1916 
the contract between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Pullman Company set- 
out and provided for an arrangement whereby the railroad would receive fifty 
per cent of all gross earnings in excess of $7,500 per Pullman car per annum; 
in 1920 the Pullman Company represented that owing to post-war conditions 
the $7,500 per car year earnings was not sufficient to meet their expenses and 
asked that the car earnings per annum, before participation by the railways, 
be increased from $7,500 to $9,000. This was agreed to by the company on 
June 18, 1926. I may say that that also was the general policy adopted by all 
the railways represented in the American Railway Association using Pullman 
cars. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 109 " Milk "$781,320.90 as compared with 
$753,552.10. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That represents an increase of about $27,700 due 
to increased business, but we shall have trouble with that this year on account 
of the embargo on milk going into the United States. 

423243 [Sir Henry Thornton.] 



16 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 110 " Switching "$2,491,106.73 as compared with 
$2,420.560.94. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a general increase on the system of traffic 
offered by industry. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 111 "Special Service Train "-$149,893.83 as com 
pared with $69,291.66. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That was caused by the increased movements of 
circus trains, which increased eighty-two per cent. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 112 " Other Freight Train " -That is a very small 
item. Item 114 Water Transfers-Passenger " $9,406.80 as compared with 
$3,992.20. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : That was due to the increased number of passengers 
on the Grand Haven-Milwaukee ferry. 

The CHAIRMAN: They drink water on that, do they? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: They have to. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 115 "Water Transfers Vehicles and Live Stock" 
$25,318.76 as compared with $16,367.67. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That was due also to an increased number of auto 
mobiles carried between Grand Haven and Milwaukee. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 131 : Dining and Buffet "$1,506,207.20 as compared 
with $1,436,527.16. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I suppose they operate still at a loss, Sir Henry? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Oh, yes, Mr. Bennett. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 132 " Restaurant "$59,780.18 as compared with 
$73,597.72. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The decrease was due to the transfer of station 
restaurants from the railway to the Canadian News Company for operation. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 133 "Station, Train and Boat Privileges" $181- 
732.64 as compared with $175,743.80. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a small increase due to increased travel. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 134 "Parcel Room" is practically the same thing. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 135 " Storage Freight ". 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: W 7 hat item is that? 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 135. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Practically the same; there is practically no vari 
ation. 

Hon. M r - BENNETT: I move that the committee recommend that they be 
given leave to sit while the House is in session. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is in case we need it. 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, we may not need it, but if we do we want to be ready. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I second the motion. 

Motion agreed to. 

Discussion followed. 

The Committee adjourned until Thursday, March 31, 1927, at 11 a.m. 



[Sir Honry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 17 



COMMITTEE ROOM 425, 
HOUSE or COMMONS, 

THURSDAY, March 31st, 1927. 

The Select Standing Committee on Railways and Shipping met at 3 p.m., the 
Chairman, Mr. Goodison, presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: We left off the day before yesterday at Item No. 135 on 
page 16 of the Report. The next Item is Storage-Baggage; 1926, $52,602.15; 
1925, $51,654.41, an increase of $950. The next Item is Demurrage; 1926, 
$833,738.70; 1925, $689,487.04; an increase of $144 : 251. 

Mr. JELLIFF: How did that increase come about? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: From increased business and a little closer collec 
tion of demurrage charges. The increased business carries with it more use of 
cars. 

Mr. JELLIFF: You enforced your demurrage rules more closely? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 138, Telegraph and Telephones; 1926, $2,507.28; 1925, 
$2,559.40, a decrease of $52. Item 139, Grain Elevators; 1926, $391,408.87; 1925, 
$502,988.19; a decrease of $11,579. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Will you explain that? 

Sir HENRY TH-ORNTO|N: The decrease is not because there was less grain 
handled but it is for storage and insurance due to the grain being held in the 
elevators for a shorter period than in 1925. 

The CHAIRMAN: Power; an increase of $14,711.86. Item 142, Rents of 
Buildings and other Property; 1926, $368,738.54; 1925, $336,153.21. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What is the explanation of that Power item? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It is revenue from power sold to the Armour Grain 
Company, and others, at Depot Harbour, and which in 1925 was credited to 
Account No. 443; simply a change in accounting. 

The CHAIRMAN : The rents of buildings and other property shows an increase 
of $32,585. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : That was due to the difficulty experienced in segre 
gating expenses and maintenance of properties rented. It was considered advis 
able to segregate rentals from employees to this account in preference to Account 
No. 510, as was done in 1925. 

Mr. MILNE: Is that for car rentals? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, rentals for property. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 143, Miscellaneous; 1926, $1,546,898.93; 1925, $1,433,- 
892.60; an increase of $113,006. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That increase is made up by a number of factors; 
the principal ones are the operating of boarding cars, an increase in the Victoria 
Bridge tolls, an increase in the International Bridge tolls, and an increase in 
the sale of cinders, gravel and water, and an increase in heating and cleaning 
cars. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item No. 151, Joint Facility-Credit; 1926, $26,787.62; 1925, 
$22,763.39; an increase of $4,024. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 
423243^ 



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Sir HENIIY THORNTON: That is due to increased credit from the Canadian 
Pacific Railway as to the Quebec Joint Terminal; an increased credit from the 
Wabasih Section, that is, the section of our track which the Wabash uses. 

The CHAIRMAN: Item 152, Joint Facility-Debit; 1926, $118,671.41; 1925, 
$99,553.71; an increase of $19,117. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The Wabash, being a portion of the joint revenue, 
was formerly charged to accounts Nos. 101 and 102, but the Interstate Com 
merce Commission s order of August 1st, 1926, instructed that this account 
be used in the future; it is merely a change in accounting practice. 

The CHAIRMAN: We had the statement from Sir Henry Thornton the day 
before yesterday on the operating expenses, and you have that statement in the 
Minutes of the meeting furnished to-day. If any of you wish any explanation 
of any of those items we will be glad to take it up with you now, but if you 
are satisfied with them we will go ahead with something else. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: The details of that general statement are contained 
in the Report. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: There is just the question of whether you would 
like to take the special items of operating expenses and go through them 
item by item, using that as the basis of discussion, or whether the Committee 
want to confine their investigation to the general explanation set forth in the 
document which was furnished at the last meeting. We prepared that docu 
ment and it is in the Minutes of the last meeting. That was prepared for two 
purposes; the first, to enable the members of the Committee to more easily grasp 
the essential features of the expenses, and secondly, if they wished to use that 
as a basis of discussion rather than the more detailed operating expenses as 
shown in the Annual Report. It is for the Committee to decide which they 
would like to do. 

Mr. JELLIFF: We asked the day before yesterday if we could get a state 
ment as to the grain items. Were you able to segregate that? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : I suppose you refer to the question that was asked 
at the last meeting, as to what revenue accrued from grain in the Western 
Region. The answer to that question is: $24,500,000. 

Mr. JELLIFF: That includes all grains? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That includes all grain; that is the earnings from 
all grains accruing from the Western Region, that is to say, that part which 
is west of the head of the Lakes. 

Mr. JELLIFF: That is just the grain going east to Fort William? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It is all the grain, both east and west. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Have you decided, Mr. Chairman, which report you 
are going to consider? Are you going to consider the general report? 

The CHAIRMAN: You have the general statement there. It is for you 
gentlemen to say whether you want those details all gone into, or wish to take 
the general statement, as shown in the Minutes of the last meeting. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I think it would be quite sufficient to take the general 
statement. 

The CHAIRMAN: Then we will go ahead. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : I suppose you had better take the general expenses 
and have discussion on those. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Start at page 2 of the Minutes of the last meetins 

&* 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : The first of the special items of expense is, " Main 
tenance of Way and Structures." There is shown a number of increases and 
decreases in the Maintenance of Way and Structures expenses. If you want to 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 19 

follow that, I will be happy to try to answer any question which you may ask. 
You will observe that the Maintenance of Way and Structures expense increased 
by $3,783,193. The principal increases are explained below; ties, ballast, track- 
laying and surfacing, station and office buildings, and removing snow, sand and 
ice. Against those there are certain decreases; there were decreases in roadway 
maintenance, in bridges, trestles and culverts, and in shops and engine houses. 
The difference between the increases and the decreases is a net increase of 
$3,783,193. 

At the bottom of page 3, you will see that Maintenance of Equipment Ex 
penses increased by $1,886,910. The increases are given below and the principal 
item is freight train car repairs. The decreases are shown immediately under 
neath that and the largest item is a decrease of $854,157 in steam locomotive 
retirements. The difference between the increases and the decreases is an in 
crease of $1,886,910. 

The CHAIRMAN: The next item is, Traffic. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : The traffic expenses, at the top of page 4, shows an 
increase of $123,503. That is made up of an increase of $83,986 in superintend 
ence; $68,830 in outside agencies; and $75,099 in advertising. The decreases 
were, other expenses, $72,710; and the British Empire Exhibition, $60,100. The 
difference between the increases and the decreases leaves a net increase of 
$123,503. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Does that advertising include press advertising also? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That includes all advertising of all sorts whatso 
ever. 

Mr. JELLIFF: An increase in superintendence indicates an increase in 
salaries? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes; I will give you the details of that. The in 
crease on account of superintendence was in round figures $84,000. That is made 
up of an increase in existing staff and for new offices $60,000; in rentals for offices 
$3,300, and in general expenses $17,000. Those are the principal items of in 
crease which practically make up the $84,000. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Did you increase the heads of the staffs or just the personnel? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No. When I say "increases to existing staff" it 
means the salaries which would be paid to outside soliciting forces and local 
agents off the line, and posts of that character. There has been no increase in 
the more important officers of the department; this amount is spread over the 
smaller officers. For example, there is just one item which may be of interest 
to the committee. The year before last> in the autumn we opened an office in 
New York on Fifth avenue on the street level just above 42nd street, on the east 
side of the street. The rental we pay for that office is $55,000 a year. In the 
months of June, July and August, the cash taken in in that office in ticket sales 
ran from $50,000 a month to $75.000 a month; in other words, the cash sales for 
tickets in any one of those months more than met the rent of the office for the 
year. One might say " Perhaps you would have had that anyway "; our judg 
ment is we would not have had it anyway. We are pursuing the policy 
where we think it justified, of opening offices for the sale of our transportation, 
and these offices are not only for the sale of tickets and the solicitation of freight, 
but also for immigration and colonization purposes, and for propaganda relating 
to Canada as a whole, and apart from the railway itself. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Do you still maintain all your downtown offices? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We maintain a downtown office for freight purposes, 
but we changed our uptown ticket office to this particular location. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



20 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Mr. CANTLEY: I think the New York office to which you refer was a good 
move; I was in that office several times immediately after you opened it. You 
have a pretty good man in there. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes, he is a pretty good man. Very often people 
come in to see Mr. Young, our .agent, not with respect to transportation but 
with respect to opportunities in Canada, starting a new factory, or something of 
that sort. We have an engineer there who is able to answer questions of that 
sort, and while I have not the figures at hand, as a result of those facilities, we 
have attracted a good deal of investment to Canada for industrial purposes. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I was speaking more in reference to travel to the Maritime 
Provinces during the summer months. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is quite right, Colonel. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: In your charges for superintendence in your General 
Report, you have divided them under three headings, Maintenance and Equip 
ment, Charges, and Transportation. Does that include your charges for super 
intendence of headquarters staff? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that simply relates to superintendence as 
related solely to maintenance of way- 
Sir EUGENE FISET: Does that appear in your general report under a special 
heading? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You will find general superintendence under the 
heading of "General Officers"; for instance, a train-master s salary is super 
intendence, but it is transportation superintendence. 

The CHAIRMAN: The next item "Transportation" $111,393,758 as com 
pared with $110,386,975, an increase of $1,006,783. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Transportation expenses, of course, on all railroads, 
represent the largest single item of expenses, and you will note that there was 
an increase of $1,000,000 in what might be described as the cost of moving the 
company s business, but there was an increase in the total business of $21,000,000 
in round figures so that to have handled an increased business 1 and there 
were no increased rates, by the way to have handled an increase in the volume 
of business of $21,000,000 at a cost of $1,000,000, I think is something with 
which we may be satisfied. The increase itself of that $1,000,000 is divided, and, 
as you might suppose, is mostly absorbed in wages. Below you will see an 
increase of train engine men, yard masters, yard clerks, yard conductors and 
brakemen, yard engine men, and train men, and train supplies and expenses. 
There was a decrease in fuel for yard locomotives and fuel for train locomotives; 
that decrease for train locomotives is partly due to decreased price of coal, and 
partly due to improved consumption. There is also a simi lar decrease in engine- 
house expenses, and what is especially gratifying, a substantial decrease due to 
loss and damage, so that practically all of the expenses, or by far the greater 
part of the increase in transportation expenses was absorbed in wages which 
grew out of a larger movement of traffic. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: What was the sum involved in your last settlement on 
account of the proposed strike? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We settled with the conductors and trainmen I 

cannot give you offhand the exact amount of that increase, but we estimated that 
including that increase, as well as other increases which must of necessity follow 
in its train, because you cannot increase one class without doing something for 
the others, the total increased expenses growing out of increased wages, will 
for this year, amount to somewhere between five and a half and six million 
dollars. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: That is for 100,000 employees? 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 21 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It runs from 80,000 to 100,000. 
Mr. JELLIFF: When did that take effect, Sir Henry? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The increase took effect last December the 
increase to the conductors and trainmen. We are in negotiation now with 
respect to other increases. I do not know when they will take effect; they will 
probably take effect when the negotiations are completed. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Was the same settlement made with the C.P.R.? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We worked entirely in consultation with the Cana 
dian Pacific; in fact, the settlement which we made with the conductors and 
trainmen was the result of the conference which Mr. Beatty and myself, accom 
panied by our proper officers, had with the leaders of the men. In general, the 
wage position on both roads is identical; in fact, it could not well be otherwise. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: And, of course, all these settlements are included in 
those increases under the different headings which you are mentioning under 
Superintendence. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You are dealing with last year. These increases 
were not effective except over a very, very small proportion of last year, so that 
in comparing, last year with the year before, the increases of which we are 
speaking are not a factor. 

Mr. DUFF: When did they commence what time? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: December 1st, was it not, Mr. Hungerford? 

Mr. HUNGERFORD: Some of them were. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The settlement with the conductors and train 
men, which represents the largest item, was effective December 1st last year. 
There were some smaller items which were effective last year, running from 
March 1st to December 8th, but they were not of great importance. By far 
the largest item, which was the increase to conductors and trainmen., was effec 
tive December 1st. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Is the proportion of increase the same for everybody? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Substantially so; as nearly as circumstances will 
permit it to be worked out in that fashion. 

Mr. JELLIFF: What other classes are you considering now? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: All other classes, Mr. Jelliff practically all other 
classes. 

Mr. MILNE: That is as a result of those increases to the train-men and 
conductors? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. You see wlhat happened and perhaps this 
might be interesting to the committee to hear; the American railways were in 
negotiation in fact, were in arbitration with their men with respect to a general 
wage increase which had been asked. Toward the latter part of these arbitra 
tion proceedings, the increase to our conductors and train-men became a subject 
acute in Canada, and we made a settlement with our men, although at that 
time we were paying, as I recall the figures, about five and a half per cent lower 
wages than were paid in the United States. The Canadian railways took the 
position that the wages paid in the United States had, in themselves, no bearing 
on what should be paid in Canada; that is to say, living conditions in Canada, 
the cost of living, and other things, should be given due weight, and we refused 
to recognize the principle that we were in any way bound to pay a similar scale 
of wages in Canada as compared with the wages paid in the United States. 
However, you cannot entirely escape from, the effect of certain scales .of wages 
across the border. Our men had really been quite patient in the matter of 
.increases, and had finally got to the point wthere they felt something ought to be 
done for them, and in consultation with the Canadian Pacific, and the two 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



22 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

railways in consultation with the Unions, we agreed to increase the wages of 
our men by something like five per cent, but almost immediately upon that 
settlement, the Board of Arbitration in the United States handed down a 
decision increasing the Wages of the men in the United States by seven and a 
half per cent, so that, as it now stands, the general scale of wages as applied 
to train crews in this country, is seven and a half per cent below the more or less 
prevailing scale of wages in the United States. 

Now, when we agreed to this increase for the conductors and train-men, it 
necessarily carried with it an obligation to do something for other classes of 
labour who, if the conductors and train-men were entitled to an increase, were 
probably equally entitled to an increase. Then, after the settlement with the 
conductors and train-men, there followed negotiations and the opening of the 
schedules with all of our Trade Union people, to. reach an adjustment respecting 
an increase in wages. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort): Have you completed negotiations with any class 
excepting the train-men and conductors since that day, or are you still nego 
tiating? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I will ask Mr. Hungerford to answer that. 

Mr. HUNGERFORP: The shop men and the maintenance of way men. 

Mr. McLiBAN (Melfort) : You are making fairly fast progress then with 
your negotiations? 

Mr. HUNGERFORD: We think so. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Do the earnings since the first of the year indicate that you 
will be able to take care of that increase, and make a reasonably good showing? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a difficult question to answer, Mr. Jelliff. 
Mr. JELLIFF : I know it is. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Of course, a good deal depends on what increase 
there is going to be in the company s business; also very much depends on what 
is done to us in the way of freight rates for the year. I would say and it is 
only conjecture that if our business continues in its present state, and if we 
suffer no material depreciation of revenue on account of reduced freight rates, 
with the improved zeal and loyalty and spirit which will be excited in our <men as 
the result of this increase, we shall be able to show at the end of the year a 
.satisfactory increase in our net earnings. 

Now, it is a very difficult thing for a railway -company such as the Canadian 
National, to increase its net earnings from three million dollars in 1922, to over 
forty-eight million dollars, including the Central Vermont, in 1926 in four 
years. This is a very considerable increase, a large part of which has been due 
to the very fine services we have had from all of our men and you who use the 
railway and travel on it know what the spirit of the men is better than I. It 
is 1 very difficult to do that and refuse any recognition at all to those who have 
participated in bringing that about. It constitutes an extremely difficult argu 
ment for me, as the president of the company, to meet, and quite frankly I do 
not begrudge at all the increase which we have agreed to, and which I think we 
will negotiate very shortly with the rest of the men. However, someone once 
said that "politics do not succeed by prayer alone", and in a measure, the same 
thing applies to the railway business; you get eventually to the point where 
prayers fail to "bring home the bacon", and you have to do a little actual work. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Sir Henry, you spoke about the wage situation, as to the 
increase of wages. I suppose you do not care to suggest what might be the 
result of the decrease in rates on the Maritime section of the road? 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Amounting to $2,000,000. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 23 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It is already set forth, I believe in the Bill that is 
before the House. And the effect of that is to be set up as a separate item, 
which will appear for the consideration at the House, and the House will be able 
to precisely say what it wi ll cost-. 

Mr. DUFF: The Railway will not suffer. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That seems to be the intent of the Bill. 

Mr. JELLIFF: You anticipate larger business in natural products, owing to 
the decrease of rates in the Maritimes? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I think one must say that if as a result of this 
decrease in the freight rate that has been given to the Maritimes, and the 
general relief which it will bring to the Maritimes, if that does not increase 
business in the Maritimes, then everybody is wrong; and we are proceeding upon 
premises that cannot be defended from any point of view. 

Mr. JELLIFF: If the rates fixed be too low, the loss would be all the greater. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : It becomes a question of whether the law of increas 
ing returns will compensate for the increased cost. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That can be better discussed when the Bill is before 
the House. 

Mr. DUFF: The Railway is very much interested. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The Railway is not at all interested. If you will 
carefully read that Bill, you will find the Railway is not very much interested; 
it is the Dominion of Canada that is interested. 

The CHAIRMAN: The next item is "Miscellaneous $2,336,041.37, as compared 
with $2,272,917.98." 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Those are small amounts which are chiefly due to 
increased expenses in connection with the dining and buffet and restaurant 
service. 

The CHAIRMAN: The next item is "General Expenses: $7,881,495.87 as 
compared with $7,520,303.27." That is an increase of $361,000. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : As I understand, it is practically all due to increased 
pension allowance. There was, in fact, no increase, but a substantial decrease 
in the salaries and expenses in connection with the general offices. The entire 
expense is due, as explained, to the pensions. That is something which is engaging 
our best attention at this time, to find out what we are eventually going to do 
with the pension situation. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: At the present time, how are you dealing with the pensions 
in connection with the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway? 
Have you adopted the same system as you have in connection with the Canadian 
National proper? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We are following the same procedure, until such 
time as we can have a definite understanding as to what the pension policy will 
be. We are protecting the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island employees 
by adopting the same system that is extended to the rest of the system. The 
pension system is more or less in vogue on the Grand Trunk. There will be, 
eventually, a Bill brought before the House, I take it, which will correct and 
simplify the whole of our pension system. It has been a very long and contentious 
problem. In the first place, we required to have a great deal of actuarial data, 
before we could decide for ourselves as to what we wanted to do. Then, we had 
a number of friendly discussions with the men to see if we could hit upon some 
pension scheme which would be acceptable to them. That arrangement is 
progressing as rapidly as possible. In the meantime, we are protecting the 
pensioners, although they are not on the pension roll. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



24 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Do you say that the Canadian National are treating 
men as pensioners, who were before employees of the Intercolonial and Prince 
Edward Island Railways? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: On page 5 the statement is made that the Canadian 
National Railways found it necessary to have a fund of $308,000 to meet current 
obligations, in 1926, as gainst $46,000 in 1925; involving an increase of $262,000. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Sir Henry, will you be good enough to let us know what is 
the policy in reference to insurance? On page 17 Insurance is referred to. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The policy of the company is to do its own insuring. 
We began in 1923 to contribute to our insurance fund an amount which was 
represented by the premiums which w T ere paid in the previous year, and out of 
that money we paid our fire losses. Now, as the result of that policy, we have 
built up our insurance fund of $8,049,000. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What did the fund start with? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I am speaking from memory, but I think it was 
about $3,000,000. We took into that fund the surplus which I believe the old 
Grand Trunk had, of about $1,000,000. We built that up, in the manner I 
have mentioned to $8,049,000. That represents money which is invested in 
Victory -bonds, and it is held in trust for that fund. 

Mr. CANTLEY: You actually have the money in liquid form? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We have it invested in Victory bonds. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The total shown on page 12 of the Balance Sheet 
is shown as "Insurance and other funds 1 Railway and C.G.M.M." That is 
item 721. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We get four and a half per cent on the Victory- 
bonds, and four per cent on the bonds of the Detroit and Shore line. $400,000 
is invested in Pontiac, Oxford and Northern, six per cent bonds. I may say 
that practically all of it is in Victory bonds, which are held in trust, and are not 
hypothecated. I should think it would be a wise policy to continue to build 
up this one until it reaches somewhere between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: At the present time, the fund is not paying its way? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It is pretty close to it. Interest of four and a half 
per cent on $8,000,000 would be. around $350,000 a year. Our losses last year, 
including railway and Canadian Government Merchant Marine, were repre 
sented by $793,000. So we are getting on towards it being half self-sustaining. 

Mr. DUFF: Why do you include the C.G.M.M. fund in the Canadian 
National Railway account? It is a separate company. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : Yes, it is a separate company, but our fund insures 
them because we are an insurance company with respect to the Canadian Gov 
ernment Merchant Marine. 

Mr. DUFF: Would it not be better to keep them separate? Why should 
it be put in the Canadian National Railway fund. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: It is a general insurance fund. 

Mr. DUFF: They are two different companies. Would not it be better 
to have two separate accounts? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I do not see any particular advantage in it. 

Mr. DUFF: It is the only item I see in the whole statement that covers 
Canadian Government Merchant Marine. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Of course, the Canadian Government Merchant 
Marine report will come before this Committee. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 25 

Mr. DUFF: It is a separate company, and I should think there should be 
a separate statement. The answer is, it is because the Canadian National Rail 
way insures the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We carry the insurance for the Canadian Govern 
ment Merchant Marine. 

Mr. JENKINS: If you kept the accounts separate, it would cost more for 
administration? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We save one staff by doing it this way. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : $400,000 is a contribution from the railway alone. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is only the part chargeable to maintenance 
of way and structures. You will find that item in all the large sub-divisions 
of our expenditures; Maintenance of Way contributes something, and Trans 
portation contributes something. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : It does not include the contribution from steam 
ships? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that will appear as a separate item in the 
Merchant Marine Report. 

Mr. DUFF: But the details of the gross amount will be included in that 
report?, 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: There will be found in the annual report of the 
Government Merchant Marine a charge for insurance. I am not sure that Mr. 
Duff and I understand each other. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What is your policy? Do you insure them at their replace 
ment value? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a question I cannot answer at the moment. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: We will have that in the Merchant Marine account. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It is so much a ton, Colonel, but just how much I 
cannot tell you at present, 

Mr. DUFF: You and I were going to try to agree on this item. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I will let Mr. Henry explain it. 

Mr. HENRY: I think you had the idea that the railway accounts were 
charged with the cost of insuring the ships. That is not so. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Then I think we do not understand each other. 

Mr. DUFF: The total amount shown here on this page is over $9,000,000. 
It might be better if, instead of putting in there the C.G.M.M. account let us 
say for the sake of argument that it is $2,000,000, that this should be $7,200,000, 
and then in the C.G.M.M. account there would be $2,000,000. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Are you referring to Number 721? 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: There is a nice question of accounts in there. It is 
not really a practical question, but one of accounting theory. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Practically speaking, this insurance scheme is a separate 
company from both the C.G.M.M. and the C.N.R. It is an insurance company 
that insures both services, under one heading, the same as if you had two separate 
items in the C.G.M.M. statement; they will show the proportion they are con 
tributing to that fund. 

Mr. DUFF: You would not need the accountants to deal with it. As Mr. 
Ruel said a moment ago it is a matter of accounting; the same officials have 
two accounts, one for the Canadian National Railways and one for the C.G.M.M.. 
and both amounts would show in different statements. That is all right, 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I think the way it is done is good business. 

Mr. DUFF: I will defer to your opinion. 

[Sir Heniy Thornton.] 



26 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Suppose we agree that when the Merchant Marine 
accounts come up, that will be cleared up, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is the best way, to thresh it out when we come 
to that. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Will the same criticism apply to your insurance fund, 
and also to your pension fund? You are obliged to contribute a certain portion 
every year to supplement your pension fund, and I suppose the amount that 
comes from the employeees goes to the general fund, and the balance is spread 
over the railways. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : Do you mean that we distribute our pension charges 
to the different departments? 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Yes. 

Mr. COOPER: That is operating. There is no pension fund. There is not 
a surplusi set aside in a fund for pensions. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: The amount of your contribution goes to a central 
fund? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That contribution, General, only exists with respect 
to the Intercolonial Railway. 

.Sir EUGENE FISET: That is what I wanted to ascertain. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: And that is balanced against the deficit. 

Mr. COOPER: That goes to reduce the amount that the railway is required 
to contribute. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: In the future scheme of pensions, it entails contribu 
tions by the employees, does it not? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, we do not think it will, but that is a question 
that we are still discussing, and the present drift of the thing is that it will not. 

The CHAIRMAN: So far as any misunderstanding in regard to this $9,000,000 
is concerned, I think when we have the statement from the Merchant Marine 
we can compare the two and thresh that part out. Have you any further 
questions! to ask on this statement? 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : In the Miscellaneous items that we have passed, 
would you mind telling me whether the dining service is breaking even? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is the dining and sleeping car service? 

Mr. M-CLEAN (Melfort): Yes; I do not want exact figures at all. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The revenue was $1,506,000. The expense was 
$2,026,000; a difference of rather less than half a million dollars; a deficit of 
about that. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : Has that been reduced? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. Of course, as your business increases, you 
reduce your deficit, and without going into figures, I should say it was less last 
year than the year before. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : That is what I meant. 

The CHAIRMAN: Are we all through with the operating expenses? 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Before taking up the Merchant Marine, should we 
not accept this report as it stands? 

Mr. DUFF: Mr. Chairman, if there is no further question, I would move 
that the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1926 be 
received and adopted. 

The CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion, gentlemen. I declare the 
motion carried. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 27 

Mr. DUFF: I might say, there are one or two members who are not here. 
I presume, as a matter of courtesy, if they come another day, they may be 
permitted to ask a question? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We will have all the data here, and if any member 
wishes to reopen anything, we will be only too glad to explain it. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: As a matter of fact, any member would have an 
opportunity on the estimates. I suggest that we take up the estimates inasmuch 
as the Merchant Marine statement is not yet tabled in the House. We cannot, 
therefore, go on with something that has not been referred to. The estimates 
for the Canadian National Railway, we can go on with. 

Mr. DUFF: There is an increase of $8,500,000 in the estimates. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Oh no, a decrease. 

Mr. DUFF: Yes, I beg pardon. Will you explain that, Sir Henry? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I want to use the same figures that Mr. Duff is 
using. May I ask where Mr. Duff is reading from? There is a decrease of 
$8,500,000. In detail, there is a decrease of $8,748,900.48 in interest on funded 
and other debt. There is a decrease of $554,040 i,n Grand Trunk Pacific guar 
anteed interest. There is an increase of $662,585.06 in sinking fund payments. 
There is a decrease of $1,153,400 in equipment principal payment. There is 
no change in the dividend on Grand Trunk Railway four per cent guaranteed 
stock. There is a decrease of $788,000 in retirement of capital obligations. 
Those items added, and subtracting the increase to which I referred, leave a 
net increase in total financial requirements of $10,581,755.32. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: A net decrease? 

Sir HENRY THORNTONS A net decrease. There are less resources. There 
is to> be subtracted from that, resources of $4,732,621, leaving a decrease in^et 
financial requirements of $6,257,134.32. There is a decrease on account of new 
equipment of $5,000,000; an increase of $3,107,134.32 on account of general 
additions and betterments; a decrease on account of additions to the Chateau 
Laurier Hotel at Ottawa, of $2,000,000; an increase on account of discounts on 
securities to be issued of $1,650,000, making,, in the last analysis, a total net 
decrease of $8,500,000. In other words, the budget for the nine months ending 
December 31st, 1927, is $22,500,000, as compared with the same period last 
year, for the twelve months, of .$31,000,000. 

Mr. JELLIFF: How much of last year s estimated $31,000,000 did you use? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We cannot tell until March 31st, Mr. Jelliff. That 
closes the fiscal year on which this is based. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Do you think you are using it all? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Henry can answer that better than I can. 

Miy HENRY: I think perhaps we will not use the whole of it, but that 
we will not be able to tell precisely until probably the first of April, when all 
the accounts will be in. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Sir Henry, I think there is something you said there 
that might be a little confusing, when you referred to nine months and twelve 
months. Is it the fact that the comparison here made is between the two 
governmental fiscal years, twelve months each? 

Mr. HENRY: No, this is made for the nine months ending December 31st, 
1927; with the twelve months ending March 31st, 1927. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: This estimate before Parliament contains the amount 
which was voted for the fiscal year 1926-27; the whole fiscal year. 

Mr. HENRY: That is correct. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And the twenty-two and a half millions is for the 
whole fiscal year 1927-28 so far as Parliament is concerned. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



28 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Mr. HENRY: So far as Parliament is concerned that is correct, yes. 

Hon Mr DUNNING: These are Parliamentary figures we are dealing wit 
This raises again the awkward question of the railway year ending with 1 
calendar year, and the fiscal year of the country ending on March 31st, 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a very awkward fact. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: But the aggregate figures here are for the twelve 
months. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: No, not quite, sir. I think this is the means of the 
railway for the next twelve months; but for the first three months of the fiscal 
year they do not spend any of it. They spend it in nine months. Is not that 
what it means? 

Hon Mr DUNNING: No. Sir Henry, did the Canadian National draw upon 
that $31,000,000 until the 31st of March," 1927. If we vote this $22,500,000 they 
can draw on it until the 31st of March, 1928, but in figuring their own require 
ments, they necessarily must figure upon the twelve months ending in Decem 
ber in each year. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is correct. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The point I want to clear up is that the information 
which Sir Henry has given to the Committee, is his own forecast based upon 
his own calendar year; it cannot be otherwise. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: But the bulk of his estimates is for betterment and new 
equipment; $80,000,000 goes into that, and the purchase of that equipment cannot 
possibly take place during the first three months of the fiscal year. 

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with $22,000,000 as compared with 
$31,000,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: In estimating the amount of resources to contribute 
towards this result, what basis did you use in comparison with 1926? Your 
estimate of resources, of course, is based upon the estimate of earnings for 1927, 
is it not? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Do you allow for increased earnings in 1927 over 
1926 in arriving at your contribution from resources? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Tell the Committee what that was. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I do not know whether we can quite answer it in 
that way. We estimate on about the same resources. That was due partially 
to two indeterminate factors: and an anticipation of wage increases of which we 
could not estimate the effect; and some possible effect with respect to rates. 
In other words this is a conservative figure ; it must necessarily be so. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It means that you will not require this money from 
Parliament if your earnings are better in 1927 than they were in 1926? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. Of course, in a thing of that kind you have got 
to be absolutely safe. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The point I want to make is that you are not asking 
for $8,500,000 less based upon some fancy picture of earnings? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The earnings calculation is approximately the same 
as the results of last year would indicate as being possible. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I move the adoption of these estimates. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 29 

Mr. MACLAREN: I was going to ask Sir Henry if he would tell the Com 
mittee what the regulations are regarding the issuing of passes to railway 
employees. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We have certain regulations. For example, any 
employee. who has been in the service of the company continuously for over 50 
years receives an annual pass, good over the system, for himself and his wife. 
Then certain other employees, who have been in the service of the company for 
a certain number of years, receive annual passes over a certain section of the 
railway, usually for that part of the railway on which they are employed. 

Mr. MACLAREN: Occasionally, frequently, or at any time? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: They are given annual passes over that part of the 
railway on which they are employed. 

Mr. MACLAREN: Do those passes include their families? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, just the individual himself. Then employees who 
have been in the service of the company a lesser number of years may have, on 
request, trip passes for themselves and their families; a certain number for a 
certain period of service. I can give you a brief to-morrow which will show . 
just what the regulations are- I am only stating now in a general way what is 
done. 

Mr. MACLAREN: Could we have a return of the number of passes issued, say, 
in Moncton, over the Atlantic Division? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I think we could get that. 

Mr. MACLAREN: I have a communication from a very reputable merchant, 
who states that passes are issued to railway employees and their families over 
a large area, and that they do their shopping at Moncton, where there is a large 
departmental store. This practice covers a large area, from Campbellton, 
perhaps to Truro, and it is interfering with the local merchants in other portions 
of the community. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is not an unusual complaint; you hear it pretty 
much everywhere. To-morrow we can give you a statement of the practice of 
the company in regard to free transportation. That practice, I might say, is 
substantially the same as the practice on pretty nearly all the railroads on the 
North American Continent. It may vary slightly in detail here or there, but 
it is pretty much the practice that is followed everywhere. We can give you 
that precisely in a comparatively short time. 

In regard to the question of passes generally, it is the practice of all rail 
way companies, under certain regulations, to give passes to certain of their em 
ployees, depending upon their years of service. That practice has grown up pretty 
much all over the North American Continent and has come to be, in a measure, 
part of the compensation of railway employees. It is not actually a compensa 
tion but it has become so established that any revision of it, or its withdrawal, 
would immediately attract the attention of the Trade Unions. I am not arguing 
for or against the practice; I am just trying to tell you what it is. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Is it the intention, when issuing these passes, that the 
families of employees should be able to travel a considerable distance to do their 
shopping? 

SIR HENRY THORNTON: That is not the object of issuing the passes, but it 
is probably the result. If you give passes to your employees as a reward of good 
service n.nd long service, of course they will use that pass in whatever way that 
contributes to the economy of life. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Or the enjoyment of it? 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



30 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Or its enjoyment. Passes are not issued for the pur 
pose of enabling the employees to go to some other place to buy their goods, but 
that is what happens, and that is the complaint. 

Mr. MacLAEEN: I can understand that, if it is an occasional pass, but if it 
is given very frequently, every week, or two or three times a week, then it is 
rather a different thing. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The point you have raised is a point which I sup 
pose is raised now and then pretty much all over the North American Continent; 
it is not peculiar to Canada or the Canadian National Railways. I will ask Mr. 
Henry to make a note of that and we will get it as quickly as we can. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Will you include in that statement your pass policy 
with reference to servants of the company who are not full-time employees, such 
as lawyers and doctors? You know what I mean; there is certain transportation 
granted to men who are not permanent employees, such as land agents? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Very often transportation is given to a doctor who 
looks after our interests, and all he gets out of it is his pass. 

Mr. MacLAREN: He is a medical officer of the company, very often? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I suppose that most of the time he uses that pass in 
the interests of the company. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Would you also include in your statement the passes 
issued to the press? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is on the basis of publicity. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: If you put it in writing I think it will solve a great many 
difficulties. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We do not issue transportation in return for 
advertising. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I think if this could be stated in writing it would save 
a lot of trouble. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We will have that done. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: What about the other department, Sir Henry, such 
as the Natural Resources Department and the Industrial Department; are passes 
issued to any of them who are not employees themselves? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, not unless it is in the service of the company. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: If a man is agent for the sale of lan,d or for the 
reception of immigrants, and so forth, do you give him transportation? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We do, in connection with certain societies. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: I mean a business man who may be operating his 
own busin.ess in a town but who is an agent for Canadian National lands, or 
has to do with immigration; does the pass system extend to such? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Can you answer that question, Mr. Robb? 

Mr. ROBB: W"e give certain passes to men who do work for us, such as 
colonization, and so on. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Are those annual passes? 

Mr. ROBB: No, trip passes. We only give annual passes to such as the 
Hudson Bay people, who are in, the same business as we are; we give annual 
passes to their agents, but all the rest receive trip passes. 

[Sir Henry Thornton.] 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 

Mr. JELLIFF: There is a gratifying decrease in the amount asked for for 
the Canadian Merchant Marine. Perhaps you will give us a statement on that? 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: We are not taking that up yet, because we have not 
got the accounts. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I second that motion of Sir Eugene Fiset. 

Motion agreed to. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Then is there only the Merchant Marine left? 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is all. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: When will that be ready? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That will be in your hands, printed, on Monday. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Then the next meeting will be on Tuesday? 

The CHAIRMAN: We will be governed by the meetings of the other Rail 
way Committee. You will be given ample notice. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I move the adjournment of the Committee. 

Mr. DUFF: I second the motion. 

Motion agreed to. 

The Committee adjourned. 



COMMITTEE ROOM 425, 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
WEDNESDAY, April 6, 1927. 

The Select Standing Comimktee on Railways and Shipping met at 3- p.m., 
Mr. Goodison, Chairman, presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: The first thing this afternoon is, I think, that Mr. Jenkins 
has a few questions he wants to ask of Sir Henry- Thornton. 

Mr. JENKINS: Yes, I understand this meeting was called for a further 
discussion of railway matters, and I understand that to-day you are going to 
discuss the eighth annual report of the Merchant Marine. I wanted to ask a 
few questions, in order to get some information, because in our province, trans 
portation offers a very vital problem. We are cut off from the mainland, and 
naturally, we have a great many problems. I want to ask these questions for 
two reasons; first, because it will save discussion in the House, and we are all 
anxious to expedite business, and secondly, because Sir Henry Thornton is here 
to answer them. The questions are as follows: 

No. 1. What capital expenditures are to be made on the Prince 
Edward Island division in 1927? 

2. On terminals? 

3. Will the work of standardization of the Murray Harbour branch 
be proceeded with? 

4. A report is current in our province that the Hillsboro bridge is 
not safe for spreading the heavy rails. Has this any foundation in fact? 
A prominent member of the legislature of our province the other day 
stated that he had made inquiries from an engineer, and this engineer 
told him the bridge was quite safe for heavy traffic, and I am anxious to 
find out in an authoritative way whether or not this is correct.. 

5. The Eastern Section was spread last year. Is it to be ballasted 
and, if so, what portion? 

6. Are new rails required? If so, what expenditure will be made 
in 1927? 

423244 



32 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

1. Several applications for new sidings at different points on the 
Prince Edward Island Division have been presented to the government. 
Has the management given consideration to such requests? 

8. Several branch lines are required, viz.: 

(a) Birt s crossing to Mount Herbert or Mount Albion. 

(b) Hunter River to Rustico. 

(c) Emerald to New London. 

(d) Charlottetown by South Shore to Victoria. 

(e) O Leary to West Cape, and Kensington to Malpeque and 
others which are very important to aid the development 
of the potato growing industry. It is necessary to encourage 
this business in every possible way. 

9. What action has been taken up to date re second car ferry? This 
steamer is an absolute necessity. 

We are more intensely interested in transportation in our province, than in any 
other question, and I would like Sir Henry, in a general way, to give the 
answers to- these .questions. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I cannot answer all the questions which have been 
asked offhand, but answers to these questions can be supplied in a day or two, 
and incorporated in the minutes, if that is the wish of the Committee. Such 
answers as can be given to-day offhand, I will undertake to give now. 

The answers to the first and second questions will have to be deferred. 

The answer to the third question, " Will the work of standardization of 
the Murray Harbour branch be proceeded with ", is " No, not this year." 

The answer to question Number 4, A report is current in our province 
that the Hillsboro bridge is not safe for spreading the heavy rails. Has this any 
foundation in fact? " in that, it has a considerable foundation in fact, and the 
Hillsboro bridge is not safe for heavy traffic. I do not care what any outside 
engineer may have said, or what opinion he may have expressed; our engineers 
have gone into it carefully and have said it is unsafe. 

Question Number 5, " The eastern section was spread last year. Is it to 
be ballasted, and if so, what portion?" I cannot answer that question, nor 
can I answer question Number 6. 

Question Number 7, Several applications for new sidings at different points 
on the Prince Edward Island Division have been presented to the government. 
Has the management given consideration to such requests?" Well, I cannot 
remember offhand just what sidings may have been asked for in Prince Edward 
Island, but I can answer in a general way, and also that any applications for 
sidings always receive careful and sympathetic consideration, and if there is 
anywhere near enough traffic to justify the expense, the siding is generally put in. 

The answer to question Number 8 in regard to several branch lines being 
requested is, that they are not included in this year s branch line program. 

Question Number 9 "What action has been taken up to date re second car 
ferry. This steamer is an absolute necessity." I understand that that is one 
of the things which is included in the Duncan report, and I suppose that is in 
the hands of the government for the time being, and I would not care to express 
a definite opinion about it. I am sorry, Mr. Jenkins, but that is the best I can 
do at the moment. 

Mr. .JENKINS: Thank you, Sir Henry, and I understand the balance of 
the information will be forthcoming, and will be included in the minutes. 

The CHAIBMAN: Has any member any question to ask before we start in 
with the report of the Merchant Marine? 

Sir EUGENE FISET: We have dealt with the Canadian National Railways. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It was understood that any member who desired to 
raise any question in respect to the railway should be free to do so. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 33 

The CHAIRMAN: Then we shall be pleased to have the report from Sir Henry 
on the Merchant Marine. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: A member of my staff will shortly circulate among 
the members and pass around a little synopsis for examination. 

There is being handed to you a synopsis of the report relating to the 
Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and if it is the wish of the Committee, 
I will run over it hastily, touching on the essential points. 

You will observe that operating revenues increased by $1,115,000 I am 
now giving round figures and operating expenses increased by $257,000, the 
increases being 11.3 per cent, and 2.4 per cent respectively. You will note that 
an increase of $1,115,000 only occasioned an increase of $257,000 in expenses; 
the result is that the operating loss this year is $90,000 as compared with $948,000 
last year, or an improvement of $858,000. 

There has been an improvement in the earnings on the business handled in 
the case of practically ail the routes operated, and while it is true that the coal 
strike in the United Kingdom caused a demand for full cargo tonnage at 
abnormal freight rates, particularly for the transportation of coal overseas from 
United States ports, our steamers operating regular transatlantic services to and 
from Canadian ports were precluded from participating in outside trade routes, 
although we did benefit in some degree from increases in grain and other rates 
from Canadian ports. 

What happened, briefly, was this. Wo could have materially increased our 
earnings if we had withdrawn our ships from standard and established trade 
routes, and turned them into the carrying of coal. To do that, however, would 
have worked an injury to Canadian shipping, and we thought it was preferable 
to maintain our established trade routes, rather than temporarily io embark upon 
the carriage of coal. Likewise, the coal strike in England increased our expenses 
because we were required to bunker at our Atlantic ports for the round trip, 
thereby using up valuable cargo space. There was no particular difference in 
the actual tonnage handled; the export and import tons were pretty much the 
same. In 1926, "we handled 821,000 tons of export as compared with 820,000 
tons in the previous year, and we handled imports of 398,000 tons as compared 
with 319,000 tons in 1925, an increase of about 79,000. You will notice a remark 
able decrease in the cattle handled. The total number handled was 6,007 in 
1925 and 1,522 in 1926. That is due entirely to trade conditions in England. 
Irish cattle apparently came into the English market at a lower rate than it was 
possible for our producers to meet. Furthermore, our producers found the United 
States field more attractive than the foreign field. 

The grain handled involves no material change. 

The increase in operating expenses is entirely due to the additional expense 
incurred by handling increased business. 

Insurance. Generally speaking, the policy of the National Railways in 
connection with the handling of insurance of the boats of the Canadian Gov 
ernment Merchant Marine is to adopt the same rules and principles as are fol 
lowed by insurance companies in the setting up of premiums and in the adjust 
ment of losses. There follows a statement of the losses. You will notice that 
the total credit balance on account of insurance to the account of the fleet 
insurance account in the Canadian National Railways insurance fund, is 
$1,840,500. That represents entirely a sum which has been built up in the course 
of the last four years, by charging to the fleet the insurance premiums which 
were in vogue prior to our doing our own insuring, and charging against that 
fund such losses as there were. The net result has been to build up, on account 
of the fleet, a reserve fund of $1,800,000. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: That is included in the $10,000,000 reserve fund for 
the Canadian National? 

52324 4J 



34 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is held really in trust by that fund for the 
account of the Merchant Marine. 

Mr. DUFF: How do you make up your partial claim losses? Suppose a 
vessel gets on the rocks and they haul it off and it is not a total loss? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We settle that, I take it, in the same way as we 
would settle with underwriters. 

Mr. DUFF: Do you send it to an adjuster and then charge it up against 
the fund? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I do not think there is any question of an adjuster, 
because it is our own fund and we determine what proper charge should be 
made. 

Mr. DUFF: I was wondering if you would charge the total amount of the 
cost of repairs, or the same proportion as an insurance company would? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We would follow precisely the practice of insur 
ance companies in that case. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Was there any sum voted to the creation of this fund? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That started with nothing and has been built up 
in the manner I describe. Of course, that is built up out of operating expenses. 

Mr. CANTLEY: As in the case of the million dollars taken over from the 
Grand Trunk insurance fund? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We did not have any start of that sort with 
respect to the Merchant Marine. 

Mr. DUFF: It was just from premiums charged? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: It started from nothing and built up from 
premiums charged. 

Mr. POWER: Up to four years ago you insured with outside companies? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

The other items are, Depreciation on Vessels. This is practically the same 
for each year. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Is that four per cent? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Four per cent. 

Interest on Government Advances; practically no change. 

There is a small item, Adjustment Department of Marine and Fisheries 
Account; and a credit for Reserves Written Back. There is nothing there that 
is particularly different from the previous year. 

During the year three vessels were sold; two to the Canada Atlantic Tran 
sit Company, a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railways, and one to the 
Arbor Ship Building Company. The two boats transferred to the Canada 
Atlantic Transit Company were the "Canadian Gunner" and the "Canadian 
Harvester," of approximately 4,000 dead weight tonnage, and were transferred 
at a lump sum of $50,000 each. The "Canadian Settler" was sold to the Arbor 
Ship Building Company of London, England, for 17,750, or $17.50 a dead 
weight ton. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Were the others sold by deadweight? 

Sir HENRY THORTON: I do not think they were. As far as the Canadian 
Atlantic Transit Company is concerned, that was merely a transfer from one 
subsidiary of the Government to another. As far as the " Canadian Settler " 
was concerned, we were offered this price and it looked to be a good one, in fact 
a better one than we expected to get, and we took it. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: You were advertising all over the world, practically 
speaking, trying to sell those boats? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We used a scatter gun and advertised everywhere. 
We got some answers, and then subsequently sold by negotiation. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 35 

Mr. JELLIFF: Can you give us the original cost of those vessels? 

Mr. DUFF: They averaged about $200 a ton, did they not? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : It is about that, Mr. Duff. The original cost of the 
" Canadian Settler " was $985,273.34. 

Mr. DUFF: How many tons was it? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: 4,900 tons. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Can you give us the others? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The original cost of the "Canadian Gunner" was 
$859,162.65. The original cost of the " Canadian Harvester " was $730,914.63. 
They were both transferred at $50,000 each to the Canada Transit Company. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Our friend Colonel Mullins is not here in body this 
year, but he is here in spirit; tell us something about the cattle rates. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : Perhaps Mr. Teakle had better answer that question 
and give us a general statement on the cattle rate position. 

Mr. TEAKLE: Up to about eight weeks ago we were charging $20 a head, 
and the rate was then changed to $15 a head. Does that answer the Minister s 
question? 

Mr. POWER: At that rate, what profit would you make on a voyage from 
Montreal to European ports? 

Mr. TEAKLE: We would lose just about $1,200 on the voyage. With a full 
complement of 233 head at the $20 rate, the figures as submitted last year I 
am speaking from memory showed a total loss of $42. If you multiply 233 
by five, we are up to about $1,275 which would be the loss. 

Mr. POWER: At the $15 rate? 

Mr. TEAKLE: At the $15 rate. 

Mr. POWER: And the $20 rate? 

Mr. TEAKLE: We lost $42. 

Mr. POWER: From Montreal or Quebec? 

Mr. TEAKLE: Or St. John, or any place. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Are you looking for cattle business this year on that 
basis, Mr. Teakle? 

Mr. TEAKLE: Well, we hope to get cattle, sir, but so far we have no inquiries 
for cattle. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We would be looking for cattle business, Mr. Dun 
ning, in the sense that it would be of assistance to our Canadian farmers. So 
far as the Merchant Marine itself is concerned we would be losing money, but 
what we lost we concluded we would gain in helping our western farmer friends, 
or our fanner friends generally. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : Is that loss due to the fact that your ships are too 
small to take a fair cargo? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Well, of course, the ships are not designed as cattle 
carriers. In the second place, they are a small size. I do not know whether I 
could answer off-hand, whether with a large ship especially designed for cattle 
we could make money at $15 a head or not; I do not know that we could. 

Mr. POWER: Your difficulty would be to have the cattle moving all the 
time? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Precisely. 

Mr. POWER: If you designed a ship for cattle carrying you would not know 
just where she was going? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You might find a ship all dressed up and nowhere 
to go. 



36 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Mr. JENKINS: Was the rate reduced in order to get increased business? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No; I think that rate reduction was voluntarily put 
on by the North Atlantic carriers. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It was to test out the market. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What has been the general trend of freight rates in the last 
few years? 

Mr. DOHERTY: If anything, the tendency has been downward. I am talk 
ing about all our general services. 

Mr. CANTLEY: They did not change that way last year. 

Mr. DOHERTY: With the exception of the trans-Atlantic rates. 

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort) : On account of the coal strike? 

Mr. DOHERTY: Yes. 

Mr. CANTLEY: The grain rates went up enormously in the fall. 

Mr. DOHERTY: That is a transatlantic grain movement. I was speaking 
of our other services. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I am taking the average transatlantic business from this 
side to the other. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: You will have to revise the question. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Was not the average for the year higher, and your operating 
expenses also? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Are your relations with the Atlantic Combine still 
friendly? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : They are what you might call amicably competitive. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Your statement of 1926 shows that you handled for export 
and import 1,290,000 ton; as against 1,253,000 tons for 1925? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 

Mr. JELLIFF: So you made a gain of 47,000 tons, round figures? You 
show an increase in expenses of $256,000. That would represent $5 per ton on 
the increase. Do you not think that is a pretty high increase? 

Mr. TEAKLE: You will also notice that we had an increase in earnings and 
an increase in operating of course necessarily follows. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I do not think you got Mr. Jelliff s question. 

Mr. JELLIFF: You show an increase in tonnage hauled in and hauled out, 
from all sources, of 37,000 odd tons, and an increase in expenses of $256,000. 
That would make an increase in expenses of about $7 a ton? 

Mr. TEAKLE: That would be accounted for in many ways. You see, our 
voyages are fairly long voyages, and we do the larger amount of additional 
moving on the longer voyages. 

Mr. JELLIFF: I do not know that I get that, 

Mr. POWER: That is to say, the more business you get the more it costs you. 

Mr. TEAKLE: Naturally, it depends upon the places where you are operat 
ing, the cost of handling freight, and so on. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: On account of the coal strike, there was a material 
additional expense, because of the fact that we were obliged to bunker for the 
round trip voyage. 

Mr. DUFF: Did you have more voyages? 

Mr. TEAKLE: Just about the same. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That will come out in the report. 

Mr. TEAKLE: And the length of the voyages as well. 

Mr. MILNE: Have you any difficulty in getting cargo? 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 37 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We are always short, as has been pointed out in 
previous years, on westbound cargo. We do not do so badly eastbound, but 
our principal difficulty is to get westbound cargo. 

Mr. DUFF: That is the imports are about half as much as the exports. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes, that is shown in the tonnage. 

Mr. MILNE: You have no difficulty in getting tonnage going out? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Well, we have to fight for it of course, but we do 
not do badly outbound. 

Mr. MILNE: The point I want to get is, are the vessels tied up sometimes 
when they should be operating, on account of the dearth of the tonnage. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The vessels that run on schedule, on regular trade 
routes, of course, sail on the advertised times. I should not say the vessels are 
tied up much on account of insufficient cargo. Pretty nearly all of this tonnage 
moves on advertised schedules and advertised freight routes. 

Mr. MILNE: Sometimes they may be completely full and at other times 
there may be a scarcity of cargo, and they might go with 80 or 90 per cent 
of cargo? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Sir Henry, we used to have at one time a detailed report 
on each individual ship so that we were able to form a conclusion as to all 
the ships, and as to which ship and what trade was desirable and what should 
be encouraged, and what should be discontinued. That, I think, is the crux of 
the whole question. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: We have a statement showing the profits or losses 
as the case may be, of each trade route. That was discussed at the meeting 
last year, and I would not care to put that in the report. My recollection is 
that last year, that information was at the disposal of any member of the 
Committee who desired to see it. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is right. That is what was done last year. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is at your disposal. 

Mr. CANTLEY: That is the most enlightening information we can have, 
I think. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Last year, I think, Mr. Chairman, we agreed that, 
while the members of the Committee may have access to the information, it was 
rather that class of competitive information that should not be made a matter 
of record. 

Mr. CANTLEY: All right. One other question. There was a ship disposed 
of, I do not remember when, perhaps two years ago. I think she was taken back 
last year. Can you state the arrangements that were made in regard to that, 
and how the transaction was completed? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Teakle can explain that. That was the 
Canadian "Settler." She was sold at a price of $140,000, and the purchaser paid 
us so much down but could not pay the balance, and we had to take the ship back. 
She is the one that has been mentioned as sold again. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I am aware of that, but what I am asking is at what price 
you took her back, and how the transaction turned out for the company? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I have a general recollection and Mr. Teakle can 
add the details that the party who bought the ship, whose name has escaped 
me at the moment, failed. We had to make the best of it, and we took the ship 
back. The details Mr. Teakle can supply. 

Mr. TEAKLE: Yes. They paid a deposit of $25,000, which the Government 
has kept. We took over his charter which was good to some time in May, and 
the net result was that we were out about $3,000 or $4,000. 



38 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Mr. CANTLEY: What did it cost to recondition the ship. 

Mr. TEAKLE: About $30,000. 

Mr. CANTLEY: And $25,000 was the original payment made" on account? 

Mr. TEAKLE: Yes. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Then there were some credits which made the net 
loss about $3,000. 

Mr. DUFF: You reconditioned her, after you took her back? 

Mr. TEAKLE: Yes, there were certain repairs necessary to be made on her, 
the details of which I have not with me, to put her in shipshape and to take 
over and continue the charter. 

Mr. DUFF: I heard something about the owners when they purchased her 
making some repairs, and their story is that the company promised to make good 
those. 

Mr. TEAKLE: No, as I remember the details, the ship was sold as she stood, 
in Halifax harbour, for a price. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON : We did not obligate ourselves as I recall the trans 
action, to make any repairs. All the repairs and reconditioning was clone at 
their expense. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : What price was she sold at originally? 

Mr. TEAKLE: $140,000. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : You gave us some figures of actual freight, and of 
costs. 

Mr. TEAKLE: That is the actual carriage one way. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : Then those figures you gave us would show the 
cost of taking the ship with her cargo from this side to the other side. 

Mr. DOHEBTY: It was the actual out-of-pocket costs that we have because 
of the fact that we are carrying cattle instead of general cargo ; the space, plus 
the space taken for feed and bedding that the ship is deprived of, for carrying 
water and so on; the cost of the supplies, or rather the carrying charges for the 
original cost of the supplies and the various other details involved, particularly 
as to the cattle. That has nothing to do with the operation of the steamer. 

Mr. DUFF: It is not part of the cost of operating the steamer from the time 
she leaves Quebec. 

Mr. DOHERTY: No, that is not taken into consideration. 

Mr. DUFF: Why not? You should charge up your portion of Ihe cost of 
the voyage. 

Mr. TEAKLE: It would be as broad as it is long, whether you carry cattle or 
general cargo. 

Mr. DUFF: No, for instance you might carry deals on deck instead of cattle, 
or you might carry flour, where you are carrying feed. 

Mr. DOHERTY: We are taking credit for that in the figures which we have 
set up. 

Mr. DUFF: What I am asking is this: In this cost which you say it takes 
to get those cattle across, do you include a portion of your wages, coal, oil and 
engine supplies? 

Mr. DOHERTY: No. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: I think there is a misunderstanding as to your loss 
figures. Your figures were not on the loss in actually carrying the cattle, but the 
difference between carrying cattle and carrying other cargo in the same space. 

Mr. DOHERTY: Yes, that was part of the consideration, because we carry 
cattle where we do not carry cargo on the fore and after deck. The place where 
we carry cargo is in the bridge deck space. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 39 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: When you state that it was at a fifteen dollar rate, 
you would lose so much. You mean lose it by comparison with carrying cargo 
in the same space? 

Mr. DOHERTY: And provided the ship was not fitted with stalls to carry 
cattle. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is not very conclusive as to the actual trade done. 

Mr. McLsAN (Melfort) : He would not have the other proviso in mind, that 
the ship would be loaded to capacity with other freight. 

Mr. DOHERTY: Quite so. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : Could you tell us this: supposing you took a ship 
with cattle to the other side, could you tell us what it cost to take that shipload 
of cattle to the other side, either per head or per shipload, and what you got out 
of it, and make a comparison of it in that way? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: In other words, what does it cost to move a cargo of 
cattle from Canada to the United Kingdom? 

Mr. TEAKLE: I am not in a position to answer that question, because our 
experience is with our own steamers. 

Mr. MCLEAN (Melfort) : I mean with our own steamers; the cattle is one 
particular cargo. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: You have no ships exclusively in the cattle business? 
Mr. CANTLEY: Two ships were fitted up last year about which we heard a 
good deal. We have heard nothing about them this year. 

Mr. MCLEAN: Perhaps we could have the same gentleman here, to tell us 
about them. 

Mr. DOHERTY: As far as I can gather, they were net a success. They were 
withdrawn even before the movement diminished last Spring. 

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort) : Those special steamers were withdrawn? 

Mr. DOHERTY: Yes, those steamers that were specially fitted to carry a full 
cargo of cattle carried cattle in the holds as well as on deck. They were specialty 
constructed for the purpose. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What became of them? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Mr. Teakle can tell what happened to the ships. 

Mr. TEAKLE: There were two ships. One was turned over to a man named 
Olsen, and he got a company formed to go into this particular cattle trade. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I remember now. What happened was this: those 
ships were fitted for carrying cattle on all decks. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Fitted with elevators. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: And it was a complete failure. And those who were 
engaged in this business, I think, lost what they put into it. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Did you sell the ships to them, Sir Henry or what 
happened to the ships? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Were not the ships rented? 

Mr. TEAKLE: As I remember, they were Norwegian ships, an outside com 
pany. They were not our ships. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: He got these ships and fixed them up, and he started 
in the business, and the result was I do not remember all the details of it that 
he failed. 

Mr. CANTLEY: One of the ships was tied up at St. John. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: He came to me for relief, and he wanted us to 
guarantee him at the bank. 



40 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It was Jansen. I thought you were talking about the 
C.G.M.M. ships. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, these were outside ships. 

Mr. DUFF: In that table of totals of freights export and import and inter- 
coastal, what do you mean by "inter-coastal"? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: From maritime ports to British Columbia ports 
through the Panama Canal. 

Mr. DUFF: How much foreign tonnage is in this? 

Mr. HENRY: The balance takes care of all our other trade. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The inter-coastal is between the two points in 
Canada. 

Mr. DUFF: The reason I asked about "inter-coastal " was that this speaks 
about your export and import, and that would seem as if it might be all Cana 
dian trade. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, that is from Canada to foreign ports. The inter- 
coastal, as I say, is between Canadian ports. 

Mr. JENKINS: On page 12 it would show you. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Have you any boats on the Great Lakes now? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: No, we have not. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Are we considering the general report or the annual 
report? 

The CHAIRMAN: We are taking the general report of Sir Henry first. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I thought perhaps we might take a short cut, and 
that if you went through this, by the time you got through it you would find 
that you had pretty well cleaned up the annual report. 

The CHAIRMAN: This report by Sir Henry Thornton, I understand, covers 
practically the whole thing in a concise form. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Will you explain what you mean by "Reserve for 
Depreciation," $15,000,000 how is that reserve made up, is it cash or what 
is it? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is a book-keeping, entry and there is no cash 
involved. 

The CHAIRMAN: Have you any further questions to ask on this state 
ment? 

Mr. JELLIFF: I thought, Mr. Chairman, I was going to get a little further 
information from the gentleman who is here as to the increase in business over 
the expense. He had not quite finished with me. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, I can give Mr. Jelliff some more information. For 
instance, in 1925 we had twenty voyages to Australia and New Zealand; and 
in this last year we had twenty-seven voyages to Australia and New Zealand. 
The longer voyages necessitate the extra cost in handling. We had two hun 
dred and forty-seven voyages against two hundred and forty-four voyages; 
we had three more voyages in this statement for 1926 as compared with 1925; 
and in the longer voyages, to Australia and New Zealand, we had seven more 
voyages. 

Mr. JENKINS: Did any of your normal voyages, for instance, take more 
time, which would involve larger wages and more expense? 

Mr. COOPER: Some of them would. Some ships meet delays, and others 
make their time right along. You cannot always depend upon them every day. 

Mr. DUFF: On page 8 in your assets, you have an amount here you 
have it every /ear in fact "Accounts Receivable," $1,328,000, in round figures. 



RAILWAYS AXD SHIPPING 41 

Then against that, on the liability or debit side, there is an item, "Balances of 
Uncompleted Voyages " $709,000. Why do you put that in? 

Mr. COOPER: The "Uncompleted Voyages" are carried forward into the 
next year, the balance on uncompleted voyages is carried forward into the 
next year. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is, if a voyage runs into the following year, 
you cany that cost into the following year. 

Mr. DUFF: Is that the whole cost or the partial cost? 

Mr. COOPER: That is the cost up to the end of the year. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: The reason is that it is generally a credit. Speak 
ing of the $709,000, we have received the revenue but have not met the entire 
cost. 

Mr. DUFF: If you have the total revenue, why should you not charge 
the cost of the voyage? 

Mr. COOPER: Because the voyage is not yet completed. 

Mr. DUFF: Then should not the credit of the receipts be made on the 
voyage? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: This is the usual accounting practice in such cases. 

Mr. DUFF: If you have all your freight credited, you should have a charge 
against that freight of the total cost of the voyages. 

Mr. COOPER: In the voyages to Australia, most of the freight is prepaid; 
but the boat is on its way; and the costs are not paid and will not be paid until 
the voyage is completed. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I suppose that balances from year to year any- 
way^ does it not? 

Mr. COOPER: This does not go into the Income Account. 

Mr. DUFF: But it makes your assets that much higher. 

Mr. COOPER: This is a credit balance. I am speaking of this item of 
$928,000. 

Mr. DUFF: Then that is all right, but what about the accounts receivable? 

Mr. COOPER: Those are freight charges which are not collected. 

Mr. DUFF: Is that on completed voyages. 

Mr. POWER: Is there any relationship between the Accounts Receivable 
and the Balances of Uncompleted Voyages? 

Mr. COOPER: To the extent that it is not paid, that is what the item of 
$1,328,000 is, all accounts due to the company. 

Mr. POWER: Whether Uncompleted Voyages or any other thing? 

Mr. COOPER: Yes. 

Mr. POWF.R: There is no real relation between the two at all. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is all. 

Mr. POWER: Your usual conduct is to ask payment of freight in advance? 

Mr. COOPER: I think the bulk of the freight is in advance. 

Mr. POWER: But sometimes you have allowed people credit, and those 
accounts have not been paid, and those are receivable during the whole year. 

Mr. COOPER: They are offset more by the Accounts Payable than by the 
Balance of Uncompleted Voyages. 

Mr. CANTLEY: The general practice is freight payable in advance. Until 
the war broke out there was practically no such thing, but it was payable on 
delivery of the Bill of Lading. 



42 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The Accounts Receivable are $1,300,000. Your total 
revenue is $10,900,000. Is it not a large proportion to have in the form of 
Accounts Receivable? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I will ask the Auditor to answer that. 

Mr. DAVIDSON : Part of that money is due from agents on the other side. It 
might be in Australia, England, or any other foreign part. Accounts Receivable 
$476,000; Outstanding Freight $402,000; Agents $407,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is three amounts of approximately $400,000 
each? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Do you make any provision for bad debts? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, sir, the charter is always operating; there are very few 
bad debts. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: You hold the goods, in practice? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Are all your freights payable in advance or at the time 
of delivery? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Excepting for a week or so, where we give a credit to 
shippers. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: To a large firm doing a considerable business, we 
might give a line of credit ; it would not be a large amount. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: What goes against that balance of $709,000? Is that a 
debit balance? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, it is a credit balance; that will be the disbursements, 
when they are received from foreign parts. For instance, on a voyage to Australia 
in December, that is not received until February or March; and we charge up 
that voyage with the disbursements and transfer the balance to closed voyages 
which will go into 1927 profit and loss. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Now will you take up the Operating Account. 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you will turn to Page 10 of the accounts, we will 
go through this. First are the capital Operating Revenues. Vessels with closed 
voyages, for the year 1926 $10,955,000; for 1925, $9,839.000; showing a gain of 
$1,115,000. Now, Operating Expenses. Vessels having closed voyages, for 
1926, $10,395,000, as compared with $10,177,000 for 1925; a difference of 
$218,135. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is an increase in Operating Expenses, which 
have been more or less dealt with before. 

The CHAIRMAN: Miscellaneous Wharf Expenses, $12,000 for 1926 as com- 
p^red with $20,000, a decrease of $8,000. Operation of Agencies, $167,000 for 
1926 as compared with $136,000 for 1925. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: What is the explanation of that increase of $31,000? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That is partly due to expenses for 1925 which were not 
charged up the first year, pending settlement as to the division of the expenses; 
so that we have two years expenses charged in 1926. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is our own office, you understand. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Were there any new agencies? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Brisbane Office was opened in October 1925; of course 
three months expenses were charged in 1925 as against one year in 1926. 

Mr. TEAKLE: The opening of that office means a saving in operating. 

The CHAIRMAN: Management and Office Salaries, for 1926, $352,111; for 
1925, $335,376; an increase of $16,735. 



-RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 43 

Mr. TEAKLE: Those are salary increases which have been meted out to 
the staff deserving of them. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Those are simply increases to clerks, stenographers, 
and so on. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Did it include superintendence? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: There was no increase to superintendence. 

The CHAIRMAN: Rent, Taxes and Insurance $13,188, for 1926, as com 
pared with $13,642 for 1925, a decrease of $454. Travelling Expenses in 1926, 
$22,948, as against $24,355 for 1925, a decrease of $1,387. Printing and 
Stationery, $16,479 for 1926, as compared with $6,000 for 1925. That is an 
increase of $10,464. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That was largely due to the practice being changed. 
Previous to 1925, it was the practice to charge up all the stationery expenses 
to Operating. At the end of 1925 we took stock of all the stationery on hand 
and credited the Stock Account; debiting that Stock Account with the value of 
the stationery, etc. used and carried it back to Operating, which accounts for 
the low charge in 1925. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: In other words, that was a revision of accounting 
practice. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Advertising, $25,000 as compared with $32,000, a decrease 
of $7,000; postages, cables and telegrams, $35,000 as compared with $32,000, 
an increase of about $2,500. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That was due to increased business. 

The CHAIRMAN: Office supplies and expenses, an increase of about $2,500. 

Mr. TEAKLE: That is the same thing. 

The CHAIRMAN: Miscellaneous expenses, a decrease of about $7,000. Other 
charges: Depreciation on vessels, a decrease of about $76,000. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That was at the same rate, four per cent. 

Mr. CANTLEY: What rate of depreciation are you charging off? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Four per cent. 

The CHAIRMAN: Interest on government advances, a decrease of about 
$75,000. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is occasioned by fewer vessels. 

The CHAIRMAN: Adjustment Department of Marine and Fisheries Account. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That is an old account. 

The CHAIRMAN: Reserves written back. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: That does not apply to 1926, either. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That was accumulated in 1925, and written back. 

The CHAIRMAN: The total loss as compared with the previous years is 
$982,291 less. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: A good showing. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Sir Henry, I would like to go into the deficit account 
a little, and the statement of interest due the Dominion Government, as at the 
31st December, 1926. I think the Committee should see what is involved in 
that. I do not think we touched upon that last year. The financial operation 
is a somewhat involved one, between the government and the Merchant Marine. 
That first item, $39,000,000, balance of deficit account at December 31, 1925, 
is the aggregate deficit from the beginning of the Merchant Marine? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Yes. 



44 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And you deduct the interest cancelled on notes due 
the Dominion Government? That means, the Dominion Government writes off 
the interest? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: That is right. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And the cancellation of the amount set up for deprecia 
tion of certain vessels what happened to that? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Those vessels were sold, and we wrote off the depreciation; 
it is credited back to the deficit account. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: It reduces your deficit account to that extent? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: So the total deficit account up to date, including the 
loss of last year, is $45,516,000; that is, in addition to any amount which the 
Government has written off from time to time in the form of interest? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. on vessels sold. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: There has been no writing off of interest on any 
vessel which is still owned by the Merchant Marine? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, sir. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The interest charge is still set up? 

Mr. DAVIDSON : Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The total interest written off by the Government is 
$20,636,109.51. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: No; that is what is due the Government. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The amounts cancelled are those defined by an 
asterisk before the figures in the third column, $335,000, $724,000, $1,788,000, 
and $478,000. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: A little over $3,000,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: What happens when you sell a vessel? What do you 
do with the money? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Turn it over to the Government. 

Sir HENRY THORXTON: We turn over the principal sum to the Government, 
to go along with the loss already incurred on that particular vessel. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: Does it go to the Receiver General? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I think it does, General. 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I thought you were going to change that system last 
year, but I suppose the amount involved was not worth it. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: The Finance Minister said he could not see it that 
way. He said it was bad enough to write off the interest, and he should at 
least receive the principal. 

Mr. JELLIFF: Was the "Settler" sold for cash? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. 

Mr. POWER: Is there any way of telling how much this whole fleet now 
actually stands the government? 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: Oh, yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: $45,000,000 and $3,000.000 interest on notes can 
celled totals $48,000,000, and in addition to that, there is the original cost. 

Mr. POWER: That is the total amount due the government from all sources? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: The total amount due the government is found on the 
balance sheet at pages eight and nine, $20,636,000; interest accrued on advances 
$1,940,000; that would be about $22,500,000. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Then there is the cost of the vessels. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 45 

Mr. DAVIDSON: That is interest on the cost of the vessels, plus the interest 
on advances. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And in addition you would have to take the amount 
written off by the government, which is $3,000,000. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, that would have to be included. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And the original capital cost. 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Then that last item in the first column represents 
the principal amount of the notes that is, the principal up to date for each 
year? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: There is no interest added to it, no compounding it? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: No. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Just the principal sum? 

Mr. DAVIDSON: Straight interest. 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: And so the amount the Merchant Marine stands the 
government to-day is $63,000,000 plus $45,000,000 plus $3,000,000 less deprecia 
tion reserve that would be about correct? 

Mr. HENRY: That is right. 

Mr. CANTLEY: Where do you get the $3,000,000? 

Hon. Mr. DUNNING: Written off by the government; it does not appear 
here at all. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: About $100,000,000. 

Mr. DUFF: I move the adoption of the report. 

Mr. CANTLEY: I second the motion. 

Motion agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN: Now, what about the estimates? 

Sir EUGENE FISET: I move the adoption of the estimates as they stand. 

Mr. JELLIFF": I second the motion. 

Motion agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes our business, gentlemen. 

Sir HENRY THORNTON: I congratulate the committee on the businesslike 
way in which its affairs have been conducted. 

Mr. DUFF: And I congratulate you, sir, upon the frank manner your 
officials have answered our questions. 

The Committee adjourned until the call of the Chair. 

Note. For following meeting, see Minutes of Proceedings of 7th April, 
p. xvii. 



46 SELECT STANDING-COMMITTEE 



APPENDIX 

MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY SIR HENRY THORNTON IN REPLY 
TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY MR. JENKINS 

Q. What capital expenditures are to be made on the Prince Edward Island 
Division in 1927? A. $209,000. 

Q. On terminals? A. $50,000. 

Q. The Eastern Section was spread last year. Is it to be ballasted and if 
so what portion? A. It is intended to do some ditching, widening cuts and 
surfacing during 1927. 

Q. Are new rails required? If so, what expenditure will be made in 1927? 
A. It is intended to install 32 miles of relay rail. 

Q. Several applications for new sidings at different points on the P.E. 
Island Division have been presented to the Management. Has the Manage 
ment given consideration to such requests? A. All applications for sidings are 
given careful consideration by the Management. (See also p. 31.) 



INDEX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES 

Cooper, T. H., General Auditor, C.N.R.: 

Describes accounting rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission re depreciation for 

rolling stock equipment, 6-7. 

Cost of haulage in connection with sleeping car charges, 14. 
Equipment charges for express, 15. 

There is no pension fund and no surplus is set aside in a fund for pensions, 26. 
Cannot always depend upon all ships to make voyages within a given time, 40. 
Uncompleted voyages account, how dealt with, 41. 

Davidson, F., Auditor, C.G.M.M., Ltd.: 

Statement re voyages to Australia and New Zealand, 40. 

Three items which make up Accounts Receivable, $1,300,000, 42. 

Explains practice re freight charges account, 42. 

Explains as to increase of 831,000 in Operation of Agencies account New Agency, the 
Brisbane office, 42. 

Explains increases of $10,464 in Printing and Stationery account Also decrease on 
Depreciation Charges account, 43, 44. 

Deficit Account Interest written off by the Government Total amount due the Gov 
ernment, etc., 44, 45. 

Doherty, J. P., Traffic Manager, C.G.M.M., Ltd.: 

Freight rates, general services Grain rates, 36. 

What is meant by out-of-pocket costs when cattle are carried instead of general cargo, 

38-39. 
Steamers specially fitted to carry a full cargo of cattle, 39. 

Henry, R. A. C., Director, Bureau of Economies, C.N.R.: 

Freight rates on grain shipments originating in the West and moving eastward break 

at the head of the lakes, 11. 

Cost of construction of express cars is chargeable to the General Equipment account, 15. 
Statement re expenditure of balance of estimates of 1926, 27, 28. 

Hungerford, S. J., Vice-President, C.N.R, Operation and Construction Department: 

Statement re certain increases when considering Transportation Expenses account, 21. 
Negotiations with shop men and maintenance-of-way men .progressing in respect to 
wage increases, 22. 

Robb, W. D., Vice-President, C.N.R., Departments of Land, Colonization, Insurance, Etc.: 

Statement re practice followed regarding the issue of Passes, 30. 

Teakle, R. B., General Manager, C.G.M.M.: 

Transportation rates on cattle shipments Loss on voyage from Montreal to European 

ports Total loss last year Outlook for cattle transportation this year, 35. 
Increase in expenses naturally follows increase in earnings How an increase of about 

$7 per ton. in expenses, is accounted for, 36. 
Statement re the sale of the Canadian Settler and cost of reconditioning same Price 

of Settler sold at, 37-38. 
Cost of voyage when carrying cattle and general cargo and relative proportion of cost 

for each, considered, 38-39. 

Two ships specially fitted to earn- full cargo of cattle Sale of one to a Mr. Olsen, 39. 
Brisbane office opened in October, 1925 Opening of game means a saving in operation 

expenses, 42. 
Salary increases to the staff deserving of same account for an increase of $16,735, in 

"Management and Office Salaries" account, 42-43. 
Increased business accounts for an increase of about $2,500 in " Office Supplies and 

Expenses " account, 43. 

Thornton, (K.B.E.), Sir Henry W., President, C.N.R. & C.G.M.M., and Chairman of 
the Boards: 

Proceeds to give a resume of an analysis showing the operating expenses of the C.N.R. 
System including the Central Vermont Railway, for 1926, as compared with the 
expenses for 1925, which are divided into 140 primary accounts, grouped under 
7 main heads, 1-5. 

47 

423245 



48 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

States that said operating expenses are classified in accordance with the accounting 

rules of the Canadian Bureau of Statistics, 1. 
Comparison of expenses, 1926, 1925, under 7 main heads, 2-5. 
Refers in general terms to details set forth in the 140 primary items as shown in the 

Annual Report Consideration of same, 5-26. 
Explains requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission re accounting rules in 

connection with American lines Points out difference in " Depreciation " account 
ing forms in respect to Canadian and American lines systems, 6-8. 
Gives a synopsis of the revenues for 1926 as compared with those for 1925, S-ll. 
Allocation of expenses as between freight and passenger service is not precise Explains 

practice in railway world, 11. 
Would say that losses are greater on transcontinental service than on local and suburban 

Explains advantages of the last named, 11-12. 
Electrification of railways, where profitable, 12. 
Diesel electric engine: describes merits and faults of same Still in experimental stage 

Engineers of all railroads working and studying it, 12-13. 

Various revenue accounts explained re increases and decreases as for 1926, 1925, 13-18. 
Explains policy of the company re transportation and opening of offices therefor New 

York office, 19-20. 
Maintenance of way and structures expenses and maintenance of equipment expenses, 

18-19. 

Superintendence and increases to existing staff Transportation expenses, 20. 
Impending strike and settlement re demands of conductors and trainmen Settlement 

with other classes of men being considered Explains what happened, and position 

taken re men on Canadian railways, after conference with Mr. Beatty, 20-22. 
Maritime situation and possible result of decrease in freight rates Employees pensions 

and policy of the company respecting same, 22-26. 
Policy of the company in respect, to insurance, explained, 24, 25. 
Explains investments in Victory Bonds and certain other bonds, 24. 
Examination of Annual Report, C.N.R., concluded Report adopted, 26. 
Estimates, C.N.R., considered Explains various items showing increases and decreases 

in same Total net decrease Estimates adopted, 27-28. 
Explains regulations governing the issue of passes, in reply to questions put by Mr. 

MacLaren. M.P. Particular reference to passes issued at Moncton, over the 

Atlantic Division Practice of all railway companies, under certain regulations 

Specified complaint re frequency of passes issued to a person, 29-30. 
Annual and trip passes, to whom given, 30. 
Evidence of, in reply to Questionnaire of Mr. Jenkins, M.P., re Transportation problem 

in Prince Edward Island Nine principal questions dealt with in statement given, 

31-32. 
Canadian Government Merchant Marine Synopsis of Annual Report showing operatins 

revenues and operating expenses; improvement in earnings; tonnage of exports and 

imports References to cattle and grain shipments, and insurance, 33. 
Explains how insurance reserve fund of $1,800,000 held in trust for the account of the 

Merchant Marine has been built up in the course of the last four years, 33^34. 
Accounts re Depreciation on Vessels, Interest on Government Advances, Adjustment 

Department of Marine and Fisheries, Reserves Written Back, dealt with, 34. 
Relations with Atlantic Combine are amicably competitive, 36. 
Sale of three vessels: Canadian Gunner, Canadian Harvester and Canadian Settler 

during the year, 34-35, 37-38. 

Explains "Inter-coastal" and "Uncompleted Voyages." 40-41. 
Rate of "Depreciation on Vessels " chargeable at four per cent. 43. 
Deficit Account and Statement of Interest due the Dominion Government, as at 31st 

December, 1926, 43-45. 
Annual Report and Estimates, C.G.M.M., adopted, 45. 

GENERAL SUBJECTS 

Accounts re Operating Expenses of C.N.R. System: 

Divided into 140 primary, these being grouped under 7 main heads Analysis of sub 
mitted by the President, Sir Henry Thornton, 1-5. 

Advertising: 

Expenses on account of C.N.R. traffic, 4. 19. 

Advertised everywhere re sale of the Canadian Gunner, Canadian Harvester and Cana 
dian Settler, 34. 

Agencies, Outside: 

Expenses on account of C.N.R. traffic, 4, 19. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 49 

American Lines, C.N.R. System: See United States Business, Revenue and Expenses. 

Atlantic Combine: 

Relations with, are amicably competitive, 36. 

Ballast: 

Amount of increase for, in Operating Expenses account, 2. 

Bridges, Trestle? and Culverts: 

Amount of decrease for, in Operating Expenses account, 2. 

Brisbane Office, C.G.M.M.: 

Office opened in October, 1925 It means a saving, 42. 

British Empire Exhibition: 

Reference to, in evidence relating to traffic expenses, 19. 

Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited: 

Insurance C.G.M.M. fund entered in the Canadian National Railways account, Item 

721, and reason therefor, considered, 24-26. 
Policy of insurance Premiums chargeable to the fleet Reserve fund built up within 

the course of the last four years, 33-34. 

Annual Report, 1926, re expenditures and revenues considered, 33-45. Adopted, 45. 
Estimates, considered and adopted, 45. 
Vessels sold, three, during the year, 34. 

Canadian National Railways System : 

Analysis of 1926 operating expenses accounts, including those of the Central Vermont 

Railway, 1-5. 
Annual Report, comprising expenses accounts, considered, 5-7, 18-26 Comprising 

revenues accounts, considered, 8-18. 

Annual Report of C.N.R., on motion, received and adopted, 26. 
Estimates considered and adopted, 27-28. 
Prince Edward Island. Division of Questionnaire of Mr. Jenkins, M.P., and evidence 

in reply thereto, 31-32. 

"Canadian Settler", "Canadian Gunner" and "Canadian Harvester": 

Sale of vessels Price sold at Purchasers, 34. 

Particulars of the sale of the Canadian Settler Cost of reconditioning her, 37-38, 44. 

Cattle Shipments: 

Number of, handled in 1925 and 1926, 33. 

Freight charges per head Operating at a loss, 35. 

Cause of extra cost when carrying cattle instead of general cargo, 38-39. 

Central Vermont Railway: 

Accounts of, included with those of the C.N.R., in 1926, 1, 8. 
Freight, revenue of, 10. 

Coal: 

Owing to strike in Great Britain, C.G.M.M. had to bunker for round trip voyages at 
Atlantic ports, thereby using up valuable cargo space, 33, 36. 

Decreases, Principal: 

Principal decreases in operating expenses, analysis of, 2, 3, 4. 

Deficit Account, C.G.M.M.: 

Particulars of, re interest due the Government Balance of deficit at 31st December, 
1925 Aggregate deficit Deductions Total amount due the Government, 43-45. 

Depreciation Account: 

System of accounting in respect to depreciation conforms with one exception with that 
of the Interstate Commerce Commission, particulars of which are considered, 6-7. 
Amount written off for depreciation last year in connection with American lines, 6. 
Depreciation on vessels account, showing a decrease, 43. 



50 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Diesel Locomotive: 

Intensive study given to the development of the Diesel electric engine Two large 

units of same have been examined Now in use in Germany and in Russia, 12. 
Merits of, and faults pointed out 13. 

Dining and Buffet: See Revenues, C.N.R. Company. 

Electrification of Railways: 

Greatly misunderstood Profitable only where density of traffic exceeds the capacity 
of a steam operated railway Extremely expensive, 12. 

Estimates (1927) Canadian Government Merchant Marine: 

Considered and adopted, 45. 

Estimates (1927) Canadian National Railways System: 

Considered, 27-28. 

Decrease in interest on funded and other debt Decrease in G.T.P. guaranteed interest 
Increase in sinking fund payments Decrease in equipment payment of principal 
Grand Trunk Railway guaranteed four per cent, no change Decrease on new 
equipment Increase on account of general additions and betterments Decrease 
on account of Chateau Laurier Increase on account of discounts on securities, 27. 

How estimates of resources are arrived at, 28. 

Estimates adopted, 28. 

Excess Baggage: Sec Revenues, C.N.R. Company. 

Expenses (1926) of C.G.M.M., Operating: 

Increase of, entirely due to additional expense incurred by handling increased business 
Insurance and net result, 33-34. 

Depreciation on vessels Adjustment re Account of Marine and Fisheries Department 
Reserves Written Back account, credit Advertising for sale of three vessels 
Amount of increase in expenses, $256,000 accounted for in many ways, 34-37. 

Expenses in connection with the Canadian Settler, 37-38. 

Material additional expense caused on account of coal strike when vessels were obliged 
to bunker for round trip voyages, 36. 

Out-of-pocket costs when carrying cattle, 38-39. 

Total operating expenses for 1926, as compared with those of 1925, 42. 

Miscellaneous wharf expenses Operation of agencies New office at Brisbane Man 
agement and office salaries Rent, taxes and insurance, travelling, printing and 
stationery, advertising, postages, cables and telegrams, miscellaneous, 42-43. 

Expenses (1926) of C.N.R. Company, Operating: 

Tabulated statement of, grouped under seven main heads showing comparison of 

expenses as for 1926 and 1925. 2. 
Details of, as shown in Annual Report, pages 17 to 20, and set out to show respective 

increases and decreases under each main head, viz., Maintenance of Way and 

Structures, etc., 2-5. 
Further details of expenses for purposes of comparison, into Employees Compensation 

and Wages item, and Material and Miscellaneous item, 1926 and 1925, 2. 
Expenses of purely United States business was eighty-two and a fraction per cent of 

the gross proceeds, 8. 
Further consideration of expenses under the following headings: Maintenance of Way 

and Structures Maintenance of Equipment Traffic, including superintendence, 

outside agencies, advertising, salaries, 18-19. 
Transportation, including wages, fuel, engine house, 20-23. 
Miscellaneous General, including pension allowances Insurance Dining and Sleeping 

Car Service, 23-26. 

Freight Cars: 

Percentage of, serviceable, 1926, 1925. showing improvement, 3. 
Repairs of, showing amount of increase in expenses account, 3. 
Retirements of, showing decrease of amount, 3. 

Freight Rates: 

Rates changed for cattle, from Montreal. Quebec or St. John, 35. 

Rate reduction voluntarily put on Tendency of freight rates has been downward, 36. 
Decrease of freight rates on the Maritime division as per intent of legislation, con 
sidered, 23. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 51 

Freight Receipts: 

Item No. 101 showing totals for 1926 and 1925, 9. 

Amount of revenue accrued on freight traffic originating; west of the Lakes or Western 
Region American business Central Region Atlantic Region Grand Trunk 
Western Line Duluth and Winnipeg Central Vermont, 9-10, 18. 

Freight Revenue, Payments, Etc., C.G.M.M.: 

Bulk of freight charges is payable in advance Total revenue Total accounts Receiv 
able comprising Outstanding Freight, and Agents accounts Might give a line of 
credit to a large firm doing considerable business, 41-42. 

Fuel: 

For yard and train locomotives, decreases in operating expenses, 4. 

Grain Elevators: 

Item 139, showing revenues, 1926, 1925 Explanation given regarding revenue in 
1926, 17. 

Grain Traffic Revenue: 

Revenue accrued from shipments of grain east and west bound, originating in the 

Western Region. 18. 
Increase of grain, and other rates in shipments from Canadian ports, 33. 

Grand Trunk Western Division, C.N.R. : 

Amount of revenue accrued including also amount of the D.W. & P., 10. 

Increases and Decreases, Principal: 

Various increases and decreases set forth in analysis of Operating Expenses accounts, 
2, 3, 4, 5. 

Insurance: 

Policy of the C.N.R. Company regarding insurance, 24. 
How Insurance fund of $8,049.000 was built up, 24, 25. 

Item including C.G.M.M. insurance fund in the Canadian National Railways fund, 
explained, 24-26, 33-34. 

Inter-Coastal Freights : 

Explanation of, as between two points in Canada, also via Panama canal from Mari 
time ports to British Columbia ports, 40. 

Interstate Commerce Commission: 

Ite system of accounting described, requiring more detail in connection with deprecia 
tion for rolling stock equipment entries in Primary Account, 6. 
Order from, in August,, 1926, re revenue from the Wabash, 18. 

Investments: 

Insurance fund invested in Victory Bonds, Detroit and Shore Line Bonds, and Pontiac, 
Oxford and Northern Bonds Amount invested, 24. 

Jenkins (M.P.), R- H.: 

Questions relating to the Prince Edward Island division of the C.N.R., and Sir Henry 
Thornton s answers thereto, 31-32. See also Appendix to Evidence, p. 45. 

Locomotives : 

Percentage of, serviceable in 1926, 1925, showing improvement Steam Locomotive 
Retirements account, showing amount of decrease, 3. 

MacLaren (M.P.), M.: 

Questions relating to the issuing of passes, and -Sir Henry Thornton s answers thereto, 
29-30. 

Maintenance of Way and Structures: 

Primary accounts, number of, 1. 

Comparison of expenses. 1926, 1925, under this head as set out in the Analysis, 2-3. 

Amount of increase for 1926 over that of 1925 due to ties, ballast, tracklaying and 

surfacing, station and office buildings, and removing snow, sand and ice, 3, 18-19. 
Decreases noted in roadway maintenance, bridges, trestles and culverts, shops and 

engine houses, 3, 19. 



52 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Maintenance of Equipment: 

Primary accounts, number of, 1. 

Comparison of expenses, 1926, 1925, under this head as set out in the Analysis, 2-3. 
Increases and decreases of. set forth under primary accounts headings, 3. 
Factors affecting maintenance of equipment expenses, 4, 19. 

Maritime Division (Atlantic Region), C.N.R. : 

Amount of revenue from traffic, etc., 10, 11. 
Decrease in the freight rate that has been given to, 22-23. 

How protection in respect to pensions is given to Intercolonial and Prince Edward 
Island employees, 23-24. 

Miscellaneous : 

Primary accounts, number of, 1. 

Comparison of expenses, 1926, 1925, 2-3, 5, 23. 

New York Office, C.N.R. : 

New office opened in 1925 on Fifth avenue Amount of rental What the object was 
in opening this office in respect to transportation, immigration and colonization, 
19-20. 

Passenger Account: 

Item 102, showing revenue, 1926, 1925, increase of about $1,400,000, 11. 

Loss estimated on passenger traffic No precise formula in allocating the expenses 

charged against passenger traffic, 11. 
Profitable, and unprofitable business in passenger service, considered, as between 

suburban, local and transcontinental traffic, 11-12. 

Passenger Rates: 

It is admitted that passenger rates are now higher than they were before the war 

Quite irrespective of what passenger rates should be there is a limit beyond which 
one cannot go, 13. 

Passes : 

Regulations governing the issuing of passes explained, 29-30. 

Pensions and Pensioners: 

Increase set out under main heading " General practically entirely due to an increase 
in Account No. 457 Pensions. 5. 

Number of pensioners, 1925, 1926 Provident Fund of the Intercolonial and Prince 
Edward Island Railway insufficient to meet current obligations Amounts imple 
mented by company in 1926, 1925, 5. 

Procedure followed in respect to pensions A Bill will eventually be brought before 
the House which will correct and simplify the whole of the Pension system Pen 
sioners are protected although they are not on the pension roll, 23-24. 

Prince Edward Island Railway: 

Series of questions put by Mr. Jenkins. M.P., and answers thereto by Sir Henry Thorn 
ton, 31-32. See also appendix to the evidence at page 45. 

Provident Fund, I.C.R. & P.E.I. Railways: Sec "Pensions and Pensioners." 

Pullman Cars : 

Operated when running into the United States Expect to take them off by the middle 
of summer or early autumn Procedure followed in keeping Pullman car accounts, 14. 

Pullman Company Contract : 

How earnings are divided in accordance with contract entered into The 1916 contract 
between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Pullman Company, 15. 

Rails : 

A larger program of rail relaying in 1926 was one of the factors which increased the 
maintenance-of-way and structures expenses, 3. 

Regions. Atlantic. Central and Western, C.N.R.: 

Revenues of C.N.R. operations according to Atlantic, Central and Western Regions, 10. 



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING 53 

Repairs and Retirements: 

Principal increases and decreases for repairs and retirements set forth in respect to freight 
train cars, passenger cars, motor car equipment, steam locomotives and work equip 
ment, 3, 19. 

Report of C.N.R. Company, Annual: 

An analysis of the Annual Report of the Canadian National Railways Company, 1926, 
comprising 140 primary expense accounts; also Revenue accounts, considered, 1-26. 
Report adopted, 26. 

Report of C.G.M.M., Limited, Annual: 

A synopsis of the Annual Report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, 
Limited, showing operating revenues and expenses for the year 1926, considered, 
33-^5. 

Report adopted, 45. 

Reports of the Committee: 

First report recommending that leave be given the Committee -to print their minutes 

of proceedings and the evidence taken by them. xii. 
Second report recommending that leave be given the Committee to sit while the House 

is in session, xii. 
Third and Final report comprising list of names of persons who gave evidence, also 

findings and recommendations of the Committee, xii-xiii. 

Revenues, C.N.R. System: 

Gross revenues for 1926, 1925, showing increase Revenue of purely United States 
business Revenue of business that crosses the border, either from the United States 
to Canada or from Canada to the United States, 8-9. 

Freight receipts. 9-11. 

Passenger receipts, 11-12. 

Excess baggage receipts, 13. 

Sleeping car receipts, 14. 

Mail, express, other passenger trains, milk, receipts, 15. 

Switching, Special service train. Other freight train. Water transfers Passengers, Water 
transfers Vehicles and live stock, Dining and buffet, restaurant, station, Train and 
boat privileges, parcel room, storage-freight, receipts, 16. 

Storage-baggage, demurrage, telegraph and telephones, grain elevators, power, rents of 
buildings and other property, miscellaneous including Victoria bridge and Inter 
national bridge tolls. Joint facility credit, 17. 

Joint facility debit, 18. 

Revenues, C.G.M.M., Limited: 

Operating revenues increased by $1,115,000, 33. 
Various factors given showing improvements, 33-41. 
Total revenues, 1926. 1925, 42. 
Proceeds from the sale of three vessels, 34. 

Roadway Maintenance: 

Decrease in expenses, 1926. 8100,337, 2. 

Expense involved in 1925 not recurring in 1926, 3. 

Shops and Engine Houses: 

Decrease in expense, 1926, $49,855. 

Sleeping Cars: 

Revenue of in 1826 as compared with that of 1925. showing increase Present situation 
of company re ownership of sleeping cars, 14, 15. 

Snow, Sand and Ice, Removing: 

Increase of expense for 1926, 2. 

Weather conditions in the early months of 1926 on the Atlantic Region, cause of 
increase, 3. 

Station and Office Buildings: 

Amount of increase in expense account, 2. 

The increase in station and office building expenses was caused by the necessity of 
heavy repairs at Halifax, Winnipeg and Prince Rupert, 3. 



54 SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 

Strike, Impending: 

Settled with the conductors and trainmen re wage increase which took effect on 1st 
December, 1926 Negotiations now on in respect to all other classes, 20-22. 

Strike in Great Britain, Coal Mines: 

Obliged to bunker coal for round trip voyages, hence material additional expense, 33, 36. 

Superintendence : 

Amount of increase of expense, 3. 

Explanation of increase of expense re superintendence given, 19. 

Telegraph and Telephones: 

Amount of revenue, 1926, 1925, 17. 

Ties: 

Amount of increase in expense for ties, 2. 

Over one million more ties installed in 1926 than in 1925, 3. 

Amount of increase also due to changes in price of materials, as well as quantity used, 3. 

Tolls: 

Increase of revenue under " Miscellaneous " for 1926, partly due to an. increase in the 
Victoria bridge and International bridge tolls, 17. 

Tonnage : 

Number of tons of freight handled by the C.G.M.M. for export and import in 1926, 
1925, 36. 

Traffic : 

Traffic expenses, 1926, 1925, 2, 4. 

Items of expense in connection with traffic further considered, 19. 

Traffic receipts considered, 9-12. 

Tracklaying and Surfacing: 

Amount of increase in expense for, 2. 

Increase of expense was due to installation of additional ties, 3, 19. 

Transportation : 

Number of primary accounts relating to, 1. 

Expenses for 1926, 1925 shown in analysis, 2. 

Statement of increases and decreases for various account under main head, 4. 

Expenses further considered in evidence given, 20-23. 

United States Business: 

Gross revenue accrued from purely American business, 8. 

Revenue accrued from international business having to cross the border, 9. 

Estimated profit. 8. 

Further details of American business considered, 9-10. 

Vessels, Sale of: 

Particulars of the sale of the Canadian Gunner, Canadian Harvester and Canadian 

Settler, 34. 
Further particulars re sale of the Canadian Settler, 37-38. 

Victory Bonds, Investments in: See "Investments", 24. 

Voyages, Uncompleted: 

Item "Balances of Uncompleted Voyages" explained, 41. 

Wabash Section : 

Change of accounting practice relative to this joint revenue account to conform with 
order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See pages 17-18 at Items 151, 152. 

Wages, Employees Compensation: 

Items set forth showing decrease or increase, 1926, 1925, 2, 4. 

Wages re Transportation Expenses: 

Increase $1,006.783 under item "Transportation" mostly absorbed in wages to train 
engine,rnen, yardmasters and yard clerks,, vard conductors and brakemen, yard 
enginemen and trainmen, 20. 

Wage Situation re Impending Strike: See "Strike, Impending", 20-22. 



17 GEORGE V APPENDIX No. 2 A" 1926-27 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 



SPECIAL COMMITTEES 

OF THE 

SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS 

MEETING IN JOINT SESSION 

TO INQUIRE INTO THE CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES 

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS SET FORTH IN THEIR PETITION 

SUBMITTED TO PARLIAMENT IN JUNE 1926 



SESSION 1926-27 



PROCEEDINGS, REPORTS AND THE EVIDENCE 



Printed by Order of Parliament 




OTTAWA 

F. A. ACLAND 

PRINTER TO THE KING S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 

1927 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAQE 

Members of the Committee iv 

Order of Reference v 

Reports of the Committee v 

Petition to Parliament, June, 1926 xix 

Minutes of Proceedings xxv 

Minutes of Evidence including papers and records submitted in relation 

thereto 1-244 

Index of Evidence. . 245 



42325 AJ 



IV SPECIAL COMMITTEE 



MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS 

HAY, Mr. F, WELLINGTON, Chairman 
and Messieurs 

Stewart, Hon. Charles (Edmon- Morin, L. S. R. (St. Hyacinthe- 

ton West), Rouville), 

McPherson, E. A., Stevens, Hon. H. H., 

Bennett, Hon. R. B., Boys, W. A. 

WALTER HILL, 

Clerk of the Committee for the Commons. 



MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE FOR THE SENATE 

Hon. HEWITT BOSTOCK, Chairman 
(Speaker of the Senate) 

and Hon. Senators: 

Belcourt, N. A., Murphy, Chas., 

Barnard, G. H., Taylor, J. D., 

Green, R. F., McLennan, J. S- 

A. H. HINDS, 

Clerk of the Committee for the Senate. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. v 

ORDER OF REFERENCE 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 

OTTAWA, March 8, 1927. 

Resolved, That a Special Committee of this House consisting of Messrs. 
Stewart (Edmonton West), Hay, McPherson, Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), 
Stevens, Bennett, and Boys, be appointed to meet with a similar Special Com 
mittee of the Senate, if such Committee be appointed, to inquire into the claims 
of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set forth in their petition sub 
mitted to Parliament in June, 1926; and that such Committee have power to 
send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time by bill 
or otherwise. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk of the House. 



THURSDAY, March 24, 1927. 

Ordered, That 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of evidence 
to be taken by the said Committee, and of papers and records to be incorpor 
ated with such evidence, be printed, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation 
thereto. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk of the House. 



THURSDAY, March 31, 1927 

Ordered, That the said Committee have leave to sit while the House is 
sitting. 

Attest. 

ARTHUR BEAUCHESNE, 

Clerk of the House. 



REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES 

FIRST REPORT 

TUESDAY, March 22, 1927. 

The Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the Allied 
Indian tribes of British Columbia, beg; leave to present the following as their 
First Report: 

Your Committee recommend that 500 copies in English and 200 copies in 
French of evidence to be taken, and of papers and records to be incorporated 
with such evidence, be printed, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation 
thereto. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

F. W. HAY, 

Chairman. 

Note. This Report, was concurred in on 24th March. See Journals, p. 393. 



vi SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

SECOND AND FINAL REPORT 

MONDAY, April 11, 1927. 

The Special Committees of the Senate and House of Commons appointed 
to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as 
set forth in their Petition presented to Parliament in June, 1926, beg to submit 
their Second and Final Report: 

The Committees convened on March 22nd, 1927, and held prolonged sittings 
on March 30th, 1927, March 31st, 1927, April 4th, 1927, April 5th, 1927, and 
April 6th, 1927, at which the following witnesses were examined: 

Mr. Duncan C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; 

W. E. Ditc hburn, Indian Commissioner for British Columbia; 

Mr. W. A. Found, Director of Fisheries; 

Mr. John Chisholm, Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice; 

Andrew Paull, Secretary of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia; 

Chief John Chillihitza, of the Nicola Valley Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia; 

Rev. P. R. Kelly, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Allied Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia; 

Chief Basil David, of the Bonaparte Indian Tribe of British Columbia. 

In addition to the foregoing witnesses, there also appeared the following 
Counsel who addressed the Committee on behalf of their respective clients, 
viz: 

A. E. O Meara, Counsel for the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia; 
A. D. Mclntyre, Counsel for the Indian Tribes of the Interior of British 
Columbia. 

As Interpreters for Chief John Chillihitza and Chief Basil David, there were 
also present: 

Mrs. Julian Williams and Mr. William Pierrish. 

The evidence of the witnesses and the arguments of Counsel were taken 
down in shorthand and printed from day to day. The printed reports of such 
evidence and arguments also contain the documents and other material in writ 
ing that were submitted to your Committee by the witnesses and the Counsel 
who appeared before it. 

It is thought proper to refer to the manner in which the evidence given by 
the Rev. P. R. Kelly, Mr. Andrew Paull, Chief Chillihitza and Chief Basil David, 
the Indian witnesses was presented. The Chiefs spoke through their inter 
preters, who translated the Indian language into English in a competent way. 
The evidence of Messrs. Kelly and Paull was given in idiomatic English, clearly 
and forcibly expressed, and both the matter of their evidence and the manner 
of presentation were highly acceptable to your Committee. Due praise should 
be accorded them, and the Indian members of their organization can be assured 
of the competent and thorough fashion in which they dealt with the case. 

It may be informative to include here a brief historical retrospect which 
will summarize the facts regarding the occupation of the country now known as 
British Columbia. 

On March 29th, 1778, the famous explorer Captain Cook with two ships 
(the Resolution and the Discovery) arrived at Hope Bay near Nootka, which 
place he made his headquarters and made repairs, and from which point he 
explored the coast northward until he struck the Arctic ice. The next year 
Captain Clerke who had accompanied Captain Cook returned to the coast from 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. VH 

the Sandwich Islands where the vessels had wintered and continued the 
explorations, again making Nootka his headquarters. During the next ten years 
many ships visited the coast exploring and trading. In 1788 Captain John 
Meares formed an extensive establishment at Nootka, and in 1799 two Spanish 
warships under Don Stephen Joseph Martinez appeared. at Nootka and seized 
Captain Meares buildings and settlement and ships, one of which named the 
Northwest American was the first boat to be built on the Pacific Coast. As a 
result of this action on the part of the Spaniards the British Government 
demanded of Spain restitution of Nootka and the territory tributary thereto, 
together with an indemnity for losses sustained. For a time Spain resisted this 
demand and it appeared that war would be the result, but finally a settlement was 
made by Articles of Convention of October 28th, 1790. The Articles of Convention 
were to be given effect to at Nootka, and Spain despatched Don Juan Francisco 
de la Bodega y Quadra while Britain entrusted her interest to Captain George 
Vancouver with instructions that he should explore the coast and then go to 
Nootka " to be put in possession of the buildings, districts or parcels of land 
which were occupied by His Majesty s subjects in the month of April, 1789, 
agreeable to the first article of the late Convention." These two parties met 
finally at Nootka but failed to agree as to the area that was to be delivered. Cap 
tain Vancouver insisted upon all of that area in which trading and exploration 
had been carried on by the British, while the Spaniards desired to restrict the 
area ceded to Nootka. During the following year Captain Vancouver continued 
his explorations to Alaska and the following year concluded his survey of the 
whole coast. Finally on March 28, 1795, the actual surrendering of the country 
was made to Lieut. Thomas Pierce of the Royal Marines by Brig.-General Alva 
and Lieut. Cosme Bertodano. The whole area claimed by Captain Vancouver 
was included in the transfer; which area included that territory later known as 
the State of Washington and the whole coast of British Columbia northward to 
the Alaskan boundary. 

Two other explorers Simon Fraser and Alexander Mackenzie explored por 
tions of interior British Columbia approaching from east of the Rocky Moun 
tains. In each case these well known explorers mistook what was later called 
the Fraser River for the upper reaches of the Columbia River, indicating that 
it was considered at that early time that the British territory east of the moun 
tains extended through to the mouth of the Columbia River. 

In 1846, the boundary line between Canada and the United States was fixed 
at the 49th parallel by Great Britain and the United States after a period of 
warm dispute. Prior to this the British had claimed the territory now known 
as the States of Washington and Oregon, and it will be noted that these two 
Governments at that time recognized that one or the other were in possession 
of this area and by Treaty between the two countries fixed the boundary line. 

Later a dispute arose as to whether or not San Juan Island was in British 
territory or American. The British Government maintained their right to this 
Island as evidenced by a despatch from Lord Russell to Lord Lyon, British 
Minister at Washington, dated August 24th, 1859, in which he said: 

Her Majesty s Government must therefore under any circumstances 
maintain the right of the British Crown to the Island of San Juan. 

Again indicating that the land was viewed as belonging to the Crown. This 
dispute was finally settled by reference to the Emperor of Germany for arbitra 
tion in favour of the United States on October 21st, 1872. 

In 1858 Lord Lytton wrote Governor Douglas instructions regarding the 
attitude of the British Government towards the Colony, and used the following 
language: 

You will keep steadily in view that it is the desire of this country 
that representative institutions and self-government should prevail in 



viii SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

British Columbia. ... A party of Royal Engineers will be despatched 
to the Colony immediately. It will devolve upon them to survey those 
parts of the country which may be considered most suitable for settle 
ment, to mark out allotments of land for public purposes, etc. 

Here again is evidence of the recognition of the lands as belonging to the Crown. 
And the record shows that the land was surveyed and lots were later put on 
sale. 

It is claimed that no conquest had ever been made of the territory of 
British Columbia. The historic records would seem to indicate that this is not 
accurate. All. the posts of the Hudson s Bay Company were fortified and the 
officers and servants of the Company were prepared to resist hostile attacks. 
When a fort was established at Victoria a band of Cowichan Indians under 
Chief Tzouhalen seized and slaughtered several animals belonging to the whites. 
The official in charge, Roderick Finlayson, demanded payment for the animals, 
which was peremptorily refused. In this action Chief Tzouhalen was upheld 
by Chief Tsilatchach of the Songhees and the Indian s attacked the fort, but 
were easily over-awed by artillery and later approached the fort to sue for 
peace. The historic records contain numerous other like references. The fort 
just mentioned was established at Victoria in 1848, and in 1849 Vancouver was 
made a Crown Colony. British Columbia (the mainland and Queen Charlotte 
Islands) was made a Crown Colony in 1858, and the two colonies were united 
in 1866. British Columbia entered Confederation on the 20th July, 1871. 

The Report of your Committee on the proceedings may now be resumed. 

Ait the outset it was made evident that the Indians were not in agreement 
as to the nature of their claims. For instance, the representatives of the Indian 
Tribes in the interior of British Columbia did not make any claim to any land 
of the Province based on an oboriginal title. The representatives of the Allied 
Indian tribes, on the other hand, practically rested their whole case upon an 
alleged aboriginal title through which they claimed about 251,000 square miles 
out of a total area of approximately 355,855 square miles in the Province of 
British Columbia. This latter point, for the sake of convenience, should be 
first dealt with, as its elimination will leave for consideration only matters in 
regard to which the Indians of British Columbia may be said to have a common 
interest. 

Early in the proceedings it developed that the aboriginal title claimed was 
first presented as a legal claim against the Crown about fifteen years ago. The 
claim then began to take form -as one which should be satisfied by a treaty or 
agreement with the Indians in which conditions and terms put forward by them 
or on their behalf must be considered and agreed upon before a cession of the 
alleged title would be granted. Tradition forms so large a part of Indian men 
tality that if in pre-Confederation days the Indians considered they had an 
aboriginal title to the lands of the Province, there would have been tribal records 
of such being transmitted from father to son, either by word of mouth or in 
gome other customary way. But nothing of the kind was shown to exist. On 
the contrary the evidence of Mr. Kelly goes to confirm the view that the Indians 
were consenting parties to the whole policy of the government both as to reserves 
and other benefits which they accepted for years without demur. (See page 
224 for Mr. Kelly s evidence, also the dispatch of Mr. Pearse at page 227 to be 
found in full in a dispatch dated 21st October, 1868, from B. W. Pearse to the 
Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works in the Sessional paper of British 
Columbia 1876, 39 Vic. page 212-13). The fact was admitted that it was not 
until about fifteen years ago that aboriginal title was first put forward as a 
formal legal claim by those who ever since have made it a bone of contention 
and by some a source of livelihood as well. 

The Committee note with regret the existence of agitation, not only in 
British Columbia, but with Indians in other parts of the Dominion, which 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. ix 

agitation may be called mischievous, by which the Indians are deceived and led 
to expect benefits from claims more or less fictitious. Such agitation, often carried 
on by designing white men, is to be deplored, and should be discountenanced, as 
the Government of the country is at all times ready to protect the interests of 
the Indians and to redress real grievances where such are shown to exist. 

Counsel representing the Allied Indian Tribes continued to press the 
aboriginal title claim upon the attention of successive Governments, and although 
the Government was willing to litigate the claim, Counsel for the Indians sought 
permission to take the matter direct to the Imperial Privy Council, instead of 
first submitting it for judicial decision to the Courts of Canada. This the Gov 
ernment very properly declined to do; but at the same time it made a generous 
offer to the Indians, the details of which are embodied in an Order in Council 
passed on June 20th, 1914. The full text of this Order in Council was as 
follows: - 

P.C. 751 
Privy Council 
Canada 

Certified Copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved 
by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 20th June, 1914. 

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a Report from 
the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, dated llth March, 1914, sub 
mitting the accompanying memorandum from the Deputy Superintendent 
General of Indian Affairs upon the Indian claim to the lands of the Province of 
British Columbia, in which he concurs. 

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Superintendent General of 
Indian Affairs, advise that the claim be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada 
with the right of appeal to the Privy Council under the following conditions: 

1. The Indians of British Columbia shall, by their Chiefs or representatives, 

in a binding way, agree, if the Court, or on appeal, the Privy Council, 
decides that they have a title to lands of the Province to surrender such 
title receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for extinguish 
ment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying 
the Indian claim to unsurrendered territories, and to accept the finding 
of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia as 
approved by the Governments of the Dominion and the Province as 
a full allotment of Reserve lands to be administered for their benefit 
as part of the compensation. 

2. That the Province of British Columbia by granting the said reserves as 

approved shall be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians against 
the Province. That the remaining considerations shall be provided 
and the cost thereof borne by the Government of the Dominion of 
Canada. 

3. That the Government of British Columbia shall- be represented by 

counsel, that the Indians shall be represented by counsel nominated 
and paid by the Dominion. 

4. That, in the event of the Court or the Privy Council deciding that the 

Indians have no title in the lands of the Province of British Columbia, 
the policy of the Dominion towards the Indians shall be governed by 
consideration of their interests and future development. 
All which is respectfully submitted for approval. 

RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, 

Clerk of the Privy Council. 
The Honourable 

The Superintendent General 

of Indian Affair?. 



X SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Instead of accepting the offer thus made by the Government, it was rejected 
and Counsel for the Indians kept up a correspondence on irrelevant issues with 
the then Minister of Justice until the latter gentleman ended the controversy 
with the following letter: 

OTTAWA, 14th November, 1914. 

The Reverend ARTHUR E. O MEARA, B.A., 
Prince George Hotel, 
Toronto, Ont. 

SIR: It is in my view unnecessary to correct the narrative of your 
letter of the 26th ultimo, because except in the two points which I am 
going to mention it is immaterial to any question now under considera 
tion. 

As to your remark that it has always been the view of those advising 
the Nishgas that the only feasible method of securing a judicial deter 
mination of the rights of the Indians of British Columbia is that of bring 
ing their claims directly before His Majesty s Privy Council, I wish you 
would realize and endeavour to convince those whom you describe as 
advising the Nishgas that this Government has no power or authority 
to refer a question directly to His Majesty s Privy Council; that_ the 
only constitutional method of obtaining the judicial view of His Majesty 
in Council relating to a question limited to the internal affairs of Canada 
is by appeal from the local tribunals, and that His Royal Highness 
Government is determined for these reasons, which have been so often 
explained to you and those whom you profess to represent, not to advise 
or concur in any proceedings looking to a decision in which the courts 
of the Dominion shall not have an opportunity to express their views. 
If, therefore, it be possible for me to make any statement here which 
can consistently with the amenities of official correspondence, impress 
you with the futility of urging upon this government a reference direct 
to the Judicial Committee, I beg of you to consider that statement 
incorporated in this letter. 

The policy of the Government with regard to the British Columbia 
Indian question is very clearly stated in the Order in Council of 20th 
June last, and you should, I think, be able to perceive that one of the 
conditions upon which further progress may be made is that the Indians 
shall come under the obligation defined by the first enumeration of the 
Order in Council. You state that the Order in Council has been brought 
before the Nishgas Indians, and that they will, as soon as possible, place 
their answer before the Government. So far it is well, but when you 
say that it is clearly necessary that before the Nishgas answer they 
should be advised regarding the procedure of the courts, and demand 
to be informed under the authority of what enactment and for what 
reasons a reference to the Exchequer Court is proposed, I may I trust 
be permitted to observe that the essential question for consideration of 
the Nishgas is as to whether, if their alleged title be upheld by the 
ultimate tribunal, they are willing to surrender that title in consideration 
of benefits to be granted in extinguishment according to the ancient 
usage of the Crown. I think it would be a pity that this question should 
be obscured or involved in the difficulties which you have encountered 
about the procedure, and which the Indians presumably would be no 
better able to understand. Therefore, without making any further 
attempt to explain the procedure which perhaps could not succeed within 
the compass of an ordinary letter, I suggest that the Indians should be 
permitted to consider the question in which they are really interested 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xi 

as submitted by the Order in Council. It is unlikely I should think that 
the Indians would concern themselves with procedure. They have I 
imagine sufficient discernment to perceive, if their deliberations be not 
influenced to the contrary, that a question of procedure is at present 
quite irrelevant; but if necessary you may unhesitatingly assure them 
that no point of procedure will be permitted to prejudice a decision upon 
the merits of the case, and that the Government will see to it that the 
proceedings are brought and conducted in sucli a manner as to provide 
for the admission of all the facts and arguments which are material to 
the controversy. 

May I be allowed to add that in view of what I have stated I do 
not propose to consider the procedure until it is ascertained that the 
Indiftns have acquiesced in the conditions of the Order in Council which 
are .preliminary to any procedure. 

I have the honour to be, 

Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

(Sgd.) C. J. DOHFRTY, 

Minister of Justice. 

The Indians did not acquiesce in the conditions of the Order in Council as 
the Right Honourable C. J. Doherty informed their Counsel in the above letter 
they would have to do before he would move farther in the matter. Con 
sequently, there was no further action on the part of the Dominion Government. 

A change of tactics was adopted in June, 1926. In that month a Petition 
embodying the Indian claims, based on aboriginal title, was presented to Parlia 
ment. The session then in progress terminated abruptly and action on the 
Petition was not taken until the present session, when the Petition in question 
was referred to your Committee for enquiry and report. 

Having given full and careful consideration to all -that was adduced before 
3 r our Committee, it is the unanimous opinion of the members thereof that the 
petitioners have not established any claim to the lands of British Columbia 
based on aboriginal or other title, and that the position taken by the Government 
in 1914, as evidenced by the Order in Council and Mr. Doherty s letter above 
quoted, afforded the Indians full opportunity to put their claim to the test. As 
they have declined to do so, it is the further opinion of your Committee that 
the matter should now be regarded as finally closed. 

While making this declaration the Committee wish to state that they are 
impressed by the fact that the Indians of British Columbia receive benefits 
which are in excess of those granted by Treaty to Indians in other parts of 
Canada. Comparison of these expenditures will be found in the statements 
made by the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs at pages 15-17 
of the printed evidence. It is clear that they are not discriminated against; 
that reserves have been set aside for them sufficient for their needs, and that 
the obligation for Indians assumed by the Dominion when British Columbia 
entered Confederation has been generously fulfilled. In considering the extent 
of this bounty the Committee could not fail to notice from facts submitted that 
it had exceeded the benefits which appertain to Indian treaties, and that if a 
treaty had been made, the compensation would have been in comparison much 
less than the generous expenditures now made on behalf of the Indians in British 
Columbia, which amounted to $690,683 in 1925-26. 

As it was the desire of your Committee to give the very fullest and most 
sympathetic consideration to all the claims of the Indians and to give them 
every opportunity to state any existing hardships or disabilities under which 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

they suffered as residents of the province owing to their native blood, all 
branches of the subject were dealt with, and by questioning the witnesses and 
eliciting information from departmental officers, the Committee came into pos 
session of a mass of interesting facts in connection with the various subjects 
under review. The Indians, in claiming aboriginal title, had given to the pro 
vincial government under date of November 12th, 1919, an exhaustive statement 
of the case, and set forth " conditions proposed as a basis of settlement." It is 
thought to be highly desirable that your Committee should review these claims 
and inform Parliament of the extent to which the conditions are at present 
being met, and to make recommendations that would tend to meet the conditions 
proposed, where they are not already provided for. It is thought well to deal 
with these conditions under each sub-head in sequence as shown at page 36 of the 
Proceedings, and to make such remarks as are relevant: 

(1) That the Proclamation issued by King George III in the year 
1763 and the Report presented by the Minister of Justice in the year 
1875 be accepted by the two Governments and established as the main 
basis of all dealings and all adjustments of Indian land rights and other 
rights which shall be made. 

The subject matter of the foregoing paragraph has already been dealt 
with by your Committee in their Finding contained in the recommendation 
hereinbefore made, and further comment thereon is, therefore, unnecessary. 

(2) That it be conceded that each Tribe for whose use and benefit 
land is set aside (under Article 13 of the Terms of Union ) acquires there 
by a full, permanent and beneficial title to the land so set aside together 
with all natural resources pertaining thereto; and that Section 127 of the 
Land Act of British Columbia be amended accordingly. 

(5) That adequate additional lands be set aside and that to this end 
a per capita standard of 160 acres of average agricultural land having in 
case of lands situated within the dry belt a supply of water sufficient for 
irrigation, be established. By the word " standard," we mean not a hard 
and fast rule, but a general estimate to be used as a guide, and to be 
applied in a reasonable way to the actual requirements of each tribe. 

(6) That in sections of the Province in case of which the character 
of available land and the conditions prevailing make it impossible or 
undesirable to carry out fully or at all that standard, the Indian Tribes 
concerned be compensated for such deficiency by grazing lands, by 
timber lands, by hunting lands or otherwise, as the particular character 
and conditions of each such section may require. 

(7) That all existing inequalities in respect to both acreage and 
value between lands set aside for the various Tribes be adjusted. 

(8) That for the purpose of enabling the two Governments to set 
aside adequate additional lands and adjust all inequalities there be 
established a system ,of obtaining lands including compulsory purchase, 
similar to that which is being carried out by the Land Settlement Board 
of British Columbia. 

It may be stated at once that the reserves as set apart under Article 13 of 
the "Terms of Union" and allotted in the report of the Royal Commission on 
Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, and confirmed by both gov 
ernments, are held by the Dominion in trust for the full and permanent beneficial 
interest of the Indians, and all such natural resources pertaining thereto as are 
the property of the Indians. It is interesting to note the progressive steps which 
have been taken by the two interested governments in the settlement of the claims 
of the Indians for reserve lands. Such reserves as were set apart before Con- 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xiii 

federation were granted by the Colonial Government. After Confederation, the 
lands reserved were set apart by a Joint Reserve Commission, and later by a 
single Commissioner, and the reserves so set apart were scheduled by the prov 
ince and appropriated as Indian reserves. As it was desirable to further and 
complete this work, and to allot reserves in territories which were becoming 
settled and in which it might be difficult later to get suitable lands for Indians, 
the two governments made an agreement known as the McKenna-McBride 
agreement, and later formed a Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the 
Province of British Columbia; the duty of the Commission being to review and 
revise the whole reserve situation, to provide new reserves, and to have the power 
of disallowing reserve lands not. required for Indian use, but in such cases pre 
serving one moiety of the Indian interests. By this arrangement when final con 
firmation of the reserves was made, any provincial interests would disappear and 
the Dominion, in trust for the Indians, would have the full use and benefit of 
these reserves. The Commissioners visited all parts of the Province, and every 
where and at all times the Indians gave evidence as to their requirements, and 
it is clear that the Commissioners endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Indians 
wherever it was possible to do so and to give them adequate reserves. 

After the report had been received by both governments, two competent 
officers of the governments were delegated to make a further examination into 
the needs of the Indians, and representative Indians were appointed to confer 
with these officers and to make further representations. This action was com 
pleted and the report of the Commission and a schedule of reserves was adopted 
and confirmed by both governments under the statutory provisions of Chap. 51, 
1920. It is apparent that the average of agricultural land set up by the proposed 
conditions of settlement is not applicable to British Columbia, where the Indians 
generally cannot derive their subsistence from agriculture. The allotment of 
reserves, of which there are 1,573 in the province, preserves to the Indians in a 
remarkable degree their old fishing stations and camping grounds, and the action 
of the Commissioners was evidently extended to preserving Indian rights in 
traditional locations which the Indians had enjoyed in the early days. 

(3) That all existing reserves not now as parts of the Railway Belt 
or otherwise held by Canada be conveyed to Canada for the use and 
benefit of the various Tribes. 

This work is now in progress, and without delay the reserves confirmed by 
both Governments will be conveyed by the province to the Dominion. 

(4) That all foreshores whether tidal or inland be included in the 
reserves with which they are connected, so that the various Tribes shall 
have full permanent and beneficial title to such foreshores. 

The Indians have riparian rights on all reserves on tidal waters. The owner 
ship of the foreshore being in the province, the Superintendent General of Indian 
Affairs endeavoured to obtain some concessions on behalf of the Indians in this 
regard. The Prime Minister of British Columbia under date of April 23, 1924, 
stated as follows: 

The Honourable 

The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 
Ottawa. 

DEAR SIR, Referring to our conversation of yesterday and having 
reference to the fears expressed by the Indians that where their reserves 
fronted on the water, access to their lands might be interfered with by 
construction of wharfs, docks, booms or other obstructions erected or 
placed along any foreshore on account of ownership of such foreshore 
being in the Province, as I expressed myself yesterday, I would favour a 



xiv SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

policy treating the Indians on exactly the same footing as I would treat 
the whites, and would if necessary advise the Government of the Province 
to give the Indian Department a written assurance to that effect. I am, 
however, of the opinion that no such assurance is necessary, as I think 
the principle of Riparian Rights would apply to any Indian reserves 
having water frontage to the same extent as Riparian Rights would apply 
to the same lands were such lands subject to the private ownership of any 
person other than an Indian. In other words, Riparian Rights would 
accrue to the Indians (through the Indian Department) to the same extent 
as they would apply to a white owner. I should be pleased if you would 
obtain the advice of your legal Department on this phase of the situation. 
I am, 

Yours faithfully, 

(Signed) JOHN OLIVER. 

(9) That if the Governments and the Allied Tribes should not be 
able to agree upon a standard of lands to be reserved that matter and all 
other matters relating to lands to be reserved which cannot be adjusted in 
pursuance of the preceding conditions and by conference between the two 
governments and the Allied Tribes be referred to the Secretary of State 
for the Colonies to be finally decided by that Minister in view of our 
land rights conceded by the two Governments in accordance with our 
first condition and in pursuance of the provisions of Article 13 of the 
"Terms of Union" by such method of procedure as shall be decided by 
the Parliament of Canada. 

It would appear to be a sufficient answer to this condition to state that 
under the provisions of Article 13 of the " Terms of Union " a reference to the 
Secretary of State for the Colonies was only to be resorted to if the two govern 
ments failed to agree. They have agreed under statutory authority and the 
allotment of reserves is therefore concluded. 

(10) That the beneficial ownership of all reserves shall belong to 
the Tribe for whose use and benefit they are set aside. 

When the reserves are conveyed by the Province to the Dominion, which 
procedure is now in progress, they shall belong to the Indian Bands for which 
they are set apart. Tribal ownership is not recognized unless by desire of the 
Bands comprising the Tribe. If any such case arises due consideration will 
be given to all the surrounding circumstances. 

(11) That a system of individual title to occupation of particular 
parts of reserved lands be established and brought into operation and 
administered by each Tribe. 

Provision is already made in the Indian Act for the issue of location tickets 
which are equivalent to a title in fee simple. Indians of British Columbia are 
at liberty to take advantage of this provision at any time. 

(12) That all sales, leases and other dispositions of land or timber 
or other natural resources be made by the Government of Canada as 
trustee for the Tribe with the consent of the Tribe and that of all who 
may have rights of occupation affected, and that the proceeds be disposed 
of in such a way and used from time to time for such particular purposes 
as shall be agreed upon between the Government of Canada and the 
Tribe together with all those having rights of occupation. 

Apart from the emphasis which seems to be placed upon tribal ownership 
in this paragraph, it merely contains a statement of what is now the procedure 
of the Department as provided by statute. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. XV 

(13) That the fishing rights, hunting rights and water rights of the 
Indian Tribes be fully adjusted. Our land rights having first been 
established by concession or decision we are willing that our general 
rights shall after full conference between the two Governments and the 
Tribes be adjusted by enactment of the Parliament of Canada. 

Your Committee heard evidence on the disabilities of the Indians of 
British Columbia arising from restrictive regulations regarding fishing, hunt 
ing and the use of water for irrigation purposes. The Indian Commissioner 
for British Columbia and the Director of Fisheries, of the Department of 
Marine and Fisheries, were heard on this subject. The fishing industry is a 
most important one in the life of the Indians, and at least one-third of the 
fishermen engaged in the commercial fisheries are Indians and a large number 
of Indian women are employed in the canneries. The chief complaint was 
against the restriction to take fish for food purposes, and in this matter the 
sympathies of the Committee are with the Indians; at the same time the neces 
sity of preserving by adequate regulations the fisheries is paramount. By 
co-operation between the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of 
Marine and Fisheries grievances have gradually disappeared and we would 
commend to the Government the desirability of having as close co-operation as 
possible not only between these two Departments, but between all the Depart 
ments of the Dominion Public Service that have to deal with problems affecting 
Indians or Indian reserves, and that in all cases an extremely sympathetic 
and liberal view of the Indian situation should influence regulations and their 
enforcement as against Indians. The amelioration of local difficulties must 
be worked out by local officers, and we are convinced of the importance of 
leniency in the enforcement of the regulations that might, if rigidly enforced, 
work hardship and even suffering upon Indians. 

It must be recognized that Indians have had from the earliest times, special 
interest in hunting, and that in those regions where their subsistence is obtained 
from the hunt they should receive every consideration. It is clearly to the 
benefit of the Indians that there should be strict regulations to conserve the 
fur-bearing animals, and the Provincial regulations appear to have that in 
view. It is the duty of the Department of Indian Affairs to see that any privi 
leges or rights which the Indians have under these regulations are taken advan 
tage of to the fullest degree. In this connection it is noted that the Provincial 
authorities do not exact any license fee from Indians for hunting or trapping, 
and like exemption of Indians in so far as commercial fishing licenses is con 
cerned might be considered favourably by the Department of Marine and 
Fisheries. 

Water for irrigation, where this is a necessity for successful agriculture, is 
a matter of the utmost importance in certain districts of British Columbia. 
These affairs are regulated by the Province, and the Indians are on the same 
footing as ordinary citizens in the allotment of the available water. In the 
endeavour to obtain water records, the Department of Indian Affairs has been 
insistent in advocating the claims of the Indians to sufficient water for their 
reserve lands, and where success has not followed, it has been owing to the 
insufficiency of water for all claimants or from some inherent flaw in the original 
records. The number of cases of the latter class is, however, very small. We 
would recommend that the Department of Indian Affairs continue to give the 
most careful attention to the development of irrigation systems on the reserves 
so that the water may be utilized to the fullest extent, and we commend co 
operation between the Department and the Water Powers Branch of the De 
partment of the Interior. 

(14) That in connection with the adjustment of our fishing rights 
the matter of the international treaty recently entered into which very 



XVI SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

seriously conflicts with those rights, be adjusted. We do not at present 
discuss the matter of fishing for commercial purposes. However, that 
matter may stand. We claim that we have a clear aboriginal right to 
taJte salmon for food. That right the Indian Tribes have continuously 
exercised from time immemorial. Long before the Dominion of Canada 
came into existence that right was guaranteed by Imperial enactment, the 
Royal Proclamation issued in the year 1763. We claim that under that 
Proclamation and another Imperial enactment. Section 109 of the British 
North America Act, the meaning and effect of which were explained by 
the Minister of Justice in the words set out above, all power held by the 
Parliament of Canada for regulating the fisheries of British Columbia 
is subject to our right of fishing. We therefore claim that the regulations 
contained in the treaty cannot be made applicable to the Indian Tribes, 
and that any attempt to enforce those regulations against the Indian 
Tribes is unlawful, being a breach of the two Imperial enactments men 
tioned. 

The privilege of taking salmon for food purposes has been dealt with under 
heading No. 13. As there is no international treaty in existence between the 
Dominion and the United States, further reply to this clause seems unnecessary. 

(15) That compensation be made in respect of the following par 
ticular matters. 

1. Inequalities of acreage or value or both that may be agreed 
to by any Tribe. 

2. Inferior quality of reserved lands that may be agreed to by 
any Tribe. 

3. Location of reserved lands other than that required agreed 
to by any Tribe. 

4. Damages caused to the timber or other natural resources of 
any reserved lands as for example by mining or smelting operations. 

5. All moneys expended by any Tribe in any way in connection 
with the Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all matters 
outstanding. 

Of the sub-heads of this section, Nos. 1,, 2 and 3 have been dealt with. 
No. 4, re damages to timber and other natural resources: Claims have been 
made and compensation received in such cases, and as other cases arise, they 
should be dealt with in a like manner. No. 5: As the expenditure of moneys 
by Indians in connection with their alleged land claims have been undertaken 
without the authority or control of the government, the request should not 
be complied with. 

(16) That general compensation for land to be surrendered be 
made: 

1. By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of 
education, including both day schools and residential industrial 
schools, etc. 

2. By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of 
medical aid and hospitals. 

Regarding Sub-head No. 1: There is already in existence throughout the 
province a system of education for Indians. There are at present 16 resi 
dential schools and 42 day schools in operation in the province. The enrol 
ment in residential schools is 1,506 and in day schools 1,309. The residential 
schools are conducted under an arrangement with the Churches interested in 
Indian education. They are financed by payment of a Government per capita 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xvii 

grant. The Department reserves the privilege of approving the more im 
portant appointments to the staffs of these institutions and has in effect a 
thorough and efficient system of inspection. Tuition is academic and voca 
tional. In addition to the scholastic studies girls are taught domestic science 
and boys are given manual and technical education that will fit them to meet 
the conditions of life in the respective sections of the province to which they 
belong. In the opinion of the Committee it is desirable that this system should 
be maintained and extended and that residential and day schools be gradually 
established in districts not already provided for; that the tuition should tend 
to emphasize the industrial side; and that individual Indians should be given 
opportunities to develop natural aptitudes. Arrangements should also be made 
to enable Indians of pronounced ability, who wish to qualify for the professions 
or fit themselves for positions in the industrial fields, to pursue the necessary 
studies in institutions of higher learning, each case to be considered on its 
merits. 

Regarding Sub-head No. 2: There is already a system of medical aid and 
hospitals throughout the province, and we note that one large item of expendi 
ture made on behalf of the Indians is for this very purpose, the expenditure for 
the last fiscal year being $102,000. It seems to your Committee that this item of 
expenditure might be developed and that as Parliament provides funds for the 
purpose, hospitals should be established, particularly for the treatment of tuber 
cular Indians or for the fullest use of such hospitals established for the citizens 
of the province. Special efforts should at all times be made, and it is as much 
in the interest of the white citizens as of the Indians, to diminish the incidence 
of tuberculosis and other diseases that are communicable. Where necessary, 
hospitals for the treatment of general diseases should be established, and by the 
employment of nurses and field matrons, the Indian women should be instructed 
in the care of children, and as required, the medical staff should be enlarged. 

(17) That all compensations provided for by the two preceding 
paragraphs and all other compensation claimed by any Tribe so far as 
may be found necessary, be dealt with by enactment of the Parliament of 
Canada and be determined and administered in accordance with such 
enactment. 

The Parliament of Canada has power to legislate for Indians and Indian 
reserves, and no doubt will, as occasion requires, exercise that power. 

(18) That all restrictions contained in the Land Act and other 
Statutes of the Province be removed. 

By the confirmation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian 
Affairs the restrictions of the Land Act have been removed, and as it was not 
shown that other statutes of the Province of British Columbia were oppressive or 
had not been enacted in the interests of the Indians, your Committee does not 
consider it proper to make any reference in this regard. 

(19) That the Indian Act be revised and that all amendments of 
that Act required for carrying into full effect these conditions of settle 
ment dealing with the matter of citizenship, and adjusting all outstand 
ing matters relating to the administration of Indian Affairs in British 
Columbia be made. 

Parliament will no doubt revise and amend the Indian Act from time to 
time in the interests of the Indians as often as found necessary. 

42325 B 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

(20) That all moneys already expended and to be expended by the 
Allied Tribes in connection with the Indian land controversy and the 
adjustment of all matters outstanding be provided by the Governments. 

Your Committee cannot recommend the appropriation of any public funds 
for this purpose, but rather that parliamentary appropriations, if and when made, 
should be to further the progress and civilization of the Indians themselves. 

In addition to the paragraphs already dealt with, the Indians had made 
certain additional claims before the Deputy Superintendent General in Victoria 
in 1923, and these may now be dealt with seriatim: 

MOTHERS AND WIDOWS PENSIONS WERE ASKED FOR AS EFFECTIVE IN BRITISH 

COLUMBIA FOR WHITE WOMEN 

Parliament provides funds for sustaining indigent or destitute Indians in 
British Columbia and applications from Indians who require assistance in this 
way should be made through the Indian Agents to the Department. 

CASH COMPENSATION FOR ANNUITIES SIMILAR TO TREATY ANNUITIES 

It may be remarked with reference to the payment of annuities that the 
policy for the payment of annual sums to individual Indians was inaugurated 
in the early clays, having in view the then condition of the Indians, and that the 
annuity might be a source of revenue for their support, but conditions have 
changed so materially that the need and usefulness of such a per capita payment 
to Indians of British Columbia is negligible. In lieu of an annuity your Com 
mittee would recommend that a sum of $100,000 should be expended annually 
for the purposes already recommended, that is, technical education, provision of 
hospitals and medical attendance, and in the promotion of agriculture, stock- 
raising and fruit culture, and in the development of irrigation projects. An 
annual expenditure of this amount for these purposes would seem to be far more 
applicable to the Indians in their present condition than the payment of any 
per capita amount. 

In concluding this Report your Committee would recommend that the 
decision arrived at should be made known as completely as possible to the 
Indians of British Columbia by direction of the Superintendent General of 
Indian Affairs in order that they may become aware of the finality of the 
findings and advised that no funds should be contributed by them to continue 
further presentation of a claim which has now been disallowed. Furthermore, 
the Committee recommend that this report together with the evidence, be printed 
as an appendix to the journals of the House, and also in blue book form to the 
number of one thousand (1,000) copies and that Rule 74 relating thereto be 
suspended. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

HEWITT BOSTOCK, 

Chairman, Senate Committee. 

E. A. McPHERSON, 

Acting Chairman, Commons Committee. 

NOTE. This Report was concurred in on April 12. See Journals, p. 527. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xix 

ADDENDA 

Your Committee begs to report that after all evidence had been received, 
the expected letter referred to by Mr. Andrew Paull at pages 96 and 97 of the 
printed evidence was laid before the Committee. The text of the letter follows, 
and it will be observed that the diary of Father Fouquet, while it mentions the 
meeting referred to, does not disclose that any promises were made by the 
Governor: 

ST. MARY S MISSION, Jan. 3, 1923. 

DEAR PAUL, Excuse me of my delay on answering to your letter of 
Nov. the 16th. 1 looked over our old papers. I am sorry to say that I 
could not find anything that would help the Indian cause. Rev. Father 
Fouquet mentioned an Indian meeting on the 24th of May, 1864, when 
several Indian chiefs made some speeches to the new Governor at New 
Westminster. The Governor answered to them. But unfortunately 
Father never mentioned what has been said in that circumstance, when 
4,000 Indians were gathered headed by 60 Indian chiefs. Look please in 
New Westminister archives of 1864. You may find some information; if 
those papers have not been destroyed by the big fire. 

I hope Dear Paul that the year 1923 will successfully terminate that 
long struggle about the Indian rights. I enclose here an almanack and 
wish to you and your family a good and happy year. 

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT, JUNE, 1926 

The Petition of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia humbly 
showeth as follows: 

1. This Petition is presented on behalf of the Allied Indian Tribes of 
British Columbia by Peter R. Kelly, Chairman duly authorized by resolution 
unanimously adopted by the Executive Committee of allied Tribes on 19th 
December, 1925. 

2. When British Columbia entered Confederation Section 109 of the British 
North America Act was made applicable to all public lands with certain specific 
exceptions. By virtue of the application of this Section it was enacted that 
public lands belonging to the Colony of British Columbia should belong to the 
new Province. By virtue of the application of the same Section as explained 
by the Minister of Justice in January, 1875, all territorial land rights claimed 
by the Indian Tribes of the Province were preserved and it was enacted that 
such rights should be an "interest" in the public lands of the Province. The 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia claim actual beneficial ownership of their 
territories, but do not claim absolute ownership in the sense of ownership 
excluding any title of the Crown. It is recognized by the allied Tribes that 
there is in respect of all the public lands of the Province an underlying title 
of the Crown, which title at least for present purposes it is not thought necessary 
to define. 

3. In order to make clear what is meant by an "interest" the Petitioners 
quote the following words of Lord Watson to be found in the Indian Claims 
Case L. R. 1897 A. C. at page 210:- "An interest other than that of the 
Province in the same appears to them to denote some right or interest in a 
third party independent of and capable of being vindicated in competition with 
the beneficial interest of the old Province. 

4. The position taken by the allied Tribes was placed before Parliament 
by means of Petition presented to the House of Commons on 23rd March, 1920, 
and read in the House of Commons and recorded on 26th March, 1920 (Hansard 
p. 825) and Petition presented to the Senate on 9th June, 1920, to all contents 
of which two Petitions the Petitioners beg leave to refer. 



XX SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

5. In the month of August, 1910, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, having been advised 
by the Department of Justice that the Indian land controversy should be 
judicially decided, met the Indian Tribes of Northern British Columbia at 
Prince Rupert and speaking on behalf of Canada said "I think the only way 
to settle this question that you have agitated for years is by a decision of the 
Judicial Committee, and I will take steps to help you." 

6. By agreement which was entered into by the late Mr. J. A. J. McKenna, 
Special Commissioner on behalf of the Dominion of Canada and the late 
Premier Sir Richard McBride on behalf of the Province of British Columbia 
in the month of September, 1912, and before the end of that year was adopted 
by both Governments, it was stipulated that by means of a Joint Commission 
to be appointed, lands should be added to Indian Reserves and lands should 
be cut off from Indian Reserves. By that agreement it was provided that the 
carrying out of its stipulations should be a "final adjustment of all matters 
relating to Indian affairs in the Province of British Columbia." 

7. On the 30th day of June, 1916, the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs 
for the Province of British Columbia appointed in pursuance of the agreement 
above mentioned issued Report which was placed in the hands of both Gov 
ernments. 

8. In the month of September, 1916, the Duke of Connaught, acting as 
His Majesty s Representative in Canada and in response to letter which had 
been addressed to him on behalf of the Nishga Tribes and the Interior Tribes, 
gave assurances communicated by His Secretary to the General Counsel of 
allied Tribes in the following words: 

" His Royal Highness has interviewed the Honourable Dr. Roche with 
reference to your letter of the 29th May and your interview with me and I 
am commanded by His Royal Highness to state that he considers it is the duty 
of the Nishga Tribe of Indians to await the decision of the Commission, after 
which, if they do not agree to the conditions set forth by that Commission, they 
can appeal to the Privy Council in England, when their case will have every 
consideration. As their contentions will be duly considered by the Privy 
Council in the event of the Indians being dissatisfied with the decision of the 
Commission, His Royal Highness is not prepared to interfere in the matter 
at present and he hopes that you will advise the Indians to await the decision 
of this Commission." 

9. The allied Tribes have always been and still are unwinding to be bound 
by the agreement above mentioned and have always been and still are unwilling 
to accept as final settlement the findings contained in the Report of the Royal 
Commission. 

10. In the year 1920 the Parliament of Canada enacted the law known as 
Bill 13 being Chapter 51 of the Statutes of that year authorizing the Governor- 
General in Council to carry out the agreement above mentioned by adopting the 
Report o f the Royal Commission. From the preamble and the enacting words 
the professed purpose of the Bill appeared to be that of effecting settlement by 
actually adjusting all matters. 

11. In course of debate regarding Bill 13 had in the Senate on 2nd June, 1920, 
Sir James Lougheed, leader of the then Government in the Senate, answering 
remarks of Senator Bostock by which was expressed the fear that if the Bill 
should become law the Indians might " be entirely put out of Court and be unable 
to proceed on any question of title," gave the following assurance (Debates of 
Senate 1920 p. 475 col. 2) :- 

" I might say further, honourable gentlemen, that we do not propose to 
exclude the claims of Indians. It willl be manifest to every honourable gentle 
man that if the Indians have claims anterior to Confederation or anterior to the 
creation of the two Crown Colonies in the Province of British Columbia they 
could be adjusted or settled by the Imperial Authorities. Those claims are still 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xxi 

valid. If the claim be a valid one which is being advanced by this gentleman 
and those associated with him as to the Indian Tribes of British Columbia being 
entitled to the whole of the lands in British Columbia this Government cannot 
disturb that claim. That cilaim can still be asserted in the future." 

12. Upon occasion of interview had with the Executive Committee and the 
General Counsel of allied Tribes at Vancouver on 27th July, 1923, the Minister 
of Interior speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada conceded that the 
allied Tribes are entitled to secure judicial decision of the Indian (land controversy 
and gave assurance that the Dominion of Canada would help them in securing 
such decision. 

13. By Order in Council passed in the month of August, 1923, the Govern 
ment of the Province of British Columbia adopted the Report of the Royal 
Commission. 

14. By Memorandum which was presented to the Government of Canada 
on 29th February, 1924, the allied Tribes opposed the passing of Order in Council 
of the Government of Canada adopting the Report of the Royal Commission 
upon the ground, among other grounds, that, no matter whatever relating to 
Indian affairs in British Columbia having been fully adjusted and important 
matters such as foreshore rights, fishing rights and water rights not having been 
to any extent adjusted, ithe professed purpose of the Agreement and the Act had 
not been accomplished. 

15. By Order in Council passed on 19th July, 1924, the Government of 
Canada, acting under Chapter 51 of the Statutes of the year 1920 and upon 
recommendation of the Minister of Interior adopted the Report of the Royal 
Commission. 

16. From the Memorandum issued by the Deputy Minister of Justice on 
29th February, 1924, answering questions which had been submitted by the 
allied Tribes to the Government of Canada, the Order-in-Council passed on 
19th July 1914 and the Memorandum issued by the Deputy Minister of Indian 
Affairs on 9th August, 1924, it clearly appears as is submitted that both the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs regard the Statute 
Chapter 51 of the year 1920 as intended, not for bringing about an actual adjust 
ment of all matters relating to Indian affairs, but for the purpose of bringing 
about a legislative adjustment of all such matters and thus effecting final settle 
ment under the laws of Canada without the concurrence or consent of the Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia. 

17. The allied Tribes submit that, so far as Section 2 being the main enact 
ment of Chapter 51 may be interpreted as being intended for accomplishing the 
purpose above mentioned ancl thus bringing to an end all the aboriginal rights 
claimed by the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, that enactment is in conflict 
with the provisions of the British North America Act. 

18. On the 15th January 1925 the Executive Committee of the allied Tribes 
unanimously adopted the following resolution: 

" In view of the fact that the two Governments have passed Orders-in- 
Council confirming the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs, we 
the Executive Committee of the allied Tribes of British Columbia are more than 
ever determined to take such action as may be necessary in order that the 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia may receive justice and are furthermore 
determined to establish the rights claimed by them by a judicial decision of His 
Majesty s Privy Council." 

19. In the course of debate had in the House of Commons on the 26th June 
1925 the Minister of Interior speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada 
in answer to the representations which had been made on behalf of the allied 
Tribes recognized that the allied Tribes are entitled to obtain from His Majesty s 
Privy Council decision of the Indian land controversy and agreed that the Gov 
ernment would give authoritative sanction for doing so. 



xxil SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

20. With regard to the remark then made by the Minister that the Govern 
ment would not be justified in providing funds unless " something very concrete " 
should be presented, the allied Tribes submit that they have already presented 
" something very concrete ", namely their own conditions proposed for equitable 
settlement by their Statement presented tc the Government of British Columbia 
in response to request of that Government in the month of December 1919, and 
subsequently presented to the Government of Canada. 

21. With regard to the general subject of the funds which as the allied Tribes 
claim the Dominion of Canada is under the obligation of providing, the allied 
Tribes have placed in the hands of the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs 
the following Memorial: 

THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO THE SUPERINTENDENT 

GENERAL OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

By this Memorial of the allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia it is 
respectfully submitted as follows: 

The allied Tribes submit that the Dominion of Canada is under obligation 
for providing all funds already expended and all funds requiring hereafter to be 
expended by the allied Tribes in dealing with the Indian land controversy, in 
establishing the rights of the allied Tribes, and in bringing about final adjust 
ment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in British Columbia. 

The allied Tribes so submit upon grounds briefly stated as follows: 

1. Well established precedent relating -to judicial proceedings intended for 
establishing the rights of Indian Tribes and in particular that of the Oka case, 
which was carried independently to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty s 
Privy Council by the Indians interested and of which the total cost was pro 
vided by the Parliament of Canada. 

2. The fact that the Dominion of Canada being by virtue of the British 
North America Act and the Terms of Union" Trustee for the Indian Tribes of 
British Columbia and under all obligations arising from such trusteeship has 
by entering into the compact with British Columbia above mentioned rendered 
itself incompetent for taking effective action establishing the rights of the 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as is clearly shown by the Opinion of the 
Minister of Justice issued in the month of December 1913, and moreover has 
put itself in the position of a party in the case upholding the contentions of the 
Province of British Columbia, and by the acts so stated has placed upon the 
Indian Tribes the absolute necessity of proceeding independently for establish 
ing their rights. 

3. The principle of compensation in respect of all aboriginal land and other 
rights of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, responsibility for which has 
already been conceded by the Dominion of Canada, and of which as the allied 
Tribes submit the first item consists of the full expenditure required for 
establishing such rights of the Indian Tribes and bringing about adjustment 
of all matters now requiring to be adjusted. 

4. The assurances which on behalf of the Dominion of Canada have from 
time to time been given to the Indian Tribes of British Columbia and in 
particular that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and those of the present Minister of 
Interior. 

5. The lands and funds held by the Dominion of Canada in trust for the 
allied Tribes and being the full beneficial property of the allied Tribes. 

Therefore the Allied Tribes now formally demand from the Dominion of 
Canada payment of the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, being the total 
amount of such expenditure already incurred, and further demand from the 
Dominion of Canada that full provision be made for paying all additional 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xxiii 

funds which hereafter shall be required for such expenditure, as shall be agreed 
upon between the allied Tribes and the Dominion of Canada or if necessary 
shall be determined by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council. 

Dated at the City of Ottawa the June, 1926. 

Chairman of Executive Committee of Allied Tribes. 

To Honourable CHARLES STEWART, 

Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, 
Ottawa. 

22. The government of Canada having definitely agreed as is above shown 
that the Dominion of Canada will facilitate securing from the Judicial Com 
mittee of His Majesty s Privy Council decision of the Indians land controversy, 
the General Counsel of allied Tribes entered upon discussion with the Minister 
of Justice regarding the particular method by which the securing of such 
decision will be facilitated, and offered to suggest for consideration of the 
Minister of Justice common ground which might be reached by the Government 
of Canada and the allied Tribes in connection with the carrying forward of 
the independent judicial proceedings of the allied Tribes. 

23. In presenting this Petition to the Parliament of Canada as the 
Supreme Body representing the Dominion of Canada the allied Tribes declare 
that, while it is necessary for them to demand what they consider to be their 
rights from both the Province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada 
and even to contest the validity of an Act of the Parliament of Canada, they 
desire and intend to act tov/ards all Ministers of the Crown, all Members of both 
Houses of Parliament and all others concerned in a thoroughly reasonable and 
conciliatory way and that their one central objective is, by securing judicial 
decision of all issues involved, to open the way for bringing about an equitable 
and moderate settlement satisfactory to the Governments as well as to them 
selves. 

Therefore the Petitioners humbly pray: 

1. That by amendment of Chapter 51 of the Statutes of the year 1920 
or otherwise the assurance set out in paragraph 11 of this Petition be made 
effective and the aboriginal rights of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia 
be safeguarded. 

2. That steps be taken for defining and settling between the allied Indian 
Tribes and the Dominion of Canada all issues requiring to be decided between 
the Indian Tribes of British Columbia on the one hand and the Government of 
British Columbia and the Government of Canada on the other hand. 

3. That immediate steps be taken for facilitating the independent proceed 
ings of the allied Tribes and enabling them by securing reference of the Petition 
now in His Majesty s Privy Council and such other independent judicial action 
as shall be found necessary to secure judgment of the Judicial Committee of 
His Majesty s Privy Council deciding all issues involved. 

4. That this Petition and all related matters be referred to a Special 
Committee for full consideration. 

Dated at the City of Ottawa, the 10th day of June, 1926. 

Peter R. Kelly, 
Chairman of Executive Committee of Allied Tribes. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. XXV 

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 

TUESDAY, March 22, 1927. 
The Committee met at 11 a.m. 

Present. Messrs. Hon. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton West), Hay, McPherson, 
Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) . 

On motion of Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Resolved. That Mr. Hay be Chairman of the Committee. 

The Order of Reference upon being read was considered. 

On motion of Mr. McPherson : 

Resolved. That the committee do report and recommend that 500 copies in 
English and 200 copies in French of evidence to be taken, and of papers and 
records to be incorporated with such evidence be printed, and that Rule 74 be 
suspended in relation thereto. 

On motion of Mr. McPherson: 

Ordered. That Messrs. Andrew Paull, A. E. O Meara, Rev. P. R. Kelly, 
W. E. Ditchburn and Chief Chillihitza be summoned to appear at next meeting 
of Committee . 

In attendance. Duncan C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs. 
Committee adjourned to call of Chair. 



WEDNESDAY, 30th March, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 11 a.m. in joint 
session with a like Committee of the Senate. 

Present: 

Senate. The Honourable Mr. Bostock, Chairman; the Honourable Mes 
sieurs Barnard, Belcourt, Green, McLennan, Murphy and Taylor, 7. 

House of Commons. The Honourable Charles Stewart, Messieurs McPher 
son, Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), the Honourable H. H. Stevens and the 
Honourable R. B. Bennett, 5. 

The question of procedure and future meetings was discussed behind closed 
doors. 

The Committee having come to order, Mr. D. C. Scott, Deputy Superin 
tendent General of Indian Affairs, was called as a witness. 

Mr. Andrew Paull, secretary, executive committee of the Allied Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia, was sworn. 

Mr. Warwick Beament, Barrister-at-law, Ottawa, Ontario, Indian counsel 
for the petitioners, was heard. 

At 1 p.m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow at 10 a.m. 

42325 C 



xxvi SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

THURSDAY, 31st March, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 10 o clock, 
a.m. in joint session with a like Committee of the Senate. 

Present: 

Senate The Honourable Mr. Bostock, Chairman. The Honourable 
Messieurs: Barnard, Belcourt, Green, McLennan, Murphy and Taylor, 7. 

House of Commons, The Honourable Charles Stewart, Messieurs: Hay, 
McPherson, Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), The Honourable H. H. Stevens 
and the Honourable R. B. Bennett, 6. 

The question of the witnesses to be examined was discussed behind closed 
doors. 

The doors being opened, Mr. Warwick Beament, Barrister-at-law, Ottawa, 
Ontario, appeared as counsel for the petitioners, and filed two documents 
(Exhibits 1 and 2) as to the authority of Mr. A. E. O Meara to represent the 
Allied Indian Tribes. 

Mr. A. D. Mclntyre informed the Committee that he was appearing on 
behalf of certain Indian Tribes located in the interior of British Columbia. 

Mr. O Meara and Mr. Mclntyre were requested to file a list of the Indian 
Tribes they represent. 

Mr. Andrew Paull, a witness already sworn, was recalled. 

Mr. A. E. O Meara, counsel for the petitioners, read a statement, which 
was filed (Exhibit 3). 

Mr. Andrew Paull, was again recalled. 

At 1.00 o clock p.m. the Committee adjourned until Monday, the 4th April, 
1927, at 10.00 o clock a.m. 



MONDAY, 4th April, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes. of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 10 o clock 
a.m. in joint session with a like Committee of the Senate. 

Present: 

Senate: The Honourable Mr. Bostock, Chairman, The Honourable Messieurs: 
Barnard, McLennan. Murphy and Taylor, 5. 

House of Commons: The Honourable Charles Stewart, Messieurs: Hay, 
McPherson, and the Honourable H. H. Stevens, 4. 

Mr. Andrew Paull was again recalled. (Exhibit No. 4. list of Indian Tribes, 
filed). 

Mr. A. D. Maclntyre, representing interior tribes of British Columbia, was 
heard. (Exhibit No. 5^ list of Indian Tribes, filed) . 

Mrs. Julian Williams, a member of the Tompson tribe of Indians, was 
sworn as an interpreter. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. xxvii 

Chief Johnny Chillihitza, of the Tompson Tribe, Nicola Valley, British 
Columbia, was sworn and was heard through an interpreter. 

Chief Basil David, of the Cariboo Tribe, British Columbia, was sworn and 
was heard through an interpreter. 

William Pierrish, of the Schuswap Tribe, was sworn as interpreter. 
At 1 o clock p.m. the Committee adjourned until 3.30 o clock p.m. 
At 3.45 o clock p.m. the Committee resumed. 

Rev. P. R. Kelly, Chairman of the Executive Committee of Allied Tribes 
of British Columbia, was sworn and was heard. 

Mr. Andrew Paull was again heard. 

At 6.10 o clock p.m. the Committee adjourned until 10 o clock a.m. to-morrow. 



TUESDAY, April 5th, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 10 o clock, 
a.m., in joint session with a like Committee of the Senate. 

Present of the Senate: 

Hon. Senator Bostock, Chairman. 

The Honourable Messieurs Green, Murphy, Taylor, McLennan 5. 

Of the House of Commons: 

Hon. Chas. Stewart, Hon. H. H. Stevens, Messieurs F. W. Hay, A. E. 
McPherson, L. S. R. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) 5. 

Rev. P. R. Kelly, recalled. Filed copy of the Hudson Bay Company s 
Treaty with certain Indians in British Columbia. (Retired) (Exhibit No. 6.) 

Mr. A. E. Ditchburn, Commissioner of Indian Affairs in British Columbia, 
called, sworn and examined. (Retired.) 

Mr. Found, Department of Marine and Fisheries, called sworn and 
examined. (Retired.) 

On motion of Mr. A. E. McPherson, it was ordered that Chief Basil David, 
William Pierrish, and Mrs. Williams be paid their expenses for attendance before 
the Committee, at 12.45 p.m. 

The Committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, April 6th, 1927. 



WEDNESDAY, April 6, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 10 o clock a.m. 
in joint session with a like Committee of the Senate. 

Present /or the Senate: The Honourable Mr. Bostock, Chairman; the Hon 
ourable Messieurs Barnard, Green, Belcourt, McLennan, Murphy 6. 



xxvin SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

For the House of Commons: Hon. Chas. Stewart (Edmonton West), Hon. 
H. H. Stevens, A. E. McPherson, L. S. K. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) , F. W. 
Hay 5. 

In attendance: Mr. Chisholm, Department of Justice. 

Mr. A. E. O Meara, counsel for the Allied Indian Tribes of B.C., was heard, 
and produced a number of documents. 

Mr. Kelly (Recalled) Filed Exhibits No. 7 and 8. 

Mr. John Chisholm (Department of Justice) was heard. 

Mr. A. D. Maclntyre filed exhibit No. 9. 

The committee adjourned till 10 a.m., Thursday, April 7th, 1927. 



MONDAY, April 11, 1927. 

Pursuant to adjournment and notice the Special Committee appointed to 
inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as set 
forth in their petition to Parliament in June, 1926, met this day at 10 o clock 
a.m. in joint session with a like Committee of the Senate, with closed doors. 

Present: 

Senate: The Honourable Mr. Bostock, Chairman; The Honourable 
Messieurs: Barnard, McLennan, Green and Murphy. (5). 

House of Commons: The Honourable Charles Stewart, The Honourable 
H. H. Stevens and Mr. McPherson. (3). 

Mr. D. C. Scott and Mr. W. E. Ditchburn were in attendance. 

A draft report was submitted, discussed and adopted with certain additions. 

On motion of Mr. McPherson it was resolved to report recommending that 
the evidence and report be printed as an appendix to the Journals, and also in 
blue book form to the number of 1,000 copies. 

(For Report see Votes and Proceedings for April 11, 1927). 
The committee then adjourned. 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 

COMMITTEE ROOM 368, 

WEDNESDAY, March 30, 1927. 

The Joint Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition submitted 
to Parliament in June, 1926, met at 11 o clock, a.m., Hon. Mr. Bostock, presiding. 

The CHAIRMAX: Gentlemen, we have a quorum of the two Committees 
present, and I propose that we get down to business. I am sorry that Mr. Hay, 
the Chairman of the House of Commons Committee, is not able to be here. 

I would suggest that before we actually commence the business of the Com 
mittees, we should hold a meeting with closed doors, to decide on the course of 
procedure. 

The Committee then met in camera. 

The CHAIRMAN: These two committees are sitting together, for the pur 
pose of hearing evidence, and making their report. I understand, the House of 
Commons Committee have arranged for certain evidence to be presented this 
morning. It is getting towards the end of the session, and it is a question of how 
we can arrange this meeting so as to put through the matter in question as 
quickly as possible. Of course, I must remind the Hon. members of the Senate, 
that the Senate meets now on Friday morning, at eleven o clock. I do not know 
just what to suggest. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: We are going to be very busy. 

The CHAIRMAN: We could probably meet at ten o clock, if that will suit 
the gentlemen of the Senate. Would it be possible for us to meet tomorrow 
morning at ten o clock. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Yes, as far as we are concerned. 

The CHAIRMAN: The question comes up as to how we are to proceed in 
this matter. We have present Mr. O Meara, Dr. Scott, Rev. P. R. Kelly, Andrew 
Paull, and several other gentlemen. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Are those witnesses summonsed for this morning? 

The CHAIRMAN: I understand Mr. O Meara is to appear as counsel. I 
presume the right way would be to allow the Indians to present their case, first. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I have a suggestion I should like to make in that 
regard; I might say I have been fairly familiar with this controversy ever 
since Mr. O Meara took it up in 1910. I think the Committee would get a 
better grasp of the situation if we had Dr. Scott before us, first, and let him 
give us the background of the whole business. You will then get, in a short 
time, a grasp of the general situation. Then, we can have Mr. O Meara. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: What authority has Mr. O Meara to speak for any 
body? If he has no authority, I, for one, do not propose to listen to him. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: If we heard Dr. Scott, the Committee could then judge 
how to narrow it down to a proper basis. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Dr. Scott has told me the story, and I agree with 
what Mr. Stevens says. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: We ask that the brief to be presented by Dr. Scott be 
printed. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What abou Mr. Stevens suggestion? Are we not to 
have Dr. Scott and get to work. 

423251 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that is agreeable to the Committee. I 
understand that Mr. Stevens proposes that Dr. Scott come now, without the other 
witnesses being present. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: May I say that Mr. O Meara has been summonsed 
as a witness. So far as the Department is concerned, there is no objection to 
his acting as solicitor for the Allied Tribes. I think it is important that he 
should also appear as a witness, so that he may be questioned. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: We cannot prevent him from being here; he will 
insist upon being here. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: It is a question of whether the Committee can question 
him. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: He cannot be asked to disclose any information he 
has received as solicitor. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOXJRT: He can disclose his authority. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: If he is here as a witness, the Committee can examine 
him. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Let us get Dr. Scott in. 

The CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that Dr. Scott should be heard first? 

Hon. MEMBERS: Agreed. 

The Committee then resumed in open session. 

The CHAIRMAN: We had better have the minutes of the last meeting. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: It is agreed that the minutes be taken as read and 
confirmed. 

The CHAIRMAN: We have decided, Dr. Scott, that we would like to hear 
what you have to say, first of all. 

Mr. ANDREW PATJLL: Hon. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say a 
word before Dr. Scott proceeds? I am the Secretary of the Executive Com 
mittee of the Allied Tribes in British Columbia, and on their behalf, I take this 
privilege of thanking the Government, and previous Governments, for having 
arrived at this stage of this troublesome question. Now, the purpose of my 
arising is to say that I have been instructed to ask that all proceedings before 
this Committee be reported in book form, and that the Indians be supplied 
with that record. I also wish to ask if this Committee has invited representa 
tives of the Province of British Columbia to appear before this Committee. If 
they have refused, we wish to have their refusal recorded in the records. 

The CHAIRMAN: At the present time, I understand the Committee has 
decided to have a record taken of all the proceedings, and to have a certain 
number of copies printed. These are for the use of the members of the House 
of Commons, and the Senate. It will be for the Committee, later, to decide 
whether the record can be used by others as well. 

Copies of these telegrams have been handed to me. (Reading) : 

VICTORIA, B.C., Mar. 17, 1927. 
Hon. CHARLES STEWART, 

Minister of the Interior, 
Ottawa, Ont. 

Replying to your wire this date re Indian lands this Government 
relies on Section 109 of B.N.A. Act and upon paragraphs ten and thirteen 
of " Terms of Union " and will not be represented before Committee 
named. 

JOHN OLIVER, 

Premier. 



[ CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

OTTAWA, March 18, 1927. 
Honourable JOHN OLIVER, 

Premier of British Columbia, 
Victoria. 

Your wire seventeenth. Note your province will not be represented 
before Committee of House enquiring into Indian Lands petition. 

CHARLES STEWART. 
I think that answers Mr. PaulFs question. 

We will now call on Dr. Scott. 

Dr. DUNCAN C. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have prepared a 
memorandum on the subject, and an historical sketch, giving the different steps 
that have occurred since this matter came up before the Government many 
years ago; accompanied by appendices which I think will be of use to the 
Committee, and informative. 

During the course of the memorandum, I express my own views on the 
subject, perhaps rather emphatically, once in a while. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Could you, for the use of the Committee, give us a 
concise statement to enable us to know what the whole thing is about, in your 
own words, and as short as possible. 

Dr. SCOTT: I have made my memorandum as short as possible, and if I 
may be permitted to read my memorandum I think it would be more succinct. 
(Reading) : 

" REPORT ON THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN QUESTION 

SIR, I have the honour to submit a memorandum on the relations between 
the Dominion Government and the Indians of British Columbia. An aboriginal 
title to the provincial lands has been since Confederation claimed for the Indians 
of the province, and has been presented in different forms and by various methods 
to His Majesty s Privy Council, to the Dominion Parliament, and to the Domin 
ion and Provincial Governments. It is not my intention to deal with the legal 
questions involved, but to present the facts as clearly as possible and to make 
such recommendations as appear to be appropriate. 

No cession of the aboriginal title claimed by the Indians over the lands of 
the Province of British Columbia has ever been sought or obtained. In this 
respect, the position is the same as in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New 
Brunswick, Quebec and the Yukon. The total area of the province is approxi 
mately 355,855 square miles. Of this area, 104,400 square miles lie within the 
boundaries of a larger area of 329,400 square miles, covered by an Agreement 
known as Treaty No. 8, whereby the aboriginal title was ceded to the Crown, 
and 358 square miles, part of Vancouver Island was ceded by the Indians to 
James Douglas, Governor of the Hudson s Bay Company. Subtracting these 
areas from the area of the province, 251,097 square miles remain. The Indians 
have not ceded any aboriginal title to this part of the province; they claim that 
the title is theirs, and that they should be compensated therefor. 

The statement of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia made to the 
Provincial Government on the 12th November, 1919, in the pamphlet hereto 
attached, sets forth fully the claims and nature of the expected compensation 
for the purchase. 

The Proclamation of 1763, which is referred to by the advisers of the 
British Columbia Indians as a basis of their aboriginal title to the lands of the 

42325 li [Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



4 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

province, was issued after the conquest of Canada, to establish His Majesty s 
government in the newly conquered territory. By subsequent Acts of the 
Imperial Parliament, the Proclamation was repealed, the courts were set up, 
and a system of government was gradually developed. 

The Proclamation states that it is issued for the purpose of establishing a 
government in the " extensive and valuable acquisitions in America " secured 
by the Treaty of Paris. The French made no claim to any portion of the 
present province of British Columbia. In 1793, thirty years after the date of 
the Proclamation, Vancouver landed on the island now known by his name, 
and in 1794 McKenzie made his overland journey to the coast. In 1843 the 
Hudson s Bay Company established a post on the site of the present city of 
Victoria, and in 1849 Vancouver was made a Crown colony. British Columbia 
(the mainland and Queen Charlotte Islands) was made a Crown colony in 1858, 
and the two colonies were united in 1866. British Columbia entered Confedera 
tion on the 20th July, 1871. 

The " Terms of the Union " between British Columbia and the Dominion are 
set forth in the Imperial Order in Council of the 16th May, 1871. The 13th 
clause of the terms establishes the relations between the two governments and 
the Indians. 

In order to understand the bearing of this clause, it is necessary to state a 
few of the facts with reference to the entrance of British Columbia into Con 
federation. The 146th section of the British North America Act provides for the 
inclusion in the Union of other North American colonies. Amongst those men- 
toned is British Columbia. Mr. Anthony Musgrave had been appointed Governor 
of British Columbia for the express purpose of conciliating the different factions 
in the colony and of promoting its best interests. He was appointed on the 
17th June, 1869, and on the 14th August, Earl Granville, the Secretary of State 
for the Colonies, addressed to him a despatch, No. 84, in the latter part of which 
he touched upon the Indian question as follows: 

It will not escape you that in acquainting you with the general 
views of the Government, I have avoided all matters of detail, on which 
the wishes of the people and the Legislature will of course be declared 
in due time. I think it necessary however to observe that the Constitu 
tion of British Columbia will oblige the Governor to enter personally 
upon many questions, as the condition of Indian tribes and the future 
position of Government servants with which, in the case of a negotiation 
between two responsible governments, he would not be bound to concern 
himself. 

Preliminaries to Union were actively taken up by both the Colony and the 
Dominion, and in 1870 we find Governor Musgrave writing to the Governor 
General of Canada as follows: 

GOVERNMENT HOUSE,, 

British Columbia, 20th February, 1870. 

SIR, I have the honour to forward to Your Excellency a copy of 
the Message with which I caused the Legislative Council to be opened 
on the 15th instant, and of a Resolution which the Government will 
introduce, embodying the terms on which it is proposed to join the 
Dominion of Canada. 

9. In Lord Granville s despatch, No. 84, of the 14th August, which 
was communicated to Your Excellency, he mentioned the condition of 
the Indian Tribes as among some questions upon which the Constitution 
of British Columbia will oblige the Governor to enter personally. I have, 
purposely, omitted any reference to this subject in the terms proposed 
to the Legislative Council. Any arrangement which may be regarded 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 5 

as proper by Her Majesty s Government, can, I think best be settled 
by the Secretary of State, or by me, under his direction with the 
Government of Canada. But Indians and Lands reserved for 
Indians, form the twenty-fourth of the classes of subjects named in the 
71st Section of the Union, which are expressly reserved to the Legisla 
tive authority of the Parliament of the Dominion. 

I have, etc., 

(Signed) A. MrsGRAVE. 

His Excellency, Sir John Young, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., etc. 

This explains why we do not find any reference to Indians in the original 
Union resolutions of the British Columbia Legislature. 

The consideration which was given the Indian question resulted in the 13th 
Clause of the " Terms of Union "; 

13. The charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management 
of the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed by the 
Dominion Government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued 
by the British Columbia Government, shall be continued by the 
Dominion Government after the Union. To carry out such policy, tracts 
of land of such extent, as it has hitherto been the practice of the British 
Columbia Government to appropriate for that purpose shall from time 
to time be conveyed by the Local Government to the Dominion Govern 
ment in trust for the use and benefit of the Indians, on application of 
the Dominion Government, and in case of disagreement between the 
two Governments respecting, the quantity of such tracts of land to be 
so granted, the matter shall be referred for the decision of the Secretary 
of State for the Colonies. 

By the Dominion Parliament and the Government of British Columbia 
this was considered a satisfactory division of responsibility for the Indians, 
and the Imperial Government acquiesced. The " Terms of the Union " were 
approved by Order of Her Majesty in Council on the 16th May, 1871. 

The Governor of the Colony, acting under the powers of His Commission, 
the Dominion Government, and the Imperial authorities agreed on Clause 13 
of the Terms of the Union, which embodied the Indian policy of the Govern 
ment of the Colony. That policy was set forth by the Honourable J. W. 
Trutch in a memorandum to Governor Musgrave, which was transmitted by 
him to Earl Granville, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, under date of 
the 29th January, 1870. Mr. Trutch s memorandum, from which the follow 
ing words are an extract, was prepared to refute the allegations made against 
the Indian administration of the Colonial Government by Mr. W. S. Green: 
The Indians have, in fact, been held to be the special wards of the 
Crown, and in the exercise of this guardianship Government has, in all 
cases where it has been desirable for the interests of the Indians, set 
apart such portions, of the Crown lands as were deemed proportionate 
to, and amply sufficient for, the requirements of each tribe; and these 
Indian Reserves are held by Government, in trust, for the exclusive 
use and benefit of the Indians resident thereon. 

But the title of the Indians in the fee of the public lands, or of 
any portion thereof, has never been acknowledged by Government, but, 
on the contrary, is distinctly denied. In no case has any special agree 
ment been made with any of the tribes of the Mainland for the extinction 
of their claims of possession; but these claims have been held to have 
been fully satisfied by securing to each tribe, as the progress of the 
settlement of the country seemed to require, the use of sufficient tracts 
of land for their wants for agricultural and pastoral purposes. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



e SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The Indian policy of the Colonial Government was again referred to by 
the Honourable Mr. Trutch, after his appointment as first Lieutenant Governor 
of the Province, in a letter addressed to Sir John Macdonald on October 14, 
1872, of which tin* is an extract: 

We have in British Columbia a population of Indians numbering 
from 40,000 to 50,000, by far the larger portion of whom are utter 
savages living along the coast, frequently committing murder and robbery 
among themselves, one tribe upon another, and on white people who go 
amongst them for purposes of trade, and only restrained from more out 
rageous crime by being always treated with firmness, and by the con 
sistent enforcement of the law amongst them to which end we have often 
to call in aid the services of H.M. ships on the station. I cannot see 
how the charge of these Indians can be entrusted to one having no 
experience among them nor do I think it likely that the assistance of the 
Navy would be willingly and effectively given to any subordinate officer 
of the Government. Without further descanting on the matter however 
I may tell you that I am of opinion, and that very strongly, that for some 
time to come at least the general charge and direction of all Indian 
affairs in B.C. should be vested in the Lt. Governor, if there is no con 
stitutional objection to such arrangement, and that instead of one there 
should be three Indian Agents, one for Vancouver Island, one for the 
Northwest Coast and the third for the interior of the mainland of the 
province, which latter gentleman might very properly ibe a Roman 
Catholic as the Indians in this section are for the most part under the 
influence of missionaries of that persuasion. Then as to Indian policy 
I am fully satisfied that for the present the wisest course would be to 
continue the system which has prevailed hitherto only providing increased 
means for educating the Indians and generally improving their condition 
moral and physical. 

The Canadian system as I understand it will hardly work here. 

We have never bought out any Indian claims to lands, nor do they expect 

we should, but we reserve for their use and benefit from time to time 

tracts of sufficient extent to fulfill all their reasonable requirements for 

cultivation or grazing. If you now commence to buy out Indian title 

to the lands of B.C. you would go back of all that has been done here 

for 30 years past and would be equitably bound to compensate the tribes 

who inhabited the districts now settled farmed by white people equally 

with those in the more remote and uncultivated portions. Our Indians 

are sufficiently satisfied and had better |be left alone as far as a new 

system towards them is concerned only give us the means of educating 

them by teachers employed directly by the Government as well as by 

aiding the efforts of the missionaries now working among them. 

I have given these extracts to prove the Colonial policy as to the general 

treatment of the natives and particularly as to the aboriginal title. It should 

be kept constantly in mind when one is considering his question, the point of 

view was not altered when provincial status was reached, and it is now as 

firmly fixed as it ever wag. 

The harmony between the Governments apparent from this definition of 
responsibility for Indians was not shared by the Indians themselves. They 
had complained constantly of the insufficiency of land allotments for reserves, 
and rather indefinitely as to the necessity for an acknowledgment of the Indian 
title. From the year 1875 until the present time there has been a definite claim, 
growing in clearness as years went by, gradually developing into an organized 
plan, to compel the Provincial and Dominion Governments, either or both, to 
acknowledge an aboriginal title and to give compensation for it. The record of 
these actions, which I shall attempt to trace as briefly as possible, will show 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 7 

the Provincial Government ever constant in the stand that there is no Indian 
title in the Provincial lands, and the Dominion Government uncertain of its 
position on that question, but as generous to the Indians of British Columbia 
as to other Indians, giving them protection and supervision, educating them, 
relieving evitable suffering and providing for their advancement, extending to 
them the same policy and system (with the single exception of annuity pay 
ments) as prevails in other parts of the country where the Indian title had been 
ceded and where special treaty obligations required fulfilment. 

After the admission of British Columbia into Confederation the Dominion 
assumed the Indian administration, appointed officials and obtained appropria 
tions from Parliament for Indian purposes, and it was not until 1875 that any 
thing occurred to indicate that the provisions of Clause 13 of the " Terms of 
Union " were inadequate as a settlement of the Indian question between the 
interested Governments. The British Columbia Government had passed an 
Act to amend and consolidate the laws affecting Crown Lands in British 
Columbia, which was assented to on the 2nd of March, 1874. This Act was 
recommended to be disallowed by Order of His Excellency in Council of 23rd 
January, 1875, the main reason being the fact that no cession of the Indian 
title had been obtained, and the Act was dissallowed by Order in Council of 
16th March, 1875. It was amended by the Provincial Legislature, and after 
consultation between the Governments and after a definite procedure had been 
established to be followed in the selection and allotment of reserves, the Act 
was allowed to go into operation. (Copies of the documents will be found in 
Appendix B.) 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: You speak of disallowance. Was that exercised 
by the Home government? 

Dr. SCOTT: No. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: No, it is by the Dominion government. 

Dr. SCOTT: (Continuing reading) : 

It will be observed that the Hon. Edward Blake, then Minister of 
Justice, under date of 28th April, 1876, reported that: 

I have copies of these documents and Orders-in-Council here; they may be 
added afterwards. 

Although the undersigned cannot concur in the view that the 
objections taken are entirely removed by the action referred to; and, 
though he is of opinion that, according to the determination of council 
upon the previous Crown Lands Act, there remains serious question as to 
whether the Act now under consideration is within the competence of 
the provincial legislature, yet since, according to the information of the 
undersigned, the statute under consideration has been acted upon, and 
is being acted upon largely in British Columbia, and great inconvenience 
and confusion might result from its disallowance; and, considering that 
the condition of the question at issue between the two governments is 
very much improved since the date of his report, the undersigned is of 
opinion that it would be the better course to leave the Act to its 
operation. 

It is to be observed that this procedure! neither expresses nor 
impliedly waives any right of the government of Canada to insist that 
any of the provisions of the Act are beyond the competence of the Local 
Legislature, and are consequently inoperative. 

The action referred to is represented by the Orders in Council of 
the Dominion and the Province providing for the appointment of a Joint 
Commission to allot Indian reserves. (See Appendix C). 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



8 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

After the weighty language of the Memorandum to Council of 18th 
January, 1875, the final action seems inconsequent. It would hardly be 
possible to draft a stronger document in support of the claim for an 
aboriginal title than this memorandum. Its force is somewhat lessened 
by the remark that the policy of obtaining surrenders at this lapse of 
time and under the altered circumstances of the province, may be ques 
tionable, yet the undersigned feels it his duty to assert such legal or 
equitable claim as may be found to exist on the part of the Indians. But 
the antithesis is striking; on the one hand a statement of great import: 
The undersigned feels that he cannot do otherwise than advise that the 
Act in question is objectionable, as tending to deal with lands which are 
assumed to be the absolute property of the province, an assumption 
which completely ignores, as applicable to the Indians of British 
Columbia, the honour and good faith with which the Crown has, in all 
other cases, since its sovereignty of the territories in Xorth America, 
dealt with their various Indian tribes. And on the other hand, the 
virtual acceptance of the Thirteenth Clause of the " Terms of Union " as 
an adequate settlement of the Indian Claims. 

I hope the committee finds all this useful, and that I am not going too much 
into detail. This is the way the administration is carried on (Continuing read 
ing) : 

In order to present a clear view of action subsequent to the agree 
ment between the Governments as to the best method of carrying out the 
provisions of the Thirteenth Clause, it is, I think, necessary to separate 
the facts into two main divisions: (1) the administration by the Dominion 
Government of Indian Affairs in British Columbia; (2) the presentation 
of the aboriginal claim of the Indians. 

When once the governments had appointed the Commission to select 
reserves, the action proceeded, and lands were set apart for the use of the 
Indians, at first by a Joint Commission, and later by a single Dominion 
Commissioner, the last being Mr. A. W. Powell who retired on 31st March, 
1911. 

In 1912 the Dominion Government decided to approach the govern 
ment of British Columbia and endeavour to obtain a settlement of the 
Indian question, and by Order in Council of 24th May, 1912, Mr. J. A. 
J. McKenna was appointed a Commissioner to investigate claims put 
forth by and on behalf of the Indians of British Columbia, as to lands 
and rights, and all questions at issue between the Dominion and Provincial 
governments and the Indians in respect thereto, and to represent the gov 
ernment of Canada in negotiating with the government of British 
Columbia a settlement of such questions. 

The claim for aboriginal title came within the scope of his com 
mission, but the Prime Minister of British Columbia refused to discuss 
the question. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The provincial government refused to discuss the 
aboriginal title? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: But not the other? 

Dr. SCOTT: No, they went on, as I will show. Mr. McKenna made an 
exhaustive memorandum to Sir Richard on that subject, and endeavoured to get 
him to consent to that, but he would not. His report is as follows; under date 
of 29th July, 191,2: 

Adverting to our conversations, let me say that I understand that the 
claims made on behalf of the Indians are: (1) That the various nations 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 9 

or tribes have aboriginal title to certain territories within the province, 
which, to perfect the Crown title in the right of the province, should be 
extinguished by treaty providing for compensation for such extinguish 
ment; 

As to the first claim, I understand that you will not deviate from 
the position which you have so clearly taken and frequently defined, i.e., 
that the province s title to its land is unburdened by any Indian title, 
and that your government will not be a party, directly or indirectly, to 
a reference to the Courts of the claim set up. You take it that the 
public interest, which must be regarded as paramount, would be in 
juriously affected by such reference in that it would throw doubt upon the 
validity of titles to land in the province. As stated at our conversations, 
I agree with you as to the seriousness of now raising the question, and, 
as far as the present negotiations go, it is dropped. 

Mr. McKenna then directed his efforts to negotiating for the abandonment 
by the Province of the claim to a reversionary interest, in the Indian Reserves. 
In his interim report on his mission, dated 26th October, 1912, Mr. McKenna 
states that: 

During intervals in the negotiations he visited different parts of the 
province and met many representative Indians. His investigations con 
firmed the opinion, which he had formed from a study of the records, 
that the great source of Indian disaffection was the provincial interest 
in lands reserved for Indians, recognized by the joint agreement of 1875-6, 
and, as the country developed and Indian reserves in certain districts 
increased enormously in value, asserted more clearly and largely by the 
province through legislative acts and otherwise. That agreement was the 
outcome of discussion respecting Article Thirteen of the " Terms of Union", 
which determines the respective obligations of the Dominion and the 
province as to the Indians of British Columbia. The position taken by 
the province was that the title of Indians to lands reserved for them was a 
mere right of use and occupancy; that under said Article no beneficial 
interest in such lands was to be taken by the Dominion as guardian of 
the Indians; and that, whenever the Indian Right to any such lands or 
to any portion or portions thereof became extinguished through surrender 
or cessation of use or occupation, or diminishment of numbers, the land 
reverted, unburdened, to the province. The Indians as they advanced in 
knowledge, became aware that they were not regarded as having the same 
right in reserved lands as Indians in other parts of Canada were recognized 
as having in lands set apart for them; and without clearly understanding 
the situation, became in the measure of their advancement disaffected by 
the consequences of the unsatisfactory nature of the Dominion s tenure 
of their reserves. The undersigned, therefore, concentrated his efforts 
to the extinction of the interest in reserves daimed by the province, and 
to securing for the Indians of British Columbia lands by the same title 
as that under which lands are held by the Dominion for Indians in the 
other parts of Canada. 

The result of the negotiations between Sir Richard McBride and Mr. Mc 
Kenna was the appointment of a Royal Commission to adjust the acreage of 
Indian Reserves in British Columbia, and to set apart new lands for reserves. 
The reserves finally fixed by the Commissioners were to be conveyed by the 
province to the Dominion free of any provincial reversionary interest therein. 
There were other provisions of the agreement, unimportant to this report. The 
Commission was appointed on March 31, 1913, and dissolved on June 30, 1916. 
having made a voluminous report. The governments obtained statutory authority 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



10 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

to accept the report, and after a final revision by officers of both govern 
ments, assisted by representatives of the Indians, the report was confirmed by 
Orders in Council of both governments, by British Columbia on July 26, 1923, 
and by the Dominion on July 19, 1924. This is a final adjustment of >all Indian 
questions between the Dominion and the Province and therefore excludes the 
possibility of reference to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 

Upon this point it might be well here to quote the answer given by the 
Honourable Mr. Justice Newcombe, who was then Deputy Minister of Justice, 
to a question asked the government by the Indians. The question was: "The 
effect of the McKenna-McBride Agreement and in particular the words final 
adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in the Province of British 
Columbia. The answer was: "I am of opinion that as between the two 
Governments the agreement and the action of the Commissioners thereunder, if 
approved by both Governments, operate as a final adjustment of all matters 
relating to Indian affairs in the Province of British Columbia. These are the 
words of the agreement, and would I should think be interpreted to exclude 
claims by either government for better or additional terms." 

During the years after British Columbia came into Confederation, and 
while the Dominion Government was active in obtaining reserves for the 
Indians, it was also extending to them the benefits of an Indian policy that 
obtained generally east of the mountains in regions where there had been a 
cession of the Indian title. The special mark of a treaty with Indians is the 
payment of annuity. This has been absent in British Columbia, but in all other 
respects like expenditures arising from similar motives will be found in all 
the provinces. There hag been no discrimination against the Indians of British 
Columbia. As their needs became apparent, they have been satisfied and the 
Dominion Parliament has granted this Department funds to develop a pro 
gressive policy. (In Appendix D will be found a schedule of the expenditure 
aggregating $10,800,300.37 since Confederation.) It is clear that the guardian 
ship of the Indians of British Columbia by the Dominion has been conducted 
with the same care, governed by the same principles as the general trust, and 
that the non-recognition of an aboriginal title has not prejudicially affected the 
interests of these Indians. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Is that ten million dollars without interest? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The ordinary year to year expenditure? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, the ordinary grants. Nearly eleven million dollars. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: In how long a period? 

Dr. SCOTT: Since Confederation. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: What is the proportion of that as compared with 
the other provinces? 

Dr. SCOTT: I did not work that out, Senator Belcourt, but it might be 
readily worked out. 

Then I deal with the presentation of the aboriginal claim. 

It is perhaps unimportant to note each incident of the many which have 
led up to the present position of this question. However, it is well at the outset 
to note the statement made by Lord Dufferin, when he was Governor General 
of Canada, in a speech in the city of Victoria in September, 1876. His Excel 
lency strongly supported the advisability of recognition of an aboriginal title 
in the provincial lands. 

It was not until about ten years after that date that there was any active 
discussion as between the Indians and the Government of British Columbia. 
This agitation amongst the Indians led to the visit to England of three import 
ant Indian Chiefs in the year 1906, the purpose being to lay their grievances 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 11 

before His Majesty King Edward VII. It was not until 1909 that an 
onganization or society was formed for the purpose of promoting the claim. In 
the spring of 1909 a petition was presented to His Majesty, which was after 
wards referred to the Government of Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier visited British 
Columbia in the summer of 1910, and at Prince Rupert met a deputation of 
Indians of the surrounding country, and he also met Indians at Kamloops, and 
received communication of their claims and opinions on the subject of Indian 
title. In December, 1910, a deputation from the Friends of the Indians waited 
upon Sir Richard McBride, the Prime Minister of British Columbia, and pre 
sented their claim, and in March of the next year a large number of Indians 
again waited upon the British Columbia government, and upon both these 
occasions Sir Richard McBride informed them that in the opinion of his Govern 
ment, the Indians had no title to the public lands of the province. Consideration 
by the Dominion Government of the petition of 1909, referred to above, led to 
a decision to prepare a stated case for the Courts, and a case was actually 
framed containing ten questions, the first three of which related to the general 
matter of Indian.title, but when this plan was presented to the Government of 
the Province, they objected to the preliminary clauses and would not consent to 
the reference. 

It is clear that the Dominion Government was sympathetic with the Indian 
claim and with the desire of the Indians to have a judicial decision thereon. 
This is evident from Sir Wilfrid Laurier s remarks to a deputation which waited 
on him at Ottawa on the 26th April, 1911: 

The matter for us to immediately consider is whether we can bring 
the Government of British Columbia into Court with us. We think it is 
our duty to have the matter enquired into. The Government of British 
Columbia may be right or wrong in their assertion that the Indians have 
no claim whatever. Courts of Law are just for that purpose where a 
man asserts a claim and it is denied by another. But we do not know if 
we can force a Government into Court. If we can find a way I may say 
we shall surely do so, because everybody will agree it is a matter of good 
government to have no one resting under a grievance. The Indians will 
continue to believe they have a grievance until it has been settled by the 
Court that they have a claim, or that they have no claim. 

In the previous year the Dominion Government, at the Session of 1910, had 
passed legislation, Clause 37A of the Indian Act, to enable the Government to 
bring the case before the Courts, and this first amendment to the statute having 
been found to be not quite broad enough, the Act was further amended at the 
Session of 1911, and all with the express purpose of having a judicial decision on 
the case despite the refusal of British Columbia to consent to the stated case. 
After this amendment became law, the Law Officers of the Crown gave further 
consideration as to how the case might be dealt with, and it resulted in the 
passage of an Order of His Excellency in Council of the 1,7th May, 1911, a copy 
of which will be found in Appendix E. The policy of the Government as then 
expressed was "to institute proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada on 
behalf of the Indians against a provincial grantee, or licensee, in the hope of 
obtaining a decision upon the questions involved as soon as a case arised in which 
the main points in difference can be properly or conveniently tried." Mr. 
Newcombe drew the attention of the Department to this Order in Council on 
the 18th April, 1912. It will be observed that the Memorandum to Council was 
drafted by the Department of Justice and it would appear that this Department 
was not advised of its passage, and was, therefore, ignorant of it until the above 
date, namely 18th April, 1912. when a certified copy was obtained for our 
papers. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Do you say that is the Department of the Interior? 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



12 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Dr. SCOTT: The Department of Justice. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: How do they say it- was drafted by the Department of 
Justice, and that their attention was not directed to it? 

Dr. SCOTT: That is the fact. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Bu it is a reflection on their own Department. 

Dr. SCOTT: Well, I do not want. to reflect on their Department. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: But they are themselves reflecting on their own Depart 
ment. 

Dr. SCOTT: At that time the Department of Justice had charge of the case, 
and were really dealing with it. I cite these facts to show that the government 
of that date at least was trying to. get the case before the Courts. 

It will be remembered that the Government changed in the autumn of 1911, 
and Sir Robert Borden s Government came into power. While the Order in 
Council of the 17th May, 1911, was dormant, Mr. McKenna had recommended 
that there should be discussions anew with the Provincial Government, and as 
previously stated, he was appointed a special Commissioner on the 24th May, 
]912, the appointment of a Royal Commission followed, and subsequently the 
confirmation of their Report by the Governments. These incidents have been 
dealt with in the previous pages of this memorandum. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOUET: All that preceded the Royal Commission of 1912, 
and really led up to the Royal Commission. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. It is claimed that Sir Wilfrid Laurier s government was 
willing to take the case to the Courts. They amended the Indian Act twice to 
enable them to do it, and even then they found they had not succeeded, and 
then they passed that Order in Council saying that when they could take a case 
against a provincial grantee, that was perfectly clear, thej T would put the matter 
into the Courts. (Continuing reading) : 

The undersigned was appointed Deputy Superintendent General on 
October 11, 1,913, and was almost immediately confronted with this ques 
tion. The government had accepted the agreement arrived at by Sir 
Richard McBride and Mr. McKenna by Order in Council of the 27th 
November, 1912. The Royal Commision had been appointed and was in 
the field, but the advisers of the Indians were still pressing for action 
on the question of aboriginal title. The Nishga Tribe, inhabiting the 
Nass River country, had presented a petition to His Majesty s Privy 
Council in May of 1913, which had been referred to the Dominion Gov 
ernment on the 19th June, 1913. In reviewing the previous action of the 
Government I could not discover 

I am speaking of myself as the then Deputy of the Department. (Con 
tinuing reading) : 

that the expenditure by the Dominion Government on behalf of 
the British Columbia Indians, growing year by year since Confedera 
tion, had ever been compared with the probable value to the Crown of 
the Indian title in British Columbia estimated upon, a comparison with 
appraised values as shown by existing treaties in other provinces. A 
few interviews with the advisers of the Indians convinced me that they 
were in possession of erroneous ideas about the nature of the Indian 
title and exaggerated views of the value of the title, an,d had in fact not 
fully grasped the conditions under which the Crown had made treaties 
with the Indians in other parts of the Dominion. I became convinced 
that the expectation of receiving compensation of very large value either 
in money or privileges was influencing to a great extent the strength of 
the pressure being brought to bear on the Government, and I found the 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 13 

idea prevailing that the improvements made by white citizens to pro 
vincial lands, both in city and country, had enhanced the value of the 
Indian title. As it is clear that this is not the case, and as I believed that 
the Indians were already receiving in value what might be considered 
adequate compensation for the title, it occurred to me to recommend to 
the Government the proposal which was contained in my memorandum 
of the llth March, 1914. The points were carefully considered by the 
Government. I had the privilege of consultation with the Honourable 
Mr. Justice Xewcombe, who was then Deputy Minister of Justice, and 
with the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, and 
my memorandum was approved of, and accepted by Order in, Council of 
20th June, 1914. (A copy of this Order in Council, with memorandum 
attached, will be found in Appendix F.) 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: How long would that be? Perhaps you might read it. 

Dr. SCOTT: I have a precis of it here. I think this will give the committee 
what they require. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The substance of it? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. The proposal was to refer the claim to the Exchequer 
Court of Canada when the Indians agreed to accept the findings of the Royal 
Commission on the reserve question and to accept " benefits to be granted for 
the extinguishment of title in accordance with the past usages of the Crown." 
That is, if they won this case in the Exchequer Court, they were to accept like 
benefits to what had been, accorded to Indians in other parts of the country. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Did the Indians claim that they had not received in 
proportion to the other provinces? 

Dr. SCOTT: Oh, yes, that is the claim to-day. I do not know that they 
say they have received nothing for the title, but they want a cession of this 
title on their own terms, which you will find in one of their pamphlets. If and 
when the matter is printed, the committee will read my argument in this mem 
orandum; has been somewhat criticized and perhaps I might amend it a little 
now at this date. At any rate, those are my views and I think they are per 
fectly sound on the subject of Indian title and of the compensation that has 
been accorded in the past, 

By this plan the arrangement between British Columbia and the Dominion, 
established by Clause Thirteen of the Terms of Union, was to be respected, and 
the Dominion was to grant any additional compensation on the same scale as 
had been adopted in the past. A form of agreement with the Indians was 
prepared, but was never presented. The plan became generally known to their 
advisers and to the chief members of their organization, but no definite action 
was taken. Naturally, they never approved of it, as it was virtually a denial 
of the extravagant expectations which had been aroused. 

Early in the month of February, 1915, the undersigned had lengthy con 
versations with a deputation of the Nishga Indians (Nass River) , who had 
come to Ottawa to consult with the Government. The Nishga petition is fre 
quently referred to in the statements of the Indians, and the fiction is maintained 
that this petition is still before the Privy Council, and only methods of procedure 
remain undetermined. The fact is that the Canadian solicitor for the Nishga 
Indians was advised that if the petition was to be considered by the Privy 
Council, the matter must be litigated in the Canadian Courts. In Appendix G 
will be found a letter from Sir Almeric Fitzroy and an extract from a letter 
from the Honourable C. J. Doherty. In this Appendix will be also found a 
letter from the Secretary of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, to 
which reference is frequently made, and also a letter from the Secretary of the 
Duke of Devonshire, both Governor Generals of the Dominion. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



14 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

At the Session of Parliament of 1919-20 the Department had presented 
legislation in the form of two bills: one to amend the Indian Act, and another 
to enable the Dominion to deal with the Report of the Royal Commission. A 
special committee of the House was formed to consider the first-mentioned bill, 
and the solicitor for the British Columbia Indians appeared before the com 
mittee and presented their claims. When these bills were in the Senate, he 
and a deputation of British Columbia Indians appeared before a Senate com 
mittee and again presented their claims. 

The Government of the Right Honourable Mackenzie King came into 
power in December, 1921, and soon after the appointment of the Honourable 
Charles Stewart as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs he began to give 
personal attention to this case. He visited Vancouver and met the Indians in 
the summer of 1922. and he met them again in the same place in the summer 
of the next year. This last meeting was preliminary to a conference which I 
held with the executive of the Allied Tribes and their solicitor at Victoria. Mr. 
Stewart had hoped that it would be possible to settle the claim for aboriginal 
title out of Court, if the Indians would fix upon reasonable compensation which 
the Dominion Government might supply without involving the Government of 
the Provinces. The conference which I had with them in August of 1923 was 
held with the hope of coming to some conclusion. I reported the result of the 
conference on October 29, 1923. The Indians demands at that time were 
practically the same as they are to-day, and were based on the claims advanced 
in 1919. The only entirely new item was the plea for a cash payment, which 
was, I understand, made on behalf of the Indians now living who as the Chair 
man, Mr. Kelly, stated "will not be in a position to profit by any of the future 
benefits that we have claimed." (In Appendix H will be found a copy of my 
report to the Minister of October 29, 1923.) 

The Executive of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia and their 
solicitor are pressing the Government for a decision, and have requested that 
they be allowed to litigate their claim in the Courts and appeal to the Privy 
Council, the Government to bear all the expenses of the proceedings. 

Now I have some general remarks which will not take long to read. Per 
haps the committee might like to hear them? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Proceed. 

Dr. SCOTT (Reading) : The undersigned is still of opinion that the Indians 
are fairly compensated for the aboriginal title by the provision of reserves, and 
by the extension to the Indians of British Columbia of the policy which obtains 
in the other provinces of the Dominion. The Indians of British Columbia are 
not suffering any greater disabilities nor restrictions in hunting and fishing, 
and in the use of unoccupied territory than are other Indians of the Dominion. 

If the Dominion decides to take the case to the Courts, and finds that it is 
possible to do so in consideration of the Thirteenth Clause of the Terms of 
Union and of the McKenna-McBride agreement and the statutes, the claim 
will be against the British Columbia Government. If the Indians win, there 
will be a cloud on all the land titles issued by the province, and this point has 
always been an obstacle in the way of the reference. As early as the Order- 
in-Council of 1875 the policy of obtaining a cession was held to be questionable. 
During one conference between Sir Richard McBride and Mr. McKenna, the 
Prime Minister held that the public interest was paramount, and the question 
was dropped owing to the seriousness of then raising that question. The serious 
ness and importance of that aspect has not lessened, and it is now as much a 
question of public policy as of Indian interest. It may be even more question 
able in view of the statute and the Orders-in-Council confirming the findings 
of the Royal Commission. The Honourable Mr. Justice Newcombe has stated 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 15 

that this action constitutes a final settlement of all Indian questions as between 
the Dominion and the province, and the Dominion Order in Council confirming 
the McKenna-McBride agreement was passed with the knowledge of that 
opinion. 

It will be interesting to analyze the terms of an existing treaty with the 
Indians. An examination of our expenditure for Treaty No. 6, which covers 
Saskatchewan, the terms of which are the same as those of Treaty No. 8, 
which includes part of British Columbia (104,400 square miles) discloses the 
fact that the Dominion is spending large sums annually in the erection and 
maintenance of residential schools, in supervision and instruction in agricultural 
operations and stock-raising, in medical attendance, medicines and hospitals, 
in the care of insane Indians. These expenditures and others do not arise from 
obligations imposed on the Dominion by the treaty with the Indians, but are 
for the most part actuated by humane motives and by a desire to raise the 
natives of the country to full citizenship. The law provides for their accept 
ance as citizens, and the policy is intended to fit them for that condition. A 
strict fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaty alone would never advance 
them to that state. 

This I think is rather a valuable part of this memorandum, if I may say so. 

An examination of treaties and surrenders arranged with Indians since the 
eighteenth century would prove that the compensation for the title was regulated, 
and that any demands beyond those thought reasonable by the Crown were 
refused. The consideration offered and accepted was fair, but it was settled by 
the Crown, and in fact was often fixed for the Crown s officers before the negotia 
tions. The appraised value of the title in British Columbia is shown by the 
fact that Sir James Douglas, when he was the Agent of the Hudson s Bay 
Company on Vancouver Island, paid the Indians at the rate of 2.10.0 per 
family for the southern one hundred square miles of Vancouver Island. He 
asked the Imperial authorities for a loan of 3,000 (say $15,000) to obtain a 
cession of the remaining area of the Island at the rate of 3 per family. If 
we allow an average of four in a family for the present population of British 
Columbia (23,792) , the cash value of the title to the whole of the unsurrenclered 
area is $89,175.00 If we take Sir James Douglas report for a loan of 3,000 
and use the area of the Island, 16,000 square miles, as a factor, we find that he 
was contemplating a complete surrender for less than $1.00 a square mile. 
On this basis the cash value of the title would be $251,097.00 as the unsur- 
rendered portion of the province is 251,097 square miles. 

The following is an analysis of the mutual obligations arising from Treaty 
No. 6. Area ceded: 128,800 square miles. 

The Indians Promised: 

(1) To observe treaty. 

(2) To conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects. 

(3) To obey and abide by the law. 

(4) To maintain peace and good order. 

(5) Not to molest person or property of inhabitants or property of the 
government or interfere with or trouble travellers. 

Obligations Assumed by the Government: 

Reserves not to exceed one square mile to each family of five. 

Indians to have the right to hunt and fish throughout the tract surrendered. 

Expenditure Once for All: 

Gratuity at time of Treaty: $12 per head. 

Miscellaneous expenditure in agriculture; tools, cattle, flags, medals, etc., 

including special provisions for the Indians at Fort Carlton and Fort 

Pitt when adhering to the Treaty. $110,000. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Perpetual Expenditure: 
Annuities: Chiefs, $25. 

Headmen (Not to exceed four to each band) , $15. 
Indians, $5. 

Total payment in 1924, $41,290. Government to maintain schools on re 
serve. $1,500 to be expended annually for ammunition and twine. In the event 
of pestilence or a general famine among the Indians such subsistence shall be 
granted as the Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs may deem necessary. 

A medicine chest shall be kept at the house of each Indian Agent for the 
use and benefit of the Indians, at the discretion of such Agent. 

Each chief and headman receives a suitable suit of clothing triennially. 

It will be seen that the perpetual expenditure in Treaty No. 6 amounts to 
about $43,000 per annum under the terms of the treaty. That is all that the 
government was obligated to spend. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: How many Indians were under Treaty Number six? 

Dr. SCOTT: I have not the number here, but I think it was about 4,000. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That is in Saskatchewan. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. The cost of the medicine chest and the triennial clothing 
is negligible, and the contingency regarding pestilence and famine has never 
arisen. 

I want the committee to note this comparison. We find for the fiscal year 
1924-25, that over and above the Treaty obligations, our total expenditure for 
general purposes has been $121,013.28 and for education $317,619. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is for the whole locality? 

Dr. SCOTT: No, for Treaty Number six alone. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: There was no obligation to pay either of these sums. 

Dr. SCOTT: No. no obligation whatever. What we were obligated to pay was 
$43.000 a year. What we did pay was that amount, and in addition to that, 
121,000 plus $317,000. That is, $439,000. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOTJET: Was there an actual cession of the land comprised 
within Treaty Number six, within that area at the time? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOUKT: There was a surrender? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, there was a cession. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That takes in the northeast corner of about one-quarter 
of British Columbia; that portion of British Columbia lying east of the main 
range. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOT.TW: No, that is Number eight. Was Number six sur 
rendered at the time? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: But they want the matter reopened. The question here 
for us is whether we should allow them to reopen the matter so far as this area 
is concerned, under Treaties Number six and eight. 

Dr. SCOTT: Oh, no, not six. I am simply using that as a comparison, 
showing what the Crown appraise the value of this title to be. What I want 
to make clear to the committee is that before a Commission went out to arrange 
a treaty with the Indians, the Commissioners were given directions; that is the 
Crown decided what should be paid for this title. An Order in Council was 
sometimes passed. But sometimes the instructions were merely written. When 
I made what is called Treaty Number nine for the northern part of Ontario 
just before the transcontinental road went through there, it was by pre-arrange- 
ment between the Ontario government and the Dominion government. An agree- 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 17 

ment was made and signed by both governments, and under these orders that 
is all we were enabled to give the Indians. 

We were to offer them reserves, and $4 a head annuity, and schools. I 
could not have gone beyond my instructions. 

The obligations assumed by the Government, were practically the same; 
the Indians were to get 160 acres of land per head. The expenditure amounted 
to $150,592, as being once for all. What I mean by " once for all," is that 
it was a cash payment, and the Indians were to be given a certain number of 
axes, hoes and cattle once for all. 

The following is an analysis of the mutual obligations arising from Treaty 
No. 8. 

Area ceded: 324,900 square miles. 

The Indian Promised: 

To observe treaty. 

To conduct themselves as loyal subjects. 

To obey and abide by the law; maintain peace and assist Government 
officers to bring Indian offenders to justice. 

To agree to Government s power of expropriation on reserves upon pay 
ment of just compensation and agree to Government s right of dealing with 
settlers who may be within limits of reserve and also agree to the Govern 
ment s right to sell for the Indians benefit any reserves, provided the consent 
of the Indians is first obtained. 

Obligations Assumed by the Government: 

Reserves or land in severalty; 160 acres per Indian. 

Expenditure once for All: 

Gratuity at time of treaty $43,960 

Miscellaneous expenditure: tools, cattle, flags, medals, 

etc 106,632 



Total .............................. $150,592 

Perpetual Expenditure: 

Annuities: Chiefs, $25; Headmen, $15, Indians, $5. Total payment in 
1924, $26,895. 

Salaries of teachers as Government may deem advisable. 

Chiefs and headmen get suitable suit of clothes triennially. 

Families preferring to continue hunting and fishing receive ammunition 
and twine to the value of $1 per head annually. 

It will be seen that the perpetual expenditure in Treaty No. 8 amounts to 
between $27,000 and $30,000 per annum under the terms of the treaty. We 
find for the last fiscal year, 1924-25, over and above treaty obligations, our 
total expenditure for general purposes has been $95,914, and for education 



To emphasize the point of the comparative figures just given the matter 
may be reduced to a statement: 

Perpetual Expenditure 
Square Miles Guaranteed by Treaty 

Treaty No. 6 .................. 128,800 $43,000 00 

Treaty No. 8 .................. 324,900 30,000 00 



453,700 $73,000 00 

Total Expenditure, 
British Columbia 
Indians, 1925-26 

British Columbia 251,097 $690,683 14 

42325 2 rMr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



18 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The Indian expenditure in the Province of British Columbia, where no 
treaty exists, has been generous. The average expenditure for the fiscal years 
from April 1, 1923, to March 31, 1926, has been $715,292.40, and the Main 
Estimates for the current fiscal year allow $892,000 for Indian purposes in 
British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. BELCC/TRT: If this comparison which I have is taken from the 
West, does it hold good throughout the rest of Canada, with regard to the 
Indians? 

Dr. SCOTT: I do not think our expenditure is so large, per capita, east of 
Lake Superior, because we had not to face the problem of supporting the 
Indians. In Ontario the Indians are practically self-supporting. In the country 
north of the Great Lakes, there are still Indians who can be classed as hunters 
and fishers. After the buffalo disappeared in 1878-79 it was necessary for the 
Government to interpose, and practically feed the Indians on the plains. They 
were hunters, for a number of years, and then became agriculturists. I am sure 
they are now practically self-supporting. The actual outlay to prevent desti 
tution or suffering in the central parts of the prairies is almost nil, but that 
obligation begins to press very severely upon us in regard to the hunting Indians 
because as the hunting disappears, and the competition of independent white 
hunters takes place, with all sorts of restrictive regulations to prevent the 
disappearance of game, the Indians are gradually being thrown on the govern 
ment for support. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: That is outside the Province of British Columbia? 
Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Do you anticipate the same result, in the more or less 
distant future, as far as British Columbia itself is concerned? Is hunting going 
to disappear? 

Dr. SCOTT: The hunting is disappearing, yes. The Indians who hunt, in 
British Columbia, are under great disabilities owing to the hunting restrictions 
by the provincial authorities, in regard to the settlement undertaken in respect 
of the preservation of game, timber and fishing. We can have some valuable 
information on the question of fishing, from Mr. Found, the Commissioner of 
Fisheries. It is very striking, the part the Indians of British Columbia take in 
the fishing industry of the province. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: You see them at it in the canneries. 
Dr. SCOTT (Reading) : 

The important question to be decided by the Dominion Government, 
guardian of the Indians, is whether the claim of aboriginal title is to be 
referred to the Courts, and if not, what course is to be adopted in the future 
treatment of the question, and what motive or policy is to prevail in our 
future relationship with our wards. It is our duty to consider what 
advantage is to be gained by the Indians from this reference. If success 
ful, will their position in British Columbia be improved, or will any 
advantage follow, financial or otherwise? Or will all that is favourable 
in their relations with the British Columbia government be jeopardized? 
We must, I think, consider the effect of a reference to the Courts by the 
Dominion Government upon the confirmed agreement between the Gov 
ernments. If that agreement is impaired or destroyed, the allotment of 
the reserves now secured may depend upon favourable intervention at 
some future time by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Is the 
Dominion Government debarred by the final settlement of all differences 
between the Governments respecting Indian lands and Indian affairs 
generally in the province from referring the question to the Courts? 
These are questions which the Committee will have to consider, and the 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 19 

undersigned has endeavoured to assist their deliberations by setting forth 
the historical facts, by giving statistics to show the value of Indian title 
as appraised by past agreements, and to make plain the policy of the 
Government which leads to expenditure much larger than treaty obligations 
would warrant, undertaken for the gradual civilization of the Indian and 
his advancement to full citizenship. The consideration of the questions 
above set out will naturally give rise to a review of the present Indian 
policy of the Dominion Government in British Columbia. It will be found 
not to differ in any respect from the general policy, and the British 
Columbia Indians will appear as recipients of like benefits to other 
Indians. The special mark of a treaty with Indians is the payment of 
annuity. In British Columbia this is absent; it is a questionable benefit, 
and was only resorted to as a method of giving individual Indians equal 
compensation. If the Committee will make a comparison between the 
character and condition of the British Columbia Indians as described 
by Honourable Mr. Trutch in 1872 and the Indians who have appeared 
before the Government urging their claims, the result will be striking. 
Mr. Trutch states that " by far the larger proportion of them are utter 
savages"; the deputations of the present day have been headed by an 
Indian who is a Minister of the United Church. His companions speak 
and write English and are self-supporting members of society. These 
representatives are no doubt in advance of the Indians generally, but 
they speak for their people and supply them with ideas. This contrast 
arises as a result of civilization working upon the natural intelligence of 
the race; it can be employed most usefully in comparing the treaty terms 
of the past with the claims set up by these progressive and educated 
Indians. 

The value to the Crown of the Indian title has not been increased 
by the settlement of the Province and the development of its natural 
resources, or by the present needs of the natives, but the Indian, possessed 
of the idea that he has aboriginal title, feeling the pressure of competition 
and of disabilities which are not peculiar to his environment in British 
Columbia, has magnified the value and has brought into the settlement 
of the problem factors which are foreign to it. In other words the Gov 
ernment is dealing with educated and progressive Indians instead of with a 
primitive people. 

As it is clear that the Dominion Government assumed certain respon 
sibilities under the Thirteenth Clause of the Terms of Union, and while 
at that time the British Columbia Government had no very well developed 
policy, yet they had established or were thinking of establishing schools 
for the Indians find were looking forward to a time when they would 
become self-supporting members of the community. It is fair to say that 
the Dominion Government has carried on and developed that incipient 
policy. This is apparent particularly in the item of Indian education, 
and as that is placed by the Indians themselves in the forefront of their 
requirements, it is interesting to note that the Department is gradually 
developing a system of Indian schools which when completed may be found 
to meet all the reasonable needs of the case. A complete building pro 
gram totalling $1,310,000 would suffice to establish all necessary Indian 
schools within the province. When it is completed the annual mainten 
ance would cost $468,000, and 4,415 Indians will be under training. If, 
in addition to this, a careful administration is maintained, and if in 
struction is provided in agriculture and fruit-growing in districts where 
it is applicable, and if the present medical supervision and hospital treat 
ment is gradually improved, it appears to the undersigned that the needs 
of the British Columbia Indians will be provided for, and by such an 

42325 2i [Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



20 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

expenditure not only would the supposed Indian title be amply satisfied, 
but the obligation which the Dominion undertook at the time British 
Columbia came into the Union will be met most fully and comprehensively. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

DUNCAN C. SCOTT, 

Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 

OTTAWA, March 30, 1927. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: How many Indians are there in British Columbia? 
Dr. SCOTT: About 23,000. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOUET: I should like Dr. Scott to read to us that part, he 
read a little while ago, which mentions the subjects which have been specifically 
referred to us for investigation. 
Dr. SCOTT: 

The important question to be decided by the Dominion Government, 
guardian of the Indians, is whether the claim of aboriginal title is to be 
referred to the courts, and if not, what course is to be adopted in the 
future treatment of the question, and what motive or policy is to prevail 
in our future relationship with our wards. 
The petition asks for reference to the courts. 

As far as my opinions of this question are concerned, which I expressed 
rather freely, I have been expressing them to the Indians just as freely, for the 
last ten years. As a matter of fact, there is nothing new in it; in giving those 
opinions, they will not be new to the Indians. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: If the court were to decide in favour of their title, 
do you believe that would be a settlement of the claims which would arise? 

Dr. SCOTT: If it were left to the Province of British Columbia to settle 
the claims, we all know it is their opinion that there is no claim. And if the 
courts said, "Yes, there is a claim, British Columbia ought to give you one 
dollar an acre for the title," we know what the reply of British Columbia would 
be. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOTJRT: How can this committee recommend a course of 
action that would bring about a settlement, if the Province of British Columbia, 
which is a necessary party, refuses to deal with the subject at all? Are not our 
hands tied? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Did I correctly gather, from your memorandum, that 
prior to Confederation, British Columbia, as a colony, had dealt with the Indian 
question in a manner which they thought was satisfactory; what appeared to be 
a definite settlement. 

Dr. SCOTT: I think so. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And then, when British Columbia entered Confedera 
tion, the Dominion Government s duty consisted only in looking after the 
interests of the Indians, under section 13, of the Terms of the Union? 

Dr. SCOTT: Their obligation went far beyond that. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Later on, agitation and dispute having arisen, the 
Dominion and Provincial Governments came to an agreement, and the Royal 
Commission of 1912 ratified the agreement. In 1923-24, Parliament brought 
about what the two governments assumed to be a final settlement of the question 
in dispute. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. And Mr. Newcombe gave it as his opinion that it was 
a settlement. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 21 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Through all those years, the Indians still persisted 
in claiming aboriginal title to the land. 
Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is really the main question that is outstanding, 
as far as the Indians are concerned. 

Dr. SCOTT: I think so. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: But not as far as the Provincial and Dominion govern 
ments are concerned. 

Dr. SCOTT: No. The question between them was finally settled by this 
allotment of the land. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: As far as the Department of Indian Affairs is concerned, 
the Superintendent-General and yourself as Assistant Superintendent-General, 
are really guardians or trustees of the Indians rights. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, under the provisions of the Indian Act. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We come back to the position as pointed out a moment 
ago by Senator Belcourt; that any claims which we might now recognize would 
be against the province, and not against the Dominion. 

Dr. SCOTT: That is clear, because the province has the lands. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOXJRT: Might I ask, on that point, what part, if any, the 
Indians took in connection with the Royal Commission of 1912. 

Dr. SCOTT: They appeared before the Commissioners. 
Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Did they submit their rights? 

Dr. SCOTT: No, the Commission met with this question by saying to the 
Indians they had no power to deal with it; the Commission said they were to 
set apart reserves. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: In 1914, the Dominion and Provincial governments 
agreed upon a reference to the Exchequer Court. 

Dr. SCOTT: No, not the Provincial government. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The Provincial government refused to do it. That is 
the difficulty. 

Dr. SCOTT: May I say that I asked the government to pass that Order in 
Council so that, for the first time, the nature of the title of the Indians would 
be recognized. By that Order in Council, the Dominion and Provincial 
governments stated they were willing to assume the responsibility of giving the 
land, but they said the Indians must accept the land subject to control by that 
Commission. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The Indians never agreed to that. 

Dr. SCOTT: No, the Indians never agreed to that. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOUHT: If that is the case, is there anything to show that the 
Indians committed themselves at any time, in regard to these questions? They 
have accepted money. 

Dr. SCOTT: They have accepted those benefits from the land. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Did the Indians commit themselves in respect of any 
of the provisions of the agreement, in regard to title? 

Dr. SCOTT: With the exception of what is already stated in the Treaty; 
104,000 miles on the southern point of Vancouver Island. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Let us take it with regard to the province of British 
Columbia; the Royal Commission of 1912 stated the amount of expenditure 
which British Columbia was. bound to make. 

Dr. SCOTT: They ratified that. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: All this committee can do now is to say to the Pro 
vincial government, you agreed to do so and so. 

Dr. SCOTT: That is all. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What did the Indians say with reference to the land 
set aside by that Commission, did they occupy the land? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Did the Commission set apart new reserves for them, 
and is that held by the government to be a fair settlement of the question of 
reserves? 

Dr. SCOTT: Of course, the Indians are demanding 160 acres per head, in 
the province of British Columbia. You will find that stated in the pamphlet; 
that may be developed later on before the Committee, as to what the claim 
actually is. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Which would be in excess of the land set aside by 
the Royal Commission? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, tremendously in excess. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Have any areas been selected for them? 

Dr. SCOTT: They were selected with great care by them, as lands being 
occupied and used by the Indians, to which they had aboriginal title. There 
are over 1,200 reserves in British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: They were not moved to other places? 

Dr. SCOTT: No, they were not evicted. Some hardship occurred on 
account of land being pre-empted which had been occupied by Indians, but 
this was through inadvertence. The British Columbia government has been 
able, in some cases, to get back the land, and give it to the Indians. The British 
Columbia government has acted throughout, reasonably and generously. We 
were willing to do what we could, in regard to such allotment, but the Indians 
are not satisfied with those reserves; in some instances, in regard to the quantity 
of the land, and some places, as to location. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Did they appear before the Royal Commission? 

Dr. SCOTT: In some cases they were represented. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Did they ever put forward claims which have not 
been adjudicated upon? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: No, they refused to do so. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: No compensation was made, outside of the compensa 
tion for lan,d. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. You will find it in the pamphlet which was printed, and 
presented to the British Columbia Government in 1919, and which contains the 
conditions imposed as the basis of settlement. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: That is in the printed report, filed. 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, you will see it in one of the appendices of my report. 

With reference to the 160 acres of land, in sections of the province where 
the character of the available land made it undesirable to carry out the aree- 
ment, it was proposed that the Indians should be compensated for such defici 
ency by being given hunting lands, or otherwise, according to the conditions of 
each section. Any existing inequalities in respect of acreage, and value, were 
to be adjusted. The claims with respect to land were enormous. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: We cannot suggest anything to our parliament that 
could be at all effective. If we were to decide on this question of law, British 
Columbia would refuse to accept our jurisdiction. If British Columbia takes 
the ground that they have an agreement, and that is the end of it, I do not 
see what purpose this committee can serve by hearing all these people. It 
seems to me that we are up against an insuperable difficulty. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 23 

Hon.. Mr. BENNETT: In the New England States, title was predicated upon 
the same basis. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: It becomes a purely academic question. 

The CHAIRMAN: The point is, do you want to ask Dr. Scott any more 
questions. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: He will be at our disposal. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: I seriously suggest that I think the work of this 
Committee is finished; we cannot do anything more; we cannot make any kind 
of suggestion, or report that will be effective. It is a question of law in which 
one of the parties interested refused to come here and have anything to do 
with it. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: The adjustment between the two governments is 
complete, as to what they agree is required for reserves, for the benefit of the 
Indians. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: That is not in dispute here. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: It is. to this extent, the Indians, as our wards, have 
never agreed to it as a definite settlement. However, it must be borne in mind 
that even if they have not agreed, they have been occupying and accepting the 
reserves. That situation is not uncommon in other provinces where they have 
the same problem. I understand that British Columbia takes the ground that 
the Indians will get nothing more, that the settlement arrived at was thought 
to be a reasonable settlement. British Columbia may take the ground that 
if we want more ground for the Indians, we will have to pay for it. The other 
provinces will not always take that position, particularly if they have lands 
that are Crown lands. They would not buy the lands, that is true, but it seems 
to me that as this is such a controversial question, we might as well hear these 
people who have come here, It must not be said that the Government, after 
hearing Dr. Scott, closed the case. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: My observation had particular reference to the 
question of title, which I understand is the main question that has been referred 
to this Committee. You have separated that question from the one point of 
which you have just spoken; it is a different question all together. As to the 
question of acreage, that is a matter to be adjusted between the departments. 
On the question of aboriginal title, I say it is utterly hopeless for us to proceed. 

Hon. Mr. BEN NETT: I think, to the extent of which it is possible for us to 
make a declaration, it might be desirable for us to do so. I quite agree with 
what Senator Belcourt has said. We could make a report and declaration that 
our opinion is so and so, and Parliament might possibly implement that later, 
by some form of legislation which would be of a declaratory character. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: I have no objection to hearing the witnesses, but 
I thought I should point out that situation. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS; I suggest that we hear the Indians, and their repre 
sentative, but that the case, in its presentation, should be divided into two 
parts. Dr. Scott will correct me if I am. wrong in my interpretation of the 
situation when I say that the present claim in regard to the aboriginal title, 
which is the thing that has been adjudicated, should be kept separate from the 
other questions regarding administration, and whether there has been a full 
settlement made by the province of British Columbia in accordance with the 
findings of the Royal Commission of 1912. That is the question which I do not 
think the Dominion Government, will have very great difficulty in adjudicating. 
As far as this Parliament is concerned, the question of aboriginal title should 
be disposed of, and the other dealt with separately; otherwise, we will get 
into an endless discussion. 

[Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



24 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. MCPHERSON: All the information I have on this, Mr. Chairman, is a 
copy of a petition filed in the Senate last year. I gather that the government 
had practically decided what they thought was the correct settlement of this 
question between the Dominion and the Provinces, but that that is not satis 
factory to the Indians and they want to submit their claims to the Privy Council. 
It would look as if that was one of the main issues in their petition. If there 
is a dispute and the Indians will not accept the provision made, then _the com 
mittee will have to decide on that point, which might waive the necessity for us 
going into detail. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Can we determine what is at issue unless we hear the 
other side? Is it not all speculation in advance of that? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Do I understand that the Indians are asking to have 
a stated case? 

Mr. MCPHERSON: To be submitted to the Privy Council. "That immediate 
steps be taken for facilitating an independent proceeding." That is a reference 
so that their petition might be brought before His Majesty s Privy Council. 
" Or such other judicial action as might be found necessary to secure the judg 
ment of the judicial committee of the Privy Council," 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Would that have to be submitted to our own Courts? 

Mr. MCPHERSON: They ask for the Privy Council. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Would it not be well now to hear argument from the 
representative of the Allied Tribes as to their contention that they have an 
aboriginal title, despite the fact that the claim is made, and acquiesced in; 
apparently, that that was cancelled. Doctor Scott has submitted a memorandum 
which will be printed for the benefit of the members of the committee. The 
point as to the aboriginal title is one upon which they should be given an 
opportunity to speak to the committee, and then we can decide how far we will 
go later. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Who is to do that, Mr. Stewart? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Who is to speak for you, Mr. Paull? 

Mr. PAULL: Dealing with the constitutional matters, Mr. Chairman? I 
would like to ask Doctor Scott a question before he leaves. 

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. 

Mr. PAULL: Doctor Scott has dealt with one phase only of the constitutional 
matters included in this case. I would respectfully ask the hon. members of 
the committee not to form any hurried conclusions before they have listened 
to the constitutional matters involved in this question. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paull, before you start, I think for the information oi 
the members of the committee, you had better state why you are here, and your 
standing. Whom do you represent? 

Mr. PAULL: My name is Andrew Paull. I am a full-blooded Indian of the 
Squamish tribe, and I am secretary of the executive committee of the Allied 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paull, do the Allied Tribes include all of your people? 
You are not speaking for every tribe in British Columbia? 

Mr. PAULL: As far as the aboriginal title is concerned, I am speaking for 
the organization of the Indians in British Columbia, dealing with this question. 
Other Indians may come here and represent themselves, dealing with their own 
particular reserves. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: What tribes do you represent? 

Mr. PAULL: I represent nearly all the tribes in British Columbia. I might 
name some of them from memory. On the southern coast, the Squamish Indians; 

r Mr. Duncan C. Scott.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 25 

all the Indians on Vancouver Island, east and west coasts; the Indians up the 
coast of British Columbia, all along the coast. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Do you represent the Indians in the interior? At 
Kamloops and the Okanagan? 

Mr. PAULL: The greater part of the Interior Indians, with the exception 
of those Indians represented by Chief John Chillihitse. I do not know just the 
proper name of his locality, but he is striving for the same thing. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Could you tell us about the relative number of 
Indians that you represent and that are not represented? 

Mr. PAULL: I think we lack only about 200 of the Indians in British 
Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Then there is a committee of white men associated 
with you, is there not, Mr. Paull? 

Mr. PAULL: In a sympathetic way; they are giving us their moral support; 
the Society of Friends of the Indians of British Columbia, in British Columbia. 
Then there is a society of white people in eastern Canada. 

The CHAIRMAN: Before you give further evidence, Mr. Paull, you should 
be sworn, to give evidence before the committee. 

ANDREW PAULL sworn. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I understand Mr. Paull to say he wanted to ask 
Doctor Scott a question or two before he gave his own evidence. It might be 
more regular to do that, and then the witness could go on. 

The WITNESS: I would like Doctor Scott to inform the committee if it is 
not a fact that the major portions of the expenditures of the government 
towards the Indians of British Columbia did not go in a large way for schools 
and education? I wish Doctor Scott would make it clear that the Indians in 
British Columbia did not receive any monetary compensation individually. 

Dr. SCOTT: I stated that they received no annuity; which answers a portion 
of the question. The financial statement is arranged in sub-heads. $5,422,870.05 
has been spent on education. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is boarding schools? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, boarding and day schools. I might read all the headings: 
Relief, $601,787; aid to agriculture, $162,881; medical attendance, 
$1,364,000 odd; schools, $5,442,000; travelling expenses, $50,000. 

That is the travelling expenses of agents. 

Miscellaneous, $578,150. 
That is dyking and irrigation and all sorts of miscellaneous expenditures. 

Surveys and Irrigation, $314,385. 
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Have you the total there? 
Dr. SCOTT: Yes, the total is $10,800,300. 
Hon.. Mr. MCLENNAN: About half for education then? 
Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

The WITNESS: Now I would like Doctor Scott to file a report with this 
committee showing how much of the Indians own funds have been expended 
for schools, education, hospitals, medicine, medical attendance, and for the 
maintenance of law and order in British Columbia. It may "be a bit of informa 
tion to the hon,. members of this committee to know that the Indians themselves 
have expended some money out of their own tribal funds in paying policemen 

[Mr. Andrew Paull.] 



26 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

to maintain law and order in the province of British Columbia. I am sorry 
the Honourable Mr. Oliver has left. That would have been a good piece of 
information for him. I would ask Doctor Scott to file a report to show how 
the Indians have speut money on those things. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Mr. Paull, we only have twenty minutes; will you 
deal with that very important matter, the question of aboriginal title, first. 

The WITNESS: It is impossible to deal with it in its entirety in twenty 
minutes, but I will endeavour to give the gist of it. I would like to ask Mr. 
Mea.ra to present the argument on our behalf on the constitutional matter. 
Doctor Scott dealt with Article Thirteen of the Terms! of Union. It would 
appear from his memorandum that that article alone was the one which governs 
this whole controversy. It is not. I am sorry to see that he did not deal with 
Section 109 of the British North America Act, which, in my humble opinion, 
concerns the aboriginal title. I notice the reply of the government of the 
Province of British Columbia. They depend on Section 109. 

By Hon. Mr. Belcourt: 

Q. Have you the text of that? A. I am sorry I did not come here this 
morning prepared, but I am sure Mr. O Meara has that. 
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Here it is. 
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Would you read it, please? 
Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: (Reading): 

All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties, belonging to the several 
provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union, and 
all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, 
shall be known to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, 
and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to 
any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than 
that of the province in the same. 

By Hon. Mr. Belcourt: 

Q. You are relying on the words "subject to any trusts existing in respect 
thereof?" A. Yes. Now it may be hard for me to give an expression of opin 
ion as to the exact meaning of that, but we hope, during the course of our 
representations to this committee, to construe it. We will quote decisions to 
explain just exactly what that means, and we are relying on that section, and 
the decisions to substantiate our claim. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. May I ask you there, Mr. Paull, so as to get your claim clearly stated, 
under that section of the Act; do you claim that British Columbia, when, it 
entered Confederation, held in trust for you all the lands, mines, minerals, and 
so on, as set forth in that section? A. The title of the lands in the province 
of British Columbia rested in the Crown, to be held in trust for the British 
Columbia government. But before that, there was another interest; it was 
subject to another interest, and that interest was the Indian interest, which 
was capable of being brought into competition with the interest of the province. 

By Hon. Mr. Belcourt: 

Q. Do you mean the Indian occupation interest? The claim derived from 
occupation? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: No, they do not limit it to occupation. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I should like to get precisely what they do claim. 

The WITNESS: I have not got the decisions with me. 

[Mr. Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 27 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: We should know what is the nature of this interest. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The committee would like to get your view, representing 
the Indians, as to just what they claim. 

By Hon. Mr. Belcourt: 

Q. Would you rather leave that to someone else to deal with? A. I would 
rather be given an opportunity to quote from documents which I have prepared, 
and which we have had prepared. I do not intend to limit my representations 
to this committee, to this time only ; I hope to have the privilege of appearing 
again, and I would rather not be pressed in that matter for the time being. 

Q. All right; go on with your statement. A. Our chairman, Mr. Kelly, 
will be here this week, and I hope the committee will give him an opportunity 
to make representations as well. There are other Indians here in the city now, 
and we would like the committee to listen to them before we make our repre 
sentations. Mr. Kelly and myself realize the responsibility that we have to the 
Indians in British Columbia. I would ask Mr. O Meara to present our consti 
tutional argument before this committee, either now or at the pleasure of the 
committee, before we, the Indians, make any further representations, so that the 
committee may not hurriedly arrive at a decision upon the memorandum of 
Dr. Scott. I would humbly pray that you listen to Mr. O Meara s argument 
now. 

The CHAIRMAN: We have hardly time for that this morning. Have the 
members of the Committee any further questions they want to ask Mr. Paull 
at the moment? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: This witness says, Mr. Chairman, that their argument 
with reference to the constitutional phase of the matter is to be presented by 
another gentleman. Then why not adjourn now and hear him next? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will try to 
keep to the points I mentioned. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I must certainly object to hearing speeches from other 
gentlemen who are said to be in the citv. We want first representations of 
fact. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I think, Senator Murphy, that we have summoned these 
witnesses, and the committee can decide whether they want to hear them or not 
after we have heard the main argument. I take it that what the committee are 
anxious about now is rebuttal evidence on the constitutional question. 

The CHAIRMAN: For the information of the committee, I may say that 
Messrs. Andrew Paull, A. E. O Meara, Rev. P. R. Kelly, W. E. Ditchburn, and 
Chief Chillihitza have been summoned to appear before the committee. 

Hon. Mr. TAYLOR: Then had we better not adjourn now until tomorrow 
morning? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Let us be clear about this: shall Mr. O Meara appear 
at ten o clock tomorrow morning to present argument on this question, or on any 
other? 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the proper way 
for the committee to proceed would be to hear what is evidence, and when we 
have heard the evidence, then hear an argument by whoever wants to make it. 
We want the evidence first. If we have arguments submitted before we hear the 
evidence, we will be here for a longer time than we are able to give. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: The evidence is in rebuttal of what is claimed. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Let us distinguish between evidence and argument. 
Mr. O Meara is simply going to argue the question. Then let us hear him when 
we have all the facts before us. 

[Mr. Andrew Paull.] 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: Is not Mr. O Meara here to present the case for the 
Indians? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. Paul] is asking that Mr. O Meara, as counsel, argue 
the constitutional point. I think before he does that, the Indians should present 
to us their views of their claims to the degree that they want to show them. 
Then Mr. O Meara can make his argument as counsel, if we are going to recognize 
him as counsel instead of as a witness, 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: In other words, the Indians will present what they 
have to say in criticism, or modification of Doctor Scott s departmental state 
ment. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Or in support of their own claim. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Yes, or in support of their own claim. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOUET: Mr. Paull was sworn for the purpose of giving 
evidence. He has not yet given us a sinale fact. He has argued, and that is 
all. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Is it not of importance that we should know exactly 
what they claim, and then we can to some extent confine the evidence and argu 
ment to the issue? 

Mr. McPiiERSON: Apparently Mr. Paull wants Mr. O Meara to state his 
claim. 

The WITNESS: If it is the wish of the committee that I should give evidence 
before the constitutional argument is made, I am prepared to do so. I would like 
to be given the privilege of speaking after Chief Chillihitza. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We do not want to get into a squabble between different 
parties here. Let them give their evidence as they are summoned before the 
committee, and we will treat them all fairly. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I am of the opinion that Mr. O Meara should appear as 
a witness, rather than as counsel. There is not any doubt that the claim of 
the Indians will have to be presented by someone familiar with putting facts 
before the committee. They apparently have selected Mr. O Meara, and I think 
he should give his statement before the witnesses are called. 

MCPHERSON: The same as Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: He should present the case of the Indians with, 
respect to the aboriginal title. The argument will come later. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: We will have both statements of fact and argument 
from Mr. O Meara. 

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen. I understand there is a Mr. Beament here, 
who wants to know whether the committee will allow him to appear as counsel 
for the Indians. He is here now, and perhaps you will hear what he has to 
say. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I think we should 
decide one thing at a time. First let us settle our own procedure as a commit 
tee. 

Mr. A. W. BEAMENT (Barrister, Ottawa) : Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
appear as counsel for the petitioners. I was trying to get the ear of the com 
mittee with regard to the discussion which has taken place. I think Mr. 
McPherson has touched the real point at issue. The petitioners should, I sub 
mit, be given an opportunity now to put in evidence proving the allegations 
stated in the petition, and that all the evidence put in and the argument should 
be directed towards the claims stated in the petition. That is, we should 
satisfy this committee first of all that there are substantial legal questions at 
issue between the Indians and the two governments. If we satisfy them that 
there are substantial legal questions, we should not go on to argue the absolute 

[Mr. Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 29 

merits of those questions; we should then confine ourselves to proving our 
right to have those substantial! judicial questions adjudicated upon by a 
competent tribunal. That is all we are asking this committee to do. We are 
not asking the committee to adjudicate upon the merits of our substantive 
claim. We are only asking them to facilitate and expedite a hearing by as 
competent a tribunal as can be found, of these claims that we make. 

With regard to Mr. O Meara s position, which the Hon. Mr. Stewart has 
touched upon, I will submit to the committee that it is not inconsistent with 
his appearing as counsel for the petitioners, and also giving evidence, as long 
as professional opinions are not included in that. Certainly he has no objec 
tion to acting as I have stated. 

Hqn. Mr. STEVENS: There is this difficulty, that I think we ought to 
avoid; we are not putting the Department of Indian Affairs on trial before this 
committee, as regards minor matters. As I understand it, we are here for 
the purpose of hearing the Indians regarding this claim of aboriginal title 
chiefly. There may be some other matters that they would like to bring before 
us, but certainly we should not put the Department of Indian Affairs on trial 
here before the committee. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: May I suggest that when we finish that question we 
will then be in the position of settling something that the government of British 
Columbia is affected by only. I am rather puzzled as to what we can do if 
we want to do anything here. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: There is just this one point, and that is that I would 
like the evidence first, because there is no use wandering all over the map on 
the question of what the Federal and Provincial governments should do with 
the Indians. We would be very glad to hear that, but I agree with Mr. Stevens 
that there has been so much said about the rights of the Indians and their 
right to consideration for their aboriginal title, and also statements have been 
made definitely that by the right of conquest the lands of British Columbia 
became the property of the Crown, and that the Crown was willing to treat 
the Indians and give to them similar rights that were enjoyed in other parts 
of Canada, treating them exactly as other aborigines were treated in Canada. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Perhaps a little better. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: If there is to be rebuttal evidence offered in respect 
of the question of conquest, to show us that that was not the fact, and that 
there is an Indian claim that was not extinguished, I think the committee should 
have evidence to that effect. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: But a speech will not do it. 

Hon. Mr. STEW AST: No, we want evidence. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: There is no objection to that. I do not want to be mis 
understood. I do not object to that at all, but I want to get the facts before I 
pronounce upon the facts. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That is the point. Let the witnesses understand that 
they are to come prepared on these questions, and not to spread all over creation 
on other matters. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Then shall we meet to-morrow morning at ten o clock, 
Mr. Chairman, and hear the witnesses? 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And all the witnesses will be called to-morrow morning. 

The CHAIRMAN: Whoever they decide to call. 

Mr. O MEARA: I have not stated a sentence on behalf of the tribes yet, Mr. 
Chairman. 

[Mr. Andrew Paull- 1 



30 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The CHAIRMAN: You wil] be given an opportunity at ten o clock to-morrow 
morning. 

Mr. O MEAKA: To go into the whole matter? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: The committee wants you to come prepared to argue 
the points raised this morning. 

Mr. O MEARA: I understand perfectly well. 

The Witness retired. 

The committee adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, March 31st, 1927. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAX TRIBES, B.C. 31 



APPENDIX A 

STATEMENT OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH 

COLUMBIA FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 

BRITISH COLUMBIA 

PART I. GENERAL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

The Statement prepared by the Committee appointed by the Conference 
held at Vancouver in June, 1916, and sent to the Government of Canada and 
the Secretary of State for the Colonies, contained the following: 

The Committee concludes this statement by asserting that, while 
it is believed that all of the Indian tribes of the province will press 
on to the Judicial Committee, refusing to consider any so-called settle 
ment made up under the McKenna Agreement, the Committee also feels 
certain that the tribes allied for that purpose will always be ready to 
consider any really equitable method of settlement out of court which 
might be proposed by the Governments. 

A resolution, passed by the Interior Tribes at a meeting at Spence s Bridge 
on the 6th December, 1917, contained the following: 

We are sure that the governments and a considerable number of 
white men have for many years had in their minds a guite wrong idea 
of the claims which we make, and the settlement which we desire. We 
do not want anything extravagant, and we do not want anything hurtful 
to the real interests of the white people. We want that our actual rights 
be determined and recognized. We want a settlement based upon justice. 
We want a full opportunity of making a future for ourselves. We want 
all this done in such a way that in the future we shall be able to live 
and work with the white people as our brothers and fellow citizens. 

Now we have been informed by our Special Agent that the Government 
of British Columbia desires to have from us a statement further explaining 
our mind upon the subject of settlement, and in particular stating the grounds 
upon which we refuse to accept as a settlement the findings of the Royal Com 
mission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, and what we 
regard as necessary 7 conditions of equitable settlement. 

In order that our mind regarding this whole subject may be understood, 
we desire first to make clear what is the actual present position of the Indian 
land controversy in this Province of British Columbia. 

Throughout practically the whole of the rest of Canada, tribal ownership 
of lands has been fully acknowledged, and all dealings with the various tribes 
have been based upon the Indian title so acknowledged. 

It was long ago conceded by Canada in the most authoritative way possible 

that the Indian tribes of British Columbia have the same title. This is proved 

beyond possibility of doubt by the report of the Minister of Justice, which was 

presented on January 19, 1875, and was approved by the Governor General in 

Council on January 23, 1875. We set out the following extract from that report : 

Considering then these several features of the case, that no surrender 

or cession of their territorial rights, whether the same be of a legal or 

equitable nature, has been ever executed by the Indian Tribes of the 

province that they allege that the reservations of land made by the 

Government for their use have been arbitrarily so made, and are totally 

inadequate to their support and requirements and without their assentr-^ 

that they are not averse to hostilities in order to enforce rights which it 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

is impossible to deny them, and that the Act under consideration not only 
ignores those rights, but expressly prohibits the Indians from enjoying 
the rights of recording or preempting land, except by consent of the 
Lieutenant- Governor, the undersigned feel that he cannot do otherwise 
than advise that the Act in question is objectionable as tending to deal 
with lands which are assumed to be the absolute property of the province, 
an assumption which completely ignores as applicable to the Indians of 
British Columbia, the honour and good faith with which the Crown has 
in all other cases since its sovereignty of the territories in North America 
dealt with their various Indian tribes. 

The undersigned would also refer to the British North America 
Act, 1867, section 109, applicable to British Columbia, which enacts in 
effect that all lands belonging to the province, shall belong to the prov 
ince, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest 
other than that of the province in the same. 

That which has been ordinarily spoken of as the Indian title must 
of necessity consist of some species of interest in the lands of British 
Columbia. 

If it is conceded that they have not a freehold in the soil, but that 
they have an usufruct, a right of occupation or possession of the same for 
their own use, then it would seem that these lands of British Columbia 
are subject, if not to a trust existing in respect thereof, at least to an 
interest other than that of he Province herein. 

Since the year 1875, however, notwithstanding the report of the Minister 
of Justice then presented and approved, local governments have been unwilling 
to recognize the land rights which were then recognized by Canada, and the two 
governments that entered into the McKenna-McBride Agreement failed to 
recognize those land rights. 

If now the two governments should be willing to accept the report and 
Order in Council of the year 1875 as deciding the land controversy, they would 
thereby provide what we regard as the only possible general basis of settlement 
other than a judgment of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council. 

By means of the direct and independent petition of the Nishga Tribe, we 
now have our case before His Majesty s Privy Council. We claim that we have 
a right to a hearing, a right which has now been made clear beyond any possi 
bility of doubt. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when Prime Minister, on behalf of Canada, 
met the Indian Tribes of Northern British Columbia, and promised without any 
condition whatever that the land controversy would be brought before the 
Judicial Committee. Moreover, the Duke of Connaught, acting as His Majesty s 
representative in Canada, gave positive written assurances that if the Nishga 
Tribe should not be willing to agree to the findings of the Royal Commission, 
His Majesty s Privy Council will consider the Nishga petition. In view of Sir 
Wilfrid Laurier s promise, and the Duke of Connaught s assurances, both of 
which confirm what we regard as our clear constitutional right, we confidently 
expect an early hearing of our case. 

Before concluding these introductory remarks, we wish to speak of one 
other matter which we think very important. No settlement would, we are verv 
sure, be real and lasting unless it should be a complete settlement. The so- 
called settlement which the two governments that entered into the McKenna- 
McBride Agreement, have made up is very far indeed from being complete. 
The report of the Royal Commission deals only with lands to be reserved. The 
reversionary title claimed by the Province is not extinguished, as Special Com 
missioner McKenna said it would be. Foreshores have not been dealt with. 
No attempt is made to adjust our general rights, such as fishing rights, hunting 
rights and water rights. With regard to fishing rights and water rights, the 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 33 

Commissioners admit that they can make nothing sure. It is clear to us that 
all our general rights, instead of being taken from us as the McKenna-McBride 
Agreement attempts to do by describing the so-called settlement thereby arranged 
as a " final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in British Colum 
bia " should be preserved and adjusted. Also we think that a complete settle 
ment should deal with the restrictions imposed upon Indians by Provincial 
Statutes and should include a revision of the Indian Act. 

Now, having as we hope made clear the position in which we stand, and from 
which we look at the whole subject, we proceed to comply with the desire of the 
government of British Columbia. 

PART II REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION 
Introductory Remarks 

The general view held by us with regard to the report of the Royal Com 
mission was correctly stated in the communication sent by the Agents of the 
Nishga Tribe to the Lord President of His Majesty s Privy Council on 27th 
May, 1918. 

We now have before us the report of the Royal Commission, and are fully 
informed of its contents, so far as material for the purposes of this statement. 
The report has been carefully considered by the Allied Tribes, upon occasion 
of several meetings, and subsequently by the Executive Committee of the Allied 
Tribes. 

Two general features of the report which we consider very unsatisfactory 
are the following: 

1. The additional lands set aside are to a large extent of inferior quality, 
and their total value is much smaller than that of the lands which the Commis 
sioners recommend shall be cut off. 

2. In recommending that reserves confirmed and additional lands set aside 
be heild for the benefit of bands, the Commissioners proceeded upon a principle 
which we consider erroneous, as all reserved lands should be held for the benefit 
of the Tribes. 

Grounds of Refusal to Accept 

In addition to the grounds shown by our general introductory remarks, we 
mention the following as the principle grounds upon which we refuse to accept 
as a settlement the findings of the Royal Commission: 

1. We think it clear that fundamental matters such as tribal ownership of 
our territories require to be dealt with, either by concession of the governments, 
or by decision of the Judicial Committee, before subsidiary matters such as the 
findings oi the Royal Commission can be equitably deailit with. 

2. We are unwilling to be bound by the McKenna-McBride Agreement, 
under which the findings of the Royal Commission have been made. 

3. The whole work of the Royal Commission has been based upon the 
assumption that Article 13 of the Terms of Union contains all obligations of the 
two governments towards the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, which assump 
tion we cannot admit to be correct. 

4. The McKenna-McBride Agreement, and the report of the Royal Com 
mission ignore not only our land rights, but also the power conferred by Article 
13 upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 

5. The additional reserved lands recommended by the report of the Royal 
Commission, we consider to be utterly inadequate for meeting the present and 
future requirements of the Tribes. 

6. The Commissioners have wholly failed to adjust the inequalities between 
Tribes, in respect of both area and value of reserved lands, which Special Com 
missioner McKenna, in his report, pointed out and which the report of the Royal 
Commission has proved to exist. 

42325-3 



34 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

7. Notwithstanding the assurance contained in the report of Special Com 
missioner McKenna, that " such further lands as are required will be provided 
by the Province, in so far as Crown lands are available." The Province, by Act 
passed in the spring of the year 1916, took back two million acres of land, no 
part of which, as we understand, was set aside for the Indians by the Commis 
sioners, whose report was soon thereafter presented to the governments. 

8. The Commissioners have failed to make any adjustment of water-rights, 
which in the case of lands situated within the Dry Belt, is indispensable. 

9. We regard as manifestly unfair and -wholly unsatisfactory the provisions 
of the McKenna-McBride Agreement relating to the cutting-off and reduction of 
reserved lands, under which one-half of the proceeds of sale of any such lands 
would go to the Province, and the other half of such proceeds, instead of going 
into the hands or being held for the benefit of the Tribe, would be held by the 
Government of Canada for the benefit of aJll the Indians of British Columbia. 

PART III. NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT 
Introductory Remarks 

1. In the year 1915, the Nishga Tribe and the Interior Tribes allied with 
them, made proposals regarding settlement, suggesting that the matter of lands 
to be reserved be finally dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 
and that all other matters requiring to be adjusted, including compensation for 
lands to be surrendered, be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. Those 
proposals the Government of Canada rejected by Order in Council, passed in June, 
1915, mainly upon the ground that the Government was precluded by the 
McKenna-McBride Agreement from accepting them. For particulars we refer 
to " Record of Interviews," published in July, 1915, at pages 21 and 105. It will 
be found that to some extent these proposals are incorporated in this statements. 

2. Some facts and considerations which, in considering the matter of addi 
tional lands, it is, we think, specially important to take into account, are the 
following: 

(1) In the three States of Washington, Idaho and Montana, all adjoining 
British Columbia, Indian title has been recognized, and treaties have been made 
with the Indian tribles of those States. Under those treaties, very large areas 
of land have been set aside. The total lands set aside in those three States con 
siderably exceeds 10,000,000 acres, and the per capita area varies from about 
200 acres to about 600 acres. 

(2) Portions of the tribal territories of four tribes of the Interior of British 
Columbia extend into the States a bove-mentioned, and thus portions of those 
tribes hold lands in the Colville Reservation, situated in the State of Washing 
ton,, and the Flathead Reservation, situated in the State of Montana. 

(3) By treaties made with the Indian Tribes of the Provinces of Saskatche 
wan and Alberta, there has been set aside an average per capita area of about 
180 acres. 

(4) For the five Tribes of Alberta that entered into Treaty No. 7, whose 
tribal territories all adjoin British Columbia having now a total Indian popu 
lation of about 3,500, there was set aside a total area of about 762,000 acres, 
giving a per capita area of 212 acres. 

(5) The facts regarding the Indian Tribes inhabiting that part of Northern 
British Columbia lying to the East of the Rocky Mountains shown in Interim 
Report No. 91 of the Royal Commission at pages 126, 127 and 128 of the Report 
show that the Royal Commission approved and adopted as a standard for the 
Indians of that part of the Province occupying Provincial lands the per capita 
area of 160 acres of agricultural land per individual, or 640 acres per family 
of five, set aside under Treaty No. 8. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 35 

(6) As shown by the facts above stated 1 , all the Tribes that are close- 
neighbours of the British Columbia Indians on the South and East have had 
large areas per capita set aside for their use and benefit, and the Indians inhabit 
ing the Northeastern portion of British Columbia have also been fairly treated 
in the matter of agricultural lands reserved for them. Notwithstanding that 
state of affairs, the areas set aside for all the other British Columbia Tribes 
average only thirty acres per capita, or from one-fifth to one-twentieth of the 
acreage of Reserves set aside for their neighbours. 

(7) It may also be pointed out that at one time even this small amount of 
land was considered excessive for the needs of the Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia, as is shown by the controversy which in the year 1873 arose between 
the two Governments on the subject of acreage of lands to be reserved for the 
Indians of British Columbia. (See Report of Royal Commission at pages 16 
and 17.) At that time the Dominion Government contended for a basis of 
80 acres per family or 16 acres per capita, and the British Columbia Govern 
ment contended for a basis of 20 acres per family or 4 acres per capita. 

(8) It may further be pointed out that at that very time, while the Gov 
ernments were discussing the question whether each individual Indian required 
16 acres or 4 acres, the Provincial Government was allowing individual white 
men each to acquire by pre-emption, 160 acres West of the Cascades and 320 
acres East of that Range, each pre-emptor choosing his land how and where 
he desired. 

(9) All the facts which we have above stated when taken, together prove 
conclusively, as we think, that the per capita area of 30 acres recommended by 
the Royal Commission is utterly inadequate, and that a per capita area of 160 
acres would be an entirely reasonable standard. That conclusion is completely 
confirmed by our knowledge of the actual land requirements of our Tribes. 

(10) At the same time it is dear to us that, in applying that standard, the 
widely differing conditions and requirements of various sections of the Province 
should be taken into consideration. 

(11) We proceed to state what are the conditions and requirements of each 
of the sections to which we have referred. 

(12) For that purpose we divide the Province into five sections as follows: 

I. Southern Coast. 

II. Northern Coast, together with the West Coast of Vancouver Island. 

III. Southern Interior. 

IV. Central Interior. 

V. Northern Interior. 

In the case of Section I all conditions are favourable for agriculture, and 
the Indians require much more agricultural land. 

In the case of Section II the conditions are such that the country is not 
to any great extent agricultural. The Indians require some additional agricul 
tural land together with timber lands. 

In the case of Section III the conditions are more favourable to stock 
raising than to agriculture. Throughout the Dry Belt irrigation is an absolute 
necessity for agriculture. The Indians require large additional areas of pasture 
land. 

In the case of Section IV there is abundance of good agricultural land, 
but the climatic conditions are not favourable for stock raising and fruit grow 
ing. The Indians require additional areas of agricultural land. 

In the case of Section V the conditions are wholly unfavourable to both 
agriculture and stock raising. The main requirement of the Indians is that, 
either by setting aside large hunting and trapping areas for their exclusive 
use or otherwise, hunting and trapping, the main industry upon which of 
necessity they rely, should be fully preserved for them. 

3. It is quite clear to us that these conditions of settlement require to- 
be considered by the Government of Canada as well as the Government of. 
British Columbia. 



36 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Conditions Proposed as Basis of Settlement 

We beg to present for consideration of the two Governments the following 
which we regard as necessary conditions of equitable settlement: 

1. That the Proclamation issued by King George III in the year 1763 and 
the Report presented by the Minister of Justice in the year 1875 be accepted 
by the two Governments and established as the main basis of all dealings 
and all adjustments of Indiaai land rights and other rights which shall be 
made. 

2. That is be conceded that each Tribe for whose use and benefit land 
is set aside (under Article 13 of the " Terms of Union ") acquires thereby a 
full, permanent and beneficial title to the land so set aside together with all 
natural resources pertaining thereto; and that Section 127 of the Land Act 
of British Columbia be amended accordingly. 

3. That all existing reserves not now as parts of the Railway Belt or 
otherwise held by Canada be conveyed to Canada for the use and benefit of 
the various Tribes. 

4. That all foreshores whether tidal or inland be included in the reserves 
with which they are connected, so that the various Tribes shall have full 
permanent and beneficial title to such foreshores. 

5. That adequate additional lands be set aside and that to this end a per 
capita standard of 160 acres of average agricultural land having in case of 
lands situated within the dry belt a supply of water sufficient for irrigation 
be established. By the word " standard " we mean not a hard and fast rule, 
.but a general estimate to be used as a guide, a,nd to be applied in a reasonable 
way to the actual requirements of each tribe. 

6. That in sections of the Province in case of which the character of avail 
able land and the conditions prevailing make it impossible or undesirable to 
carry out fully or at all that standard the Indian Tribes concerned be com 
pensated for such deficiency by grazing lands, by timber lands, by hunting 
lands or otherwise, as the particular character and conditions of each such 
section may require. 

7. That all existing inequalities in respect of both acreage and value 
between lands set aside for the various Tribes be adjusted. 

8. That for the purpose of enabling the two Governments to set aside 
adequate additional lands and adjust all inequalities there be established a 
system of obtaining lands including compulsory purchase, similar to that which 
is being carried out by the Land Settlement Board of British Columbia. 

9. That if the Governments and the Allied Tribes should not be able to 
agree upon a standard of lands to be reserved that matter and all other 
matters relating to lands to be reserved which cannot be adjusted in pursuance 
of the preceding conditions and by conference between the two governments 
and the Allied Tribes be referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies 
to be finally decided by that Minister in view of our land rights conceded by 
the two Governments in accordance with our first condition and in pursuance 
of the provisions of Article 13 of the " Terms of Union " by such method of 
procedure as shall be decided by the Parliament of Canada. 

1,0. That the beneficial ownership of all reserves shall belong to the Tribe 
for whose use and benefit they are set aside. 

11. That a system of individual title to occupation of particular parts of 
reserved lands be established and brought into operation and administered by 
each Tribe. 

12. That all sales, leases and other dispositions of land or timber or other 
natural resources be made by the Government of Canada as trustee for the 
Tribe with the consent of the Tribe and that of all who may have rights of 
occupation affected, and that the proceeds be disposed of in such way and 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 37 

used from time to time for such particular purposes as shall be agreed upon 
between the Government of Canada and the Tribe together with all those having 
rights of occupation. 

13. That the fishing rights, hunting rights, and water rights of the Indian 
Tribes be fully adjusted. Our land rights having first been established by con 
cession or decision we are willing that our general rights shall after full con 
ference between the two Governments and the Tribes be adjusted by enactment 
of the Parliament of Canada. 

14. That in connection with the adjustment of our fishing rights the matter 
of the international treaty recently entered into which very seriously conflicts 
with those rights be adjusted. We do not at present discuss the matter of fishing 
for commercial purposes. However, that matter may stand. We claim that 
we have a clear aboriginal right to take salmon for food. That right the Indian 
Tribes have continuously exercised from time immemorial. Long before the 
Dominion of Canada came into existence that right was guaranteed by Imperial 
enactment, the Royal Proclamation issued in the year 1763. We claim that 
under that Proclamation and another Imperial enactment, Section 109 of the 
British North America Act, the meaning and effect of which were explained by the 
Minister of Justice in the words set out above, all power held by the Parliament 
of Canada for regulating the fisheries of British Columbia is subject to our right 
of fishing. We therefore claim that the regulations contained in the treaty can 
not be made applicable to the Indian Tribes, and that any attempt to enforce 
those regulations against the Indian Tribes is unlawful, being a breach of the 
two Imperial enactments mentioned. 

15. That compensation be made in respect of the following particular 
matters: 

(1) Inequalities of acreage or value or both that may be agreed to by any 
Tribe. 

(2) Inferior quality of reserved lands that may be agreed to by any 
Tribe. 

(3) Location of reserved lands other than that required agreed to by any 
Tribe. 

(4) Damages caused to the timber or other natural resources of any 
reserved lands as for example by mining or smelting operations. 

(5) All moneys expended by any Tribe in any way in connection with the 
Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all matters outstanding. 

16. That general compensation for lands to be surrendered be made. 

(1) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of education, in 
cluding both day schools and residential industrial schools, etc. 

(2) By establishing and maintaining an adequate system of medical aid and 
hospitals. 

17. That all compensations provided for by the two preceding paragraphs 
and all other compensation claimed by any Tribe so far as may be found 
necessary be dealt with by enactment of the Parliament of Canada and be deter 
mined and administered in accordance with such enactment. 

18. That all restrictions contained in the Land Act and other Statutes of 
the Province be removed. 

19. That the Indian Act be revised and that all amendments of that Act 
required for carrying into full effect these conditions of settlement, dealing with 
the matter of citizenship, and adjusting all outstanding matters relating to the 
administration of Indian affairs in British Columbia be made. 

20. That all moneys already expended and to be expended by the Allied 
Tribes in connection with the Indian land controversy and the adjustment of all 
matters outstanding be provided by the Governments. 



38 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

PART IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS 

In conclusion we may remark that we have been fully informed on all 
matters material to the preparation of this Statement, and have been advised 
on all matters which we considered required advice. We have conducted a full 
discussion of all points contained in the Statement, and have been careful to 
obtain the mind of all the principal Allied Tribes on all the principal points. 
These discussions have taken place at various large inter- tribal meetings held in 
different parts of the Province, together with a meeting of the Executive 
Committee. As result, we think we thoroughly understand the matters which 
have been under consideration. Having discussed all very fully, we now 
declare this Statement to be the well-settled mind of the Allied Tribes. 

We have carefully limited our Statement of what we think should be 
conditions of settlement to those we think are really necessary. We are not 
pressing these conditions of settlement upon the Governments. If the Govern 
ments accept our basis and desire to enter into negotiations with us, we will be 
ready to meet them at any time. In this connection, however, we desire to make 
two things clear. Firstly, we are willing to accept any adjustment which may 
be arranged in a really equitable way. but we are not prepared to accept a 
settlement which will be a mere compromise. Secondly, we intend to continue 
pressing our case in the Privy Council until such time as we shall obtain a 
judgment, or until such time as the Governments shall have arrived at a basis 
of settlement with us. 

To what we have already said we may add that we are ready at any time 
to give whatever additional information and explanation may be desired by the 
Governments for the further elucidation of all matters embraced in our State 
ment. 

We may further add that the Allied Tribes as a whole and the Executive 
Committee are not professing to have the right and power to speak the complete 
mind of every one of the Allied Tribes on all matters, particularly those matters 
which specially affect them as Individual Tribes. Therefore, if the Govern 
ments should see fit to enter into negotiations with us, it might become necessary 
also to enter into negotiations regarding some matters with individual tribes. 

We certify that the Statement above set out was adopted at a full meeting 
of the Executive Committee of the . Allied Tribes of British Columbia held 
at Vancouver on the 12th day of November, 1919, and by the Sub-Committee 
of the Executive Committee on the 9th day of December in the same year. 

PETER R. KELLY, 

Chairman of Executive Committee and 
member of Sub-Committee. 

J. A. TEIT, 

Secretary of Executive Committee and 
member of Sub -Committee. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 39 



APPENDIX B 

EXCERPT FROM DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION 

1867-1895, PAGE 1024 

REPORT OF THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, APPROVED BY His 
EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL ON THE 23RD JANUARY, 1875. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

OTTAWA, 19th January, 1875. 

The undersigned has the honour to report: 

That the Act passed by the legislature of the province of British Columbia, 
in the 37th year of Her Majesty s reign, and assented to on the 2nd March, 
1874, is the following: No. 2, intituled: "An Act to amend and consolidate the 
laws affecting Crown Lands in British Columbia." 

The title of the Act explains its object. It is a consolidation of the laws 
relating to the recording and pre-emption of lands, the surveying and sale of 
them; the regulation of miners rights, etc. 

By its concluding section,, the Act is not to come into force, until the 
Lieutenant-Governor s assent thereto has been proclaimed by notice in the 
British Columbia Gazette. 

The 2nd, or interpretation clause, defines that the words "Crown lands" 
shall "mean all lands of this province held by the Crown in, free and common 
soccage". 

It is probably through inadvertence that this definition has been made, 
and. that the tenure of free and common soccage which is that of freehold 
under grant from the Crown, is made applicable o lands of the Crown held 
as such by the Crown as lord of the soil. 

Were it an, intentional definition, it could on./ then mean a recognition of 
the Indian sovereignty therein, and that Her Majesty is tenant by freehold. 

Abandoning, therefore, this statutable definition, which is inapplicable, 
the words "Crown lands," may, for the purpose of this memorandum, be con 
sidered to mean all lands in, the province vested in the Crown of which no grant 
had been made. 

A distinction is made between "unsurveyed land" and "surveyed land". 

As to "unsurveyed land," it provides that any person qualified under that 
section may record any tract of unoccupied, unsurveyed and unreserved Crown 
lands (not being an Indian settlement) not exceeding the extent mentioned; 

"Provided that such right shall not be held to extent to any of the aborigines 
of this continent, except to such as shall have obtained permission in writing 
to so record by a special order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." 

The record is done by stating and marking out the boundaries of claim, 
and making a declaration in respect thereof. 

As to "surveyed land," it is defined by 23rd section. 

A provision is made by the 24th section as to who may pre-empt any tract 
of surveyed, unreserved, unoccupied and unrecorded land (not being an Indian 
settlement) , and a similar proviso to that above mentioned prohibits the abori 
gines of the continent the right of pre-emption, except as before mentioned. 

Such persons are pre-empt are known as "home settlers". 

The undersigned deems it proper to notice that there is not in this Act any 
reservation of lands in favour of the Indians or Indian tribes of British Colum 
bia; nor are the latter thereby accorded any rights or privileges in respect to 
lands, or reserves, or settlements. 



40 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

On the contrary, the right to record unsurveyed land, or to pre-empt sur 
veyed land, is expressly enacted not to extend to any of the aborigines, except 
such as shall have obtained permission in writing of the Lieutenant-Governor 
in Council. . , 

Nor -can the undersigned find that there is any legislation in force in Britisn 
Columbia which provides reservations of lands for the Indians, the only ordi 
nance in that respect being one of the 15th March, 1869, which speaks of Crown 
lands in the colony being Indian reserves or settlements. 

The undersigned refers to the Order in Council, under which the province 
of British Columbia was admitted into the Dominion, and particularly the 13th 
section as to the Indians, which is as follows: 

"The charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management of the 
lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed toy the Dominion 
government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by, the British 
Columbia government shall be continued by the Dominion government after the 
union. To -carry out such policy, tracts of "land of such extent as it has hitherto 
been the practice of the British Columbia government to appropriate for that 
purpose, shall from time to time be conveyed by the local government to the 
Dominion government in trust for the use an,d benefit of the Indians on applica 
tion of the Dominion government; and in case of disagreem<eint| between two 
governments respecting the quantity of such tracts of land to be so granted, 
the matter shall be referred for the decision of the Secretary of State for the 
Colonies." 

The question as to the provision which has been made of reserves for the 
Indians, has been the subject of an Order of the Governor General in Council, 
dated 4th November, 1874, and it is not necessary, therefore, to enter upon a 
discussion of the merits of the case. 

But having regard to the known, existing and increasing dissatisfaction of 
the Indian tribes of British Columbia at the absence of adequate reservation 
of lands for their use, and at the liberal appropriation for those in other parts 
of Canada upon surrender by treaty of their territorial rights, and the difficulties, 
which may arise from the not improbable assertion of that dissatisfaction by 
hostilities on their part, the undersigned deems it right to call attention to the 
legal position of the public lands of the province. 

The undersigned believes that he is correct in stating, that with one slight 
exception as to land in Vancouver Island surrendered to the Hudson Bay Com 
pany, which makes the absence of others the more remarkable, no surrender 
of lands in that province has ever been obtained from the Indian tribes inhabit 
ing it, and that any reservations which have been made, have been arbitrary 
on the part of the government, and without the assent of the Indians themselves, 
and though the policy of obtaining surrenders at this lapse of time and under 
the altered circumstances of the province, may be questionable, yet the under 
signed feels it his duty to assert such legal or equitable claim as may be found 
to exist on the part of the Indians. 

There is not a shadow of doubt, that from the earliest times, England has 
always felt it imperative to meet the Indians in council, and to obtain surren 
ders of tracts of Canada, as from time to time such were required for the pur 
poses of settlements. 

The 40th article of the treaty of capitulation of the city of Montreal, 
dated 8th September, 1760, is to the effect that, 

"The savages or Indian allies of His Most Christian Majesty shall be 
maintained in the lands they inhabit if they chose to remain there." 

The proclamation of King George III, 1763, erecting within the countries 
and islands ceded and confirmed to Great Britain by the treaty of the 10th 
February, 1763, four distinct governments, styled Quebec, East Florida, West 
Florida and Grenada, contains the following clauses: 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 41 

"And whereas, it is just and reasonable and essential to our interests and 
the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with 
whom we are connected, and who live under our protection, should not be 
molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and 
territories, as not having been ceded to us, are reserved to them, or any of them 
as their hunting grounds; we do, therefore, with the advice of our Privy Council, 
declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that no governor or commander-in- 
chief, in any of our colonies of Quebec, East Florida or West Florida, do pre 
sume upon any pretense whatever to grant warrants of survey or pass any patents 
for lands beyond the boundaries of their respective governments, as described in 
their commissions; as also, that no governor or commander-in-chief of our other 
colonies or plantations in America, do presume for the present and until our 
future pleasure be known, to grant warrants of survey or pass any patents for 
lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the 
Atlantic Ocean from the west or north-west; or upon any lands whatever, which, 
not having been ceded to or purchased by us, as aforesaid, are reserved to the 
said Indians, or any of them; and we do further declare it to be our royal will 
and pleasure, for the present, as aforesaid, to reserve under our sovereignty, 
protection and dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the land and terri 
tories not included within the limits, and territory granted to the Hudson Bay 
Company; as also all the land and territories laying to the westward of the 
sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest as 
aforesaid; and we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our 
loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements, whatsoever, or taking 
possession of any of the lands above reserved without our special leave and 
license for that purpose first obtained. And we do further strictly enjoin and 
require all persons whatsoever, who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated 
themselves upon any land within the countries above described, or upon any 
other lands, which not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are still reserved 
to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such 
settlements. 

And whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in the purchas 
ing lands of the Indians, to the great prejudice of our interests, and to the 
great dissatisfaction of the said Indians; in order, therefore, to prevent such 
irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced 
of our justice and determined resolution to remove all reasonable cause of 
discontent, we do, with the advice of our Privy Council, strictly enjoin and 
require that no private person do presume to make any purchase from the said 
Indians of any lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our 
colonies where we had thought proper to allow settlements; but if at any time 
any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the 
same shall be purchased only for us, in our name, at some public meeting or 
assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that purpose by the governor or 
commander-in-chief of our colony, respectively, within which they shall be; and 
in case they shall be within the limits of any proprietaries, conformable to 
such directions and instructions as we or they shall think proper to give for 
that purpose: and we do, by the advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin 
that the trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our subjects 
whatever; provided that every person who may incline to trade with the said 
Indians do take out a license for carrying on such trade from the governor or 
commander-in-chief of any of our colonies, respectively, where such person shall 
reside, and also give security to observe such regulations as we shall at any 
time think fit, by ourselves or commissaries to be appointed for this purpose, 
to direct and appoint for the benefit of the said trade; and we do hereby author 
ize, enjoin and require the governors and commanders-in-chiefs of all our 



42 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

colonies, respectively, as well as those under our immediate government, as 
those under the government and direction of proprietaries, to grant such licenses 
without fee or reward, taking special care to insert therein a condition that 
such license shall be void, and the security forfeited, in case the person to whom 
the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such regulations as we 
shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid. 

And we do further expressly enjoin and require all officers whatever, as 
well military <as those employed in the management and direction of the Indian 
affairs within the territories reserved, as aforesaid, for the use of the said 
Indians, to seize and apprehend all persons whatever, who standing charged with 
treason, misprision of treason, murder or other felonies or misdemeanors, shall 
fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory, and to send them under 
a proper guard to the colony where the crime was committed, of which they 
shall stand accused, in order to take their trial for the same. 

It is not necessary now to inquire whether the lands to the west of the 
Rocky Mountains and bordering on the Pacific Ocean, form part of the lands 
claimed by France, and which, if such claims were correct, would have passed by 
cession to England, under the Treaty of 1763, or whether the title of England 
rests on any other ground, nor is it necessary to consider whether that proclama 
tion covered the land now known as British Columbia. 

It is sufficient, for the present purposes, to ascertain the policy of England 
in respect to the acquisition of the Indian territorial rights, and how entirely 
that policy has been followed to the present time, except in the instance of 
British Columbia. 

It is true, also, that the proclamation of 1763, to which allusion has been 
made, was repealed by the Imperial Statute 14 George III, chapter 83, known 
as The Quebec Act; but that statute merely, so far as regards the present 
case, annuls the proclamation, "so far as the same relates to the province of 
Quebec, and the commission and the authority thereof, under the authority 
whereof, the government of the said province is at present administered," and 
the Act was passed for the purpose of effecting a change in the mode of the 
civil government of the administration of justice in the province of Quebec. 

The Imperial Act, 1821, 1st and 2nd George IV., chapter 66, for regulating 
the fur trade, and establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction within certain 
parts of North America, legislates expressly in respect to the portion of this con 
tinent which is therein spoken of as " the Indian territories, and by the Imperial 
Act, 1849, 12 and 13 Victoria, chapter 48, " An Act to provide for the admin 
istration in Vancouver s Island." The last-mentioned Act is recited, and it is 
added on recital that "for the purpose of the colonization of that part of the said 
Indian territories called Vancouver s Island, it is expedient that further provision 
should be made for the administration of justice therein." 

The Imperial Act, 1858, 21 and 22 Victoria, chapter 98, "An Act to provide 
for the government of British Columbia," recites, "that divers of Her Majesty s 
subjects and others have by the license and consent of Her Majesty resorted to 
and settled on certain wild and unoccupied territories on the North-west coast 
of North America, now known as New Caledonia, from and after the passing 
of the Act to be named British Columbia, and the islands adjacent," etc. 

The determination of England, as expressed in the proclamation of 1763, 
that the Indians should not be molested in the possession of such parts of the 
dominions and territories of England as, not having been ceded to the King, and 
reserved to them, and which extended also to the prohibition of purchase of lands 
from the Indians, except only to the Crown itself at a public meeting or as 
sembly of the said Indians to be held by the governor or commander-in-chief 

has, with slight alterations, been continued down to the present time, either as 
the settled policy of Canada, or by legislative provision of Canada to that effect, 
and it may be mentioned that in furtherance of that policy, so lately as in the 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 43 

year 1874, treaties were made with various tribes of Indians in the North-west 
Territories, and large tracts of lands lying between the province of Manitoba and 
the Rocky Mountains were ceded and surrendered to the Crown upon conditions 
of which the reservation of large tracts for the Indians, and the granting of 
annuities and gifts annually, formed an important consideration; and in various 
parts of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, large and valuable 
tracts of land are now reserved for the Indians as part of their consideration of 
their ceding and yielding to the Crown their territorial rights in other portions 
of the Dominion. 

Considering, then, these several features of the case, that no surrender or 
cession of their territorial rights whether the same be of a legal or equitable 
nature, has been ever executed by the Indian tribes of the province that they 
allege that the reservations of land made by the Government for their use, 
have been arbitrarily so made, and are totally inadequate to their support and 
requirements, and without their assent that they are not averse to hostilities 
in order to enforce rights which it is impossible to deny them, and that the Act 
under consideration not only ignores those rights, but expressly prohibits the 
Indians from enjoying the rights of recording or pre-empting lands, except by 
consent of the Lieutenant-Governor; the undersigned feels that he cannot do 
otherwise than advise that the Act in question is objectionable, as tending to 
deal with lands which are assumed to be the absolute property of the province, 
nn a-ssumption which completely ignores, as applicable to the Indians of British 
Columbia, the honour and good faith with which the Crown has, in all other 
cases, since its sovereignly of the territories in North America, dealt with their 
various Indian tribes. 

The undersigned would also refer to the British North America Act, 1867, 
section 109, applicable to British Columbia, which enacts in effect that all lands 
belonging to the province shall belong to the province, " subject to any trust 
existing in respect thereof, and to any interest, other than that of the province, 
in the same." 

That which has been ordinarily spoken of as the " Indian title " must, of 
necessity, consist of some species of interest in the lands of British Columbia. 

If it is conceded that they have not a freehold in the soil, but that they have 
an usufruct, a right of occupation or possession of the same for their own use, 
then it would seem that these lands of British Columbia are subject, if not to 
a " trust existing in respect thereof," at least " to an interest other than that of 
the province alone." 

The undersigned, therefore, feels it incumbent on him to recommend that 
this Act should be disallowed, but suggests that such disallowance be postponed 
until the last day at which such can take place, with a view of communication 
on the subject with the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. 

It may be anticipated that no practical inconvenience can arise from its 
disallowance should such be necessary, as the previously existing Crown land 
Act will probably suffice to enable the province to continue, in the meantime, 
disposal of lands. 

The undersigned, whilst commenting on this Act, deems it also expedient to 
call attention to that provision of the Order in Council under which the province 
of British Columbia entered confederation, which refers to the conveyance by 
the province to the Dominion government, in trust, of public lands along the 
line of the Pacific Railway, throughout the entire length of British Columbia. 
It may, of course, be argued that there has been no actual commencement, with 
in two years of the date of the Union, of the Canadian Pacific Railway; but 
having regard to the practical commencement of that work in the surveys which 
have been made along different portions of the contemplated route, the under 
signed deems it his duty to note that no reservations are made in the Act now 
under consideration, and that without them, the recording and pre-emption 



44 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

of lands under this Act might be the subject of great embarrassment to the gov 
ernment of Canada, in the construction of the line or in the granting of any con 
tracts for construction of portions of it. 

He suggests, therefore, that this is a further subject on which it is desirable 
that communication should be had with the Lieutenant-Governor of British 
Columbia. 
I concur, 

T. FOURNIER, H. BERNARD, 

Minister of Justice, Deputy Minister of Justice. 

EXCERPT FROM DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION, 

1867-1895, Page 1038 

REPORT OF THE HON. THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, APPROVED BY His EXCELLENCY 
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL ON THE GTH MAY, 1876. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

OTTAWA, 28th April, 1876. 

With reference to the Acts of British Columbia assented to on the 22nd 
April, 1875, the time for action upon which will expire on the 8th May next the 
undersigned begs to report as follows: 

1. By minute in council of the 16th October, 1875, the report of the 
undersigned upon the Act chapter 5, intituled: " An Act to make provision for 
the better Administration of Justice," was approved. 

A copy of that minute was transmitted to the Lieutenant-Governor of 
British Columbia. 

The views of the government of British Columbia not having been com 
municated to His Excellency, the Secretary of State recently asked for a tele 
graphic communication upon the subject. 

By telegraph, dated 27th April from the Lieutenant-Governor to the 
Secretary of State, he is informed that the government of British Columbia 
concurs in the disallowance of the Act for the better Administration of Justice; 
that the general question involved therein is now under consideration, and a bill 
reorganizing the system will, if time admit, be submitted to the legislature. 

The report of the undersigned proposed that it should be suggested to the 
government of British Columbia to repeal the Act, and to effect the division 
of the province into districts, &c., by legislation, instead of by the machinery 
proposed by the Act. 

As the provincial government suggests the exercise of the power of dis 
allowance, and it is not certain whether amendatory legislation will be held 
this session, the undersigned recommends that the said Act be disallowed. 

2. By minute in council of the 10th November, 1875, the report of the 
undersigned upon the Act, intituled : " An Act to amend and consolidate the 
laws respecting Crown Lands in British Columbia," was approved. 

The same steps were subsequently taken upon this subject, as those detailed 
with reference to the subject treated of in the first paragraph. 

The Lieutenant-Governor s communication upon this Act states that the 
objections taken by council to it are considered to be removed by the agreement 
for a settlement of the Indian land question by commissioners. 

Although the undersigned cannot concur in the view that the objections 
taken are entirely removed by the action referred to; and, though he is of 
opinion that, according to the determination of council upon the previous 
Crown Lands Act, there remains serious question as to whether the Act now 
under consideration is within the competence of the provincial legislature, yet 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 45 

since according to the information of the undersigned, the statute under con 
sideration has been acted upon, and is being acted upon largely in British 
Columbia, and great inconvenience and confusion might result from its dis 
allowance; and considering that the condition of the question at issue between 
the two governments is very much improved since the date of his report, the 
undersigned is of opinion that it would be the better course to leave the Act 
to its operation. 

It is to be observed that this procedure neither expresses nor impliedly 
waives any right of the government of Canada to insist that any of the pro 
visions of the Act are beyond the competence of the Local Legislature, and are 
consequently inoperative. 

The undersigned recommends that the Act be left to its operation. 

3. By minute in council of the 7th January, 1876, the report of the under 
signed respecting an Act, intituled: "An Act to make Powers of Attorney valid 
in certain cases," was approved. 

The same steps were subsequently taken upon this subject as those detailed 
with reference to the subjects treated of in the first paragraph. 

The Lieutenant-Governor s communiaction upon this Act states that it 
will be immediately amended, to remove the objections taken to section 7, 
which was the only clause objected to. Upon this assurance of the government 
of British Columbia, the undersigned recommends that the Act be left to its 
operation. 

EDWARD BLAKE, 

Minister of Justice. 



46 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 



APPENDIX C 

EXCERPT FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA PAPERS RELATING TO THE 
INDIAN LANDS QUESTION 1875-1878. Page 160 

Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved 
by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the 10th November, 
1875. 

The Committee of Council have had under consideration the Minute in 
Council of the Government of British Columbia of the 18th August last, adopt 
ing the recommendations contained in a Memorandum of the local Attorney- 
General, as the expression of the views of that Government as to the best method 
of bringing about a settlement of the Indian Land question, and submitting 
those recommendations for the consideration and assent of the Government of 
the Dominion. 

They have also had before them the Memorandum herewith annexed, from 
the Honourable Mr. Scott, acting in the absence of the Honourable the Minister 
of the Interior, to whom, the above-mentioned documents were referred, and 
they respectfully report their concurrence in the recommendations therein sub 
mitted, and advise that a copy thereof and of this Minute be transmitted for 
the consideration of the Government of British Columbia. 

Certified. 

(Signed) W. A. HIMSWORTH, 

Clerk, Privy Council, Canada. 



Memorandum: 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

OTTAWA, 5th November, 1875. 



The undersigned has had under consideration the Report of the Executive 
Council of the 18th of August last, adopting the recommendations contained in 
Memorandum of the local Attorney-General, the Honourable George A. Walkem, 
as the expression of the views of that Government as to the best method of 
bringing about a settlement of the Indian Land question, and submitting those 
recommendations for the consideration and assent of the Government of the 
Dominion. 

The action of the British Columbia Government in this matter was no 
doubt brought about by the Order of Your Excellency in Council of the 4th 
November, 1874, on the subject of the Indian Reserves of British Columbia, 
which was communicated officially to the British Columbia Government by the 
Secretary of State. 

The suggestions contained in Mr. Walkem s Memorandum, and adopted 
by the Order in Council of the British Columbia Government, are as follows: 

1. That no basis of acreage for Indian Reserves be fixed for the Province 
as a whole, but that each nation (and not tribe) of Indians of the same language 
be dealt with separately. 

2. That for the proper adjustment of Indian claims the Dominion Govern 
ment do appoint an agent to reside with each nation. 

3. That Reserves of land be set aside for each nationality of Indians; such 
Reserve to contain, in addition to agricultural land, a large proportion of wild 
and forest land. Every application for a Reserve shall be accompanied by a 
Report from the agent having charge of the nation for whom the Reserve is 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 47 

intended; and such Report shall contain a census and give a description of the 
habits and pursuits of each nation and also of the nature and quantity of the 
land required for the use of such nation. 

4. That each Reserve shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the 
nation of Indians to which it has been allotted, and, in the event of any material 
increase or decrease hereafter of the members of a nation occupying a Reserve, 
such Reserve shall be enlarged or diminished as the case may be, so that it shall 
bear a fair proportion to the numbers of the nation occupying it. The extra 
land required for any Reserve shall be allotted from vacant Crown Lands, and 
any land taken off a Reserve shall revert to the Province. 

5. That the present local Reserves be surrendered by the Dominion to the 
Province as soon as may be convenient, the Province agreeing to give fair 
compensation for any improvements or clearings made upon any Reserve which 
may be surrendered by the Dominion and accepted by the Province. 

The suggestions in question are stated by Mr. Walkem as having been madt 
by Mr. Duncan, in a letter which is appended to the Order in Council. 

The undersigned would remark that the suggestions, as given by Mr. 
Duncan in the letter in question, do not correspond precisely with the propositions 
formulated by Mr. Walkem. 

Mr. Duncan s suggestions are as follows: 

1. That no basis of acreage for Reserves be fixed for the Province as a 
whole, but rather that each nation of Indians be dealt with separately on their 
respective claims. 

2. That for the proper adjustment of such claims let the Dominion and the 
Provincial Governments each provide an agent to visit the Indians and report 
fully as to the number and pursuits of each nation and the kind of country they 
severally occupy. 

3. That the Provincial Government deal as liberally with the Indians as 
other Provincial Governments in the Dominion. 

My opinion is that a liberal policy will prove the cheapest in the end, but 
I hold it will not be necessary in the interests of the Indians to grant them 
only cultivable lands; rather I would recommend that a large portion of their 
Reserves should be wild and forest lands, and hence may be very extensive 
without impoverishing the Province, and at the same time so satisfactory to 
the Indians as to allay all irritation and jealously towards the whites. 

4. I think the Provincial Government might reasonably insist upon this 
with the Dominion Government: That no Indian shall be allowed to alienate 
any part of a Reserve, and in case of any Reserve being abandoned, or the 
Indians on it decreasing, so that its extent is disproportioned to the number 
of occupants, that such Reserve or part of a Reserve might revert to the 
Provincial Government. 

Mr. Duncan adds: "The existing Reserves are shown to be, by the 
correspondence, both irregular in quantity and misplaced as to the locality, 
by following tribal divisions, which is no doubt a mistake and fraught with 
bad consequences. 

My advice would be, in the meantime simply to ignore them, as it certainly 
would not be wise to regard them as a precedent, and it would be impolitic 
to have two systems of Reserves in the Province, one tribal and the other 
national." 

It will be observed that Mr. Walkem speaks of the appointment of an 
agent by the Dominion Government whereas Mr. Duncan proposes that the 
Dominion and Provincial Governments shall each provide an agent to visit 
the Indians and report upon the question of Reserves. 

While the undersigned is of opinion that in view of the very large experience 
Mr. Duncan has had amongst the Indians of British Columbia, and the marvel 
lous success which has attended his labours amongst them, that gentleman s 



48 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

suggestions on matters of Indian policy are entitled to the greatest weight, 
and, while he concurs entirely in the general principles enunciated by Mr. 
Duncan yet he thinks that both the suggestions of Mr. Duncan and the pro 
positions of Mr. Walkem, adopted by the Government of Birtish Columbia in 
their Minute of 8th August last, fail to provide a prompt and final settlement 
of this long-pending controversy. 

Mr. Walkem provides merely that the agent shall make an application 
for a Reserve and report upon the subject, and Mr. Duncan recommends that 
the Dominion and Provincial agents shall report merely as to the number and 
pursuits of the Indians. Looking to Mr. Walkem s admission " that the Indians 
have undoubtedly become discontented, and that they are restless and uneasy 
as to their future," and to his further statement " that the Local Government 
have been keenly alive not only to the advantage but to the absolute necessity 
and urgent importance of a speedy settlement of all the questions connected 
with their Reserves," and again to Mr. Duncan s expression of opinion as to 
" the urgency and importance of the land question and its vital bearing on 
the peace and prosperity of the Province," the undersigned submits that no 
scheme for the settlement of this question can be held to be satisfactory which 
does not provide for its prompt and final adjustment. 

In lieu, therefore, of the propositions submitted by Mr. Walkem and 
sanctioned by the Order in Council of the British Columbia. Government, the 
undersigned would respectfully propose the following: 

1. That with the view to the speedy and final adjustment of the Indian 
Reserve question in British Columbia on a satisfactory basis, the whole matter 
be referred to three Commissioners, one to be appointed by the Government 
of the Dominion, one by the Government of British Columbia, and the third 
to be named by the Dominion and the Local Governments jointly. 

2. That the said Commissioners shall, as soon as practicable after their 
appointment, meet at Victoria, and make arrangements to visit, with all 
convenient speed, in such order as may be found desirable, each Indian nation, 
(meaning by nation all Indian tribes speaking the same language) in British 
Columbia, and, after full enquiry on the spot into all matters affecting the 
question to fix and determine for each nation, separately, the number, extent, 
and locality of the Reserve or Reserves to be allowed to it. 

3. That in determining the extent of the Reserves to be granted to the 
Indians of British Columbia, no basis of acreage be fixed for the Indians of that 
Province as a whole, but that each nation of Indians of the same language be 
dealt with separately. 

4. That the Commissioners shall be guided generally by the spirit of the 
Terms of Union between the Dominion and the Local Governments, which 
contemplates a " liberal policy " being pursued towards the Indians, and, in 
the case of each particular nation, regard shall be had to the habits, wants 
and pursuits of such nation, to the amount of territory available in the region 
occupied by them, and to the claims of the white settlers. 

5. That each Reserve shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the 
nation of Indians to which it has been allotted, and, in the event of any material 
increase or decrease hereafter of the num bers of a nation occupying a Reserve, 
such Reserve shall be enlarged or diminished, as the case may be, so that it 
shall bear a fair proportion to the members of the nation occupying it. The 
extra land required for any Reserve shall be allotted from Crown Lands, and 
any land taken off a Reserve shall revert to the Province. 

6. That so soon as the Reserve or Reserves for any Indian nation shall 
have been fixed and determined by the Commissioners as aforesaid, the existing 
Reserves belonging to such nation, so far as they are not in whole or in part 
included in such new Reserve or Reserves so determined by the Commissioners, 
shall be surrendered by the Dominin to the Local Government so soon as may 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 49 

be convenient, on the latter paying to the foroier for the benefit of the Indians, 
such compensation for any clearings or improvements made on any Reserve 
so surrendered by the Dominion and accepted by the Province, as may be 
thought reasonable : by the Commissioners aforesaid. 

It Avill be observed that the preceding paragraphs, Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, are 
substantially the same as those submitted in the Memorandum of Mr. Walkem, 
approved by the Order in Council of the British Columbia Government. 

The undersigned would further recommend that each Commissioner be 
paid by the Government appointing him, and that the third Commissioner 
be allowed ten dollars per day while acting, and that his Day and other expenses 
be borne equally by the Dominion and the Local Governments; and the under 
signed would further recommend that if this Memorandum be approved by 
Your Excellency, a copy thereof and of the Minute of Council passed thereon 
be communicated to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia 
for the consideration of His Government, and that another copy be placed in 
Your Excellency s hands for transmission to the Right Honourable the Secretary 
of State for the Colonies. 

The whole respectfully submitted. 

(Signed) R. W. SCOTT, 

Acting Minister of the Interior. 



423254 



50 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 



CO g 



88 

jo ^ 

C<|T-tCJ*OCOOCOC i aOOCV3CVIOOOa i ^^*5OCOO^OCOOOeOO< I^H 

^H t^ , i 1C CO tO T <OOOr-O l OCOOO0^1> 1 - li ^OCSC < lOOOt)CO<Mr--iO 

; ? O ro 

5|a 
os 

- O? OS t 

i-^iO ^ lOStOQC^ lO^OSOCSlCsQOOiOsCiOC 

"ffl 2 

oil b : : 

a 

~<n ^^,^-x, ,05, Mt --055E>iOO<M0500COlOC- ; " ?i --~" 5 

>s 

u/ ;: 

y 
o 

1 

^ J GO O * Oi IO. CC CO * 
^ -^ . 

^ : ^ co 

" ffi 

I 

~ ^ T^ S CO 00 SO w 50 C 

V g e Cj 

^1 -^ , 

- C<] \ if3 t~ ~^O~O i~- O ^ O OO O3 CC GO "^f ^t* CC CC !*" ^7 [^ 1-- O DC C>) ?O *-^~i-H~oo~t 

+3 

o 

I 

I 

02 

.-H OS C& OS 

r-- t OO OS 

00 00 00 00 






o 
W 



~ 
pq 



W 


D 

a 



O 

H 
Z 

H 
S 
H 
tf 

2! 

w 
o 



CLAIMS.OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 



51 



- 
OO CO O to Oi O i- 



GCGOtO < C O r- tO CO 

occccxjoo-^r^wt COGn 
ic OS i l^ O CO CO CO CO 



go ic oo i cs to 
O G * cc O co 
CO -i < C^ <C CO 



10 i- M O I-H Co i-T C-l 



co c-3 01 -^ ooc; -o 



Cic<l * H O^OC^O^OCO*O ( iCOtOL^ CDCOCO*C 
COTp CMTfCO^OOOT-- OlOOC<l^l>-OiCMO O 

cor^c:-^ ^coooo- ii-H-^r-cooocooioco-^r- 

0*^^CCC^C-3Cr5COO-^OrOOCMO *C i qocCCOii:^ 
I QO b- OO T- O O l> S D O N -^ OS OO <* O -H O O CO e 



SC CO ^ I- re -. - O -". O OC C^J -f CC c o 11 co CS 
C^-^COC^OCC 1 O MC^COCicC OcO COt^O ^O 

OOOCCiOOCO ^-*OCO>^ I ^GOl>-O(MCO CO ^nO 

i- oc as -^ r- T Tr-^^taccoas^^-^c^cxic. co 

2t^OGOCOCO(MCOCC>i>-C:C^t>.iOt^COOtC>t-^^ - O5 

T cT -*" o" co" t^ 10" oc" o co" cs t^T oT a= us <o oo GO" -^ eg" JM" o 

O GO C Q 1 



t s -O^t 1 ^COClCOCI 

OOOO r^-O4C i ^t H i" 

^l^-C^CNliOCJCO CiG 

i>." o c" co c-i o" co o T c 

i-H W I-H W CO M CO CO 



. OC 1-- ^". O CO I- I 



w.- CC-*:C O O L. i 



- 

(M CM CO CO CO CO CO CN CO CO 



;l C l C 
C^ O *C CO 

CO *t< i i OO 



co co *t-* to"-* cort i cc co IMCO C 



00000 ---- < 



OS OS O5 Cs CJ CS 



42325 4i 



52 SPECIAL COMMITTEE . 

APPENDIX E 

P. C. 1081 

Certified Copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved 
by His Excellency the Governor General on the 17th May, 1911. 
Privy Council, Canada. 

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 
llth May, 1911, from the Minister of Justice, stating, with reference to Lord 
Crewe s despatch of the 31st March, 1909, and the subsequent correspondence with 
regard to the claims of the British Columbia Indians, that no settlement of these 
claims has yet been reached, and that Your Excellency s Government and the 
Government of British Columbia in the negotiations which have subsequently 
taken place have failed to conclude any arrangement for the determination 
of the question involved. 

The Minister further states that it is now proposed, therefore, on the part 
of Your Excellency s Government, to institute proceedings in the Exchequer 
Court of Canada on behalf of the Indians against a provincial grantee, or 
licensee, in the hope of obtaining a decision upon the questions involved as soon 
as a case arises in which the main points in difference can be properly or con 
veniently tried. 

That meantime the Indians and their friends are pressing the Government 
to make representations on the subject to the Colonial Office, and recently a 
memorial has been handed in, signed by the Rev. A. E. O Meara, on behalf 
of the Conference of the Friends of the Indians of British Columbia, copy of 
which together with copies of the documents therein referred to, are herewith 
submitted. 

That the statement of facts contained in Mr. O Meara s memorandum 
is, so far as it is within the knowledge of the Minister, substantially correct. 

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, advise 
that Your Excellency may be pleased to transmit a copy hereof, together with 
the several documents referred to herein, to the Right Honourable the Principal 
Secretary of State for the Colonies. 

All which is respectfully submitted for approval. 

(Sgd.) F. K. BENNETT, 

Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council. 

Copy 59335-2 

Privy Council 
Canada 

(Annex to P.C. 1081, Order in Council, dated 17th May, 1911.) 
BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LAND SITUATION 

MEMORANDUM FOB THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA 
Statement of Facts 

1. By a petition which in March, 1909, was presented to His Majesty and 
the Colonial Office and in April, 1909, was forwarded to His Excellency the 
Governor General with request that he secure a report thereon from his Min 
isters, and by a resolution adopted at a general meeting held at the City ot 
Vancouver in September, 1909, the Indian Tribes of the Province of British 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 53 

Columbia asked the Imperial Government to submit their claim directly to the 
Judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council and asked the Government 
of Canada to facilitate the securing of such submission. 

2. In January, 1910, the Indian Tribes placed in the hands of the Depart 
ment of Justice a "Statement of Facts and Claims." 

3. It is understood that, after full consideration of the above mentioned 
documents, the Department of Justice came to the conclusion that existing con 
ditions render necessary the securing of the judicial decision desired by the 
Indians and so advised. 

4. It is understood that, the advice so given having been approved and 
adopted, it was and is the desire of the Government of Canada that such decision 
should be secured by means of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and 
with the consent and concurrence of the Government of British Columbia. 

5. It is understood that the Government of Canada entered into negotiations 
with the Government of British Columbia, for the purpose of obtaining such 
consent and concurrence, and in May, 1910, the Deputy Minister of Justice and 
the Deputy Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia met at the 
City of Ottawa and prepared ten, questions for submission to the Supreme Court 
of Canada with a view to their being carried to the judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council. Of these the first three -related to the general matter of Indian 
title and the remaining seven related to matters connected with lands reserved 
for the Indians. The said ten questions as finally drawn by the Deputy Minister 
of Justice were approved by the Deputy Attorney General and by Counsel for 
the Province of British Columbia, and were subsequently submitted to and 
approved by Counsel for the Indian tribes. 

6. It is understood that, when the said ten questions were submitted to the 
Government of British Columbia for final action, that Government objected to 
the first three of the said questions and expressed unwillingness to proceed with 
the proposed reference unless those three questions were omitted. 

7. In the month of August, 1910, at the City of Victoria "The Conference 
of Friends of the Indians of British Columbia," an organization formed in the 
month of March, 1910, presented a memorial to the Prime Minister of .Canada. 

8. On 23rd September, 1910, the Moral and Social Reform Council of Can 
ada assembled in annual meeting at the City of Toronto passed the following 
resolution: 

In view of the national importance of securing full justice for the 
native race in all parts of Canada, this Council, while not expressing an 
opinion upon the merits of the claims now being made by the Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia, expressed its sympathy with the aims of the 
Conference of Friends of the Indians of British Columbia in seeking to 
bring about as rapidly as possible a just and advantageous solution of the 
problems presented by existing conditions in that Province, and its sense 
of the great importance o f accomplishing that object. This Council 
expresses the hope that the Governments concerned will facilitate a prompt 
and final settlement of the whole question of the Indian title. It is further 
resolved that the members of the delegation already appointed be author 
ized to present this resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada and the 
Superintendent-Generail of Indian Affairs. 

9. On 6th October, 1910, in pursuance of the Memorial and Resolution above 
mentioned, a delegation representing both the Friends of the Indians of British 
Columbia and the Moral and Social Reform Council of Canada waited upon the 
Prime Minister of Canada and the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, 
who were accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Justice. A copy of the report 
of that interview prepared by the delegation is in the hands of the Government. 

10. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Prime Minister set out in 
the above mentioned report, a delegation from the Friends of the Indians of 



54 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

British Columbia on 14th December, 1910, at the City of Victoria waited upon 
the Government of British Columbia. A copy of the stenographic report of 
the Interview prepared under instructions of the Premier of British Columbia is 
in the hands of the Government. 

11. On 23rd December, 1910, the Premier of British Columbia addressed to 
the Chairman of the Friends of the Indians of British Columbia the formal 
answer, copy of which is in the hands o f the Government. 

12. On 20th February last the Chairman of the Friends of the Indians of 
British Columbia addressed to the Premier of British Columbia the reply, 
copy of which is in, the hands of the Government. 

13. On the 1st. 2nd and 3rd of March last, ninety-six Indians delegates 
representing a large number of the tribes of British Columbia assembled at the 
City of Victoria and on the 3rd of March waited in a body upon the Government 
of British Columbia and presented to that Government the statement, copy of 
which is in the hands of the Government. 

14. A copy of the stenographic report of the interview had upon that 
occasion prepared under the instruction of the Premier of British Columbia is 
in the hands of the Government. 

15. On the 26th April last a delegation representing both the Friends of the 
Indians of British Columbia and the Moral and Social Reform Council of 
Canada waited upon the Prime Minister of Canada, the Superintendent-General 
of Indian Affairs, and the Minister of Justice. 

A copy of the stenographic report of the interview is in the hands of the 
Government. 

Statement of Request 

1. That as soon as conveniently possible there be sent to the Imperial 
Government a full report of the whole matter including the facts above stated. 

2. That with such report there be .sent copies of the documents mentioned in 
the above statement. 

3. That all matters contained and views expressed in those documents be 
submitted for the consideration of His Majesty and the Colonial Office and for 
such action as may be deemed wise. 

4. That together with the foregoing there be sent a report of the Govern 
ment of Canada regarding the Petition of the Indians as requested by the 
Imperial Government in April, 1909. 

All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the " Conference of 
Friends of the Indians of British Columbia". 

(Sgd.) A. E. O MEARA. 
OTTAWA, 3rd May, 1911. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 55 



APPENDIX F 

Privy Council 
Canada 

"A" 

P.C.751. 

Certified Copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by 
His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 20th June, 1914. 

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a Report from 
the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, dated llth March, 1914, sub 
mitting the accompanying memorandum from the Deputy Superintendent 
General of Indian Affairs upon the Indian claim to the lands of the Province 
of British Columbia, in which he concurs. 

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Superintendent General 
of Indian Affairs, advise that the claim be referred to the Exchequer Court of 
Canada with the right of appeal to the Privy Council under the following con 
ditions: 

1. The Indians of British Columbia shall, by their Chiefs or representatives, 

in a binding way, agree, if the Court, or on appeal, the Privy Council, 
decides that they have a title to lands of the Province, to surrender 
such title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for 
extinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown 
in satisfying the Indian claim to unsurrendered territories, and to accept 
the finding of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in British 
Columbia as approved by the Governments of the Dominion and the 
Province as a full allotment of Reserve lands to be administered for 
their benefit as part of the compensation. 

2. That the Province of British Columbia by granting the said reserves 

as approved shall be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians 
against the Province. 

That the remaining considerations shall be provided and the cost 
thereof borne by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. 

3. That the Government of British Columbia shall be represented by 

counsel, that the Indians shall be represented by counsel nominated 
and paid by the Dominion. 

4. That, in the event of the Court or the Privy Council deciding that the 

Indians have no title in the lands of the Province of British Columbia, 
the policy of the Dominion towards the Indians shall be governed by 
consideration of their interests and future development. 
All which is respectfully submitted for approval. 

RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, 

Clerk o/ the Privy Council. 

The Honourable 

The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 



56 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, CANADA, 

OTTAWA, March 11, 1914. 
The Honourable 

The Superintendent General of Indians Affairs. 

The undersigned has given consideration to the petition of the Nishga 
Indians to the Privy Council, with reference to the alleged claim of those Indians 
to title in the lands of British Columbia and to a like claim on the part of the 
other Indians of the Province. I find indications in the papers that the Govern 
ment is not unwilling to submit this claim to the courts, but the difficulties which 
are inherent in the claim and which may have prevented its submission have so 
far not been overcome; the two main difficulties would appear to be: 

1. The refusal of British Columbia to consent to a stated case which would 
include any reference to the Indian title. 

2. Uncertainty as to the extent of compensation which might be demanded 
by the Indians if they were successful before the courts, and if the Crown found 
it good policy to extinguish the title of the Indians. 

With reference to the first difficulty I would propose that it be held that 
British Columbia has fully discharged its obligation to the natives by granting 
from the public domain of the Province reserve lands to be administered 
exclusively for their benefit, and that, if the Indian claim is found valid by the 
Court or the Privy Council, and, if it is thought advisable to offer anything 
further for extinguishment of title, the Dominion should assume the burden and 
compensate the Indians; according to the past usage in such arrangements as 
have been made by the good-will of the Crown with the aborigines. The 
Dominion has interest in the lands in the Railway belt, and, to this extent, would 
benefit by extinguishment of the Indian title. 

There are two Indian treaties which might be taken as prototypes for this 
divided responsibility, namely, the Treaty known as the Northwest Angle Treaty 
No. 3, and Treaty No. 9; both of these treaties are within the Province of Ontario. 
The first was negotiated when the Dominion Government thought the territory 
covered belonged to the Dominion. When by settlement of the boundary 
question it was discovered that most of the territory lay in Ontario, the Dominion 
claimed from Ontario for past expenditure and for the discharge of future liabili 
ties. The case went to the courts and was decided in favour of Ontario. Ontario 
thereupon expressed her willingness to grant the reserves, and the Dominion 
bears the financial outlay for annuities and the other considerations. 

Treaty No. 9 formed the subject of an agreement between the Governments 
of the Dominion and the Province of Ontario. Ontario agreed to furnish reserves 
and pay the annuities; the Dominion was to bear the cost of administration, 
education and the other provisions of the treaty. 

Dealing with the second difficulty, it would be a serious matter if the 
Dominion were to assume the undetermined liability which might arise if the 
Indians claim were upheld by the courts. The erroneous view of the Indians as 
regards the nature of the aboriginal title is shown by a memorandum from the 
Nishga Nation, of which I attach a copy. I may quote here the sentences bearing 
on this point: 

" Some of the advantages to be derived from establishing our aboriginal 
rights are: 

1. That it will place us in a position to reserve for our own use and benefit 
such portions of our territory as are required for the future well-being of our 
people. 

2. That it will enable us to a much greater extent and in a free and indepen 
dent manner to make use of the fisheries and other natural resources pertaining 
to our territory." 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 57 

:< We cannot prevent the Province from persisting in this attempt, but we 
can and do respectfully declare that we intend to persist in making our claim 
against the Province of British Columbia for the following among other reasons." 

***** 

" 4. While we claim the right to be compensated for those portions of our 
territory which we may agree to surrender, we claim as even more important 
the right to reserve other portions permanently for our own use and benefit, 
and beyond doubt the portions which we would desire so to reserve would 
include much of the land which has been sold by the Province. 

We are not opposed to the coming of the white people into our territory, 
provided this be carried out justly and in accordance with the British principles 
embodied in the Royal Proclamation. If, therefore, as we expect, the aboriginal 
rights which we claim should be established by the decision of His Majesty s 
Privy Council, we would be prepared to take a moderate and reasonable position. 
In that event, while claiming the right to decide for ourselves the terms upon 
which we would deal with our territory, we would be willing that all matters 
outstanding between the Province and ourselves should be finally adjusted 
by some equitable method *to be agreed upon which should include representa 
tion of the Indian Tribes upon any Commission which might then be appointed." 

From these words it will become apparent what fancies occupy the minds 
of the Indians when they think of the aboriginal title and its purchase. 

The Privy Council, to which the Nishga Nation desire to appeal, has 
already pronounced upon the nature of the Indian title, describing it as " a 
personal and usufructuary right dependent upon the good-will of the Sovereign." 

It follows that the Indian title, when acknowledged by the Crown, cannot be 
separated from what the Crown elects to grant. In appraising the Indian title 
we should go back to the time when the lands were a wilderness, when we find 
a wild people upon an unimproved estate. The Indian title cannot increase 
in value with civilized development; cession of Indian territory has always 
preceded the settlement of the country and whatever has been granted for the 
transfer has represented the good-will of the Crown, not the intrinsic value of the 
land at the time of the cession, and assuredly not the value enhanced by the 
activities of a white population. From the earliest times this beneficial interest 
has ever been appraised by the Crown, the Indians accepting what was offered, 
with, upon occasion, slight alterations in terms previously fixed by the Crown. 
It is optional when, if at all, the Crown may proceed to extinguish the Indian 
title, and, therefore, if it is decided that the Indians of British Columbia have 
a title of this nature, there can be no claim for deferred benefit from the Crown. 

I would, therefore, propose that the claim be referred to the Exchequer 
Court, with right of appeal to the Privy Council upon the following con 
ditions: 

1. That the Indians of British Columbia shall, by their Chiefs or repre 
sentatives, in a binding way, agree, if the Court, or, on appeal, the Privy Council, 
decides that they have a title to lands of the Province, to surrender such 
title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for extinguishment 
of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying the Indian 
claim to unsurrendered territories, and to accept the finding of the Royal Com 
mission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia, as approved by the Governments 
of the Dominion and the Province, as a full allotment of Reserve lands to be 
administered for their benefit as part of the compensation. 

2. That the Province of British Columbia by granting the said reserves 
as approved shall be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians against the 
Province. 

That the remaining considerations shall be provided and the cost thereof 
borne by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. 



58 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

3. That the Government of British Columbia shall be represented by 
counsel, that the Indians shall be represented by counsel nominated and paid by 
the Dominion. 

4. That in the event of the Court or the Privy Council deciding that the 
Indians have no title in the lands of the Province of British Columbia, the 
policy of the Dominion towards the Indians shall be governed by consideration 
of their interests and future development. 

DUNCAN C. SCOTT, 

Deputy Superintendent General, 



STATEMENT OF THE NISHGA NATION OR TRIBE OF INDIANS. 

From time immemorial the Nishga Nation or Tribe of Indians possessed, 
occupied and used the territory generally known as the Valley of the Naas 
River, the boundaries of which are well defined. 

The claims which we make in respect of this territory are clear and simple, 
We lay claim to the rights of men. We claim to be aboriginal inhabitants of 
this country and to have rights as such. We claim that our aboriginal rights 
have been guaranteed by Proclamation of King George Third and recognized 
by Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain. We claim that holding under the 
words of that Proclamation a tribal ownership of the territory, we should be 
dealt with in accordance with its provision, and that no part of our lands should 
be taken from us or in any way disposed of until the same has been purchased 
by the Crown. 

By reason of our aboriginal rights above stated, we claim tribal ownership 
of all fisheries and other natural resources pertaining to the territory above- 
mentioned. 

For more than twenty-five years, being convinced that the recognition of 
our aboriginal rights would be of very great material advantage to us and would 
open the way for the intellectual, social and industrial advance of our people, 
we have in common with other tribes of British Columbia, actively pressed our 
claims upon the Governments concerned. In recent years, being more than 
ever convinced of the advantages to be derived from such recognition and fearing 
that without such the advance of settlement would endanger our whole future, 
we have pressed these claims with greatly increased earnestness. 

Some of the advantages to be derived from establishing our aboriginal rights 
are: 

1. That it will place us in a position to reserve for own use and benefit 
such portions of our territory as are required for the future well-being of our 
people. 

2. That it will enable us to a much greater extent and in a free and 
independent manner to make use of the fisheries and other natural resources 
pertaining to our territory. 

3. That it will open the way for bringing to an end as rapidly as possible 
the system of Reserves and substituting a system of individual ownership. 

4. That it will open the way for putting an end to all uncertainty and 
unrest, bringing about a permanent and satisfactory settlement between the 
white people and ourselves, and thus removing the danger of serious trouble 
which now undoubtedly exists. 

5. That it will open the way for our taking our place as not only loyal 
British subjects but also Canadian citizens, as for many years we have desired 
to do. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 59 

In thus seeking to realize what is highest and best for our people, we have 
encountered a very serious difficulty in the attitude which has been assumed 
by the Government of British Columbia. That Government has neglected 
and refused to recognize our claims, and for many years has been selling over 
our heads large tracts of our lands. We claim that every such transaction 
entered into in respect of any part of these lands under the assumed authority 
of the Provincial Land Act has been entered into in violation of the Procla 
mation above mentioned. These transactions have been entered into notwith 
standing our protests, oral and written, presented to the Government of British 
Columbia, surveyors employed by that Government and intending purchasers. 

The request of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia made through their 
Provincial Organization, that the matter of Indian title be submitted to the 
Judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council, having been before the 
Imperial Government and the Canadian Government for three years, and 
grave constitutional difficulties arising from the refusal of British Columbia 
to consent to a reference, having been encountered in dealing with that request, 
we resolved independently and directly to place a petition before His Majesty s 
Privy Council. 

In following that course we desire to act to the fullest possible extent in 
harmony both with other tribes of British Columbia and with the Government 
of Canada. 

We are informed that Mr. J. A. J. McKenna sent out by the Government 
of Canada has made a report in which he does not mention the claims which the 
Indians of the Province have been making for so many years, and assigns as the 
cause of all the trouble, the reversionary claim of the Province. Whatever other 
things Mr. McKenna found out during his stay, we are sure that he did not find 
out our mind or the real cause of the trouble. 

We are also informed of the agreement relating only to the so-called reserves 
which was entered into by Mr. McKenna and Premier McBride. We are glad 
from its provisions to know that the Province has expressed willingness to 
abandon to a large extent the reversionary claim which has been made. We 
cannot, however, regard that agreement as forming a possible basis for settling 
the land question. We cannot concede that the two Governments have power 
by the agreement in question or any other agreement to dispose of the so-called 
Reserves or any other lands of British Columbia, until the territory of each 
nation or tribe has been purchased by the Crown as required by the Procla 
mation of King George Third. 

We are also informed that in the course of recent negotiations, the Govern 
ment of British Columbia has contended that under the terms of Union the 
Dominion of Canada is responsible for making treaties with the Indian Tribes 
in settlement of their claims. This attempt to shift responsibility to Canada 
and by doing so render it more difficult for us to establish our rights, seems to 
us utterly unfair and unjustifiable. We cannot prevent the Province from 
persisting in this attempt, but we can and do respectfully declare that we intend 
to persist in making our claim against the Province of British Columbia for the 
following among other reasons: 

1. We are advised that at the time of Confederation all lands embraced 
within our territory became the property of the province subject to any interest 
other than that of the province therein. 

2. We have for a long time known that in 1875 the Department of Justice 
of Canada reported that the Indian Tribes of British Columbia are entitled to 
an interest in the lands of the province. 

3. Notwithstanding the report then made and the position in accordance 
with that report consistently taken by every representative of Canada from the 
time of Lord Dufferin s speeches until the spring of the present year, and in 



60 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

defiance of our frequent protests, the Province has sold a large proportion of the 
best lands of our territory and has by means of such wrongful sales received a 
large amount of money. 

4. While we claim the right to be compensated for those portions of our 
territory which we may agree to surrender, we claim as even more important the 
right to reserve other portions permanently for our own use and benefit, and 
beyond doubt the portions which we would desire so to reserve would include 
much of the land which has been sold by the Province. 

We are. not opposed to the coming of the white people into our territory 
provided this be carried out justly and in accordance with the British principles 
embodied in the Royal Proclamation. If, therefore, as we expect, the aboriginal 
rights which we claim should be established by the decision of His Majesty s 
Privy Council, we would be prepared to take a moderate and reasonable 
position. In that event, while claiming the right to decide for ourselves the 
terms upon which we would deal with our territory, we would be willing that 
all matters outstanding between the Province and ourselves should be finally 
adjusted by some equitable method to be agreed upon whirfi should include rep 
resentation of the Indian Tribes upon any Commission which then might be 
appointed. 

The above statement was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Nishga 
Nation or Tribe of Indians held at Kincolith on the 22nd day of January, 1913, 
and it was resolved that a copy of same be placed in the hands of each of the 
following: 

The Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Minister of Canada, the 
Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Justice, Mr. J. M. Clark, K.C., 
Counsel for the Indian Rights Association of British Columbia, and the Chair 
man of the " Friends of the Indians of British Columbia." 

W. J. LINCOLN, 

Chairman of Meeting. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 61 

APPENDIX G 

Copy 59,335-4A 

16 December, 1918. 

GENTLEMEN, Referring to your letter of the 27th May last, on the sub 
ject of (jertain claims of the Nishga Tribe of Indians in British Columbia, I am 
directed by the Lord President of the Council to state as follows: 

1. One of the matters in dispute is set out in the Petition lodged 
by you on the 21st May, 1913, as "the nature and extent of the rights of 
the said Nishga Nation or Tribe in respect of the said Territory". The 
other is the question whether the Lan,d Act of British Columbia is ultra 
vires of the Legislature of that Province. 

2. If the contention of the Nishga Indians is, as it appears to be, 
that they have suffered an invasion of some legal right, the proper course 
would, in His Lordship s opinion, be for them to take such steps as may 
be open to them to litigate the matter in the Canadian Courts, from 
whose decision an appeal in the ordinary way can come to the Judicial 
Committee. It would seem that any intervention by the Crown by 
referring the matter specially direct to the said Committee would be an 
unconstitutional interference with the local jurisdiction. 

3. If however the claim of the Indians does not rest on any legal 
basis, but is, in effect, a complaint of the executive action of the Provin 
cial or the Dominion Government, it would appear that, in accordance 
with constitutional principles governing relations between the Crown 
and the Colonial Governments a special reference to the Judicial Com 
mittee to consider the action of the Dominion or Provincial Government 
could only be ordered on the recommendation of the Secretary of State 
for the Colonies, and that he would only advise such a reference after 
consulting, and in accordance with the advice received from the Domin 
ion Government. 

In these circumstances His Lordship cannot see his way to take any further 
action on the Petition. 

I am, etc., 

(Sgd.) ALMERIC FITZROY, 
MESSES. SMITHS, Fox AND SEDGWICK, 
26 Lincoln s Inn Fields, 
W.C. 2. 

Copy. 

OTTAWA, 14th November, 1914. 

The Reverend ARTHUK E. O MEAKA, B.A., 
Prince George Hotel, 
Toronto, Ont. 

SIR: It is in my view unnecessary to correct the narrative of your letter 
of 26th ultimo, because except in the two points which I am going to mention 
it is immaterial to any question now under consideration. 

As to your remark that it has always been the view of those advising the 
Nishgas that the only feasible method of securing a judicial determination of 



62 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

the rights of the Indians of British Columbia is that of bringing their claims 
directly before His Majesty s Privy Council, I wish you would realize and 
endeavour to convince those whom you describe as advising the Nishgas that 
this Government has no power or authority to refer a question directly to His 
Majesty s Privy Council; that the only constitutional method of obtaining the 
judicial view of His Majesty in Council relating to a question limited to the 
internal affairs of Canada is by appeal from the local tribunals, and that His 
Royal Highness Government is determined for these reasons, which have been 
so often explained to you and those whom you profess to represent, not to 
advise or concur in any proceedings looking to a decision in which the courts 
of the Dominion shall not have an opportunity to express their views. If, 
therefore, it be possible for me to make any statement here which can, consist 
ently with the amenities of official correspondence, impress you with the futility 
of urging upon this Government a reference direct to the Judicial Committee, 
I beg of you to consider that statement incorporated in this letter. 

The policy of the Government with regard to the British Columbia Indian 
question is very clearly stated in the Order-in-Council of 20th June last, and 
you should, I think, be able to perceive that one of the conditions upon which 
further progress may be made is that the Indians shall come under the obligation 
defined by the first anumeration of the Order in Council. You state that the 
Order in Council has been brought before the Nishgas Indians, and that they 
will, as soon as possible, place their answer before the Government. So far 
it is well, but when you say that it is clearly necessary that before the Nishgas 
answer they should be adVised regarding the procedure of the courts, and 
demand to be informed under the autliorit}^ of what enactment and for what 
reasons a reference to the Exchequer Court is proposed, I may I trust be 
permitted to observe that the essential question for consideration of the Nishgas 
is as to whether, if their alleged title be upheld by the ultimate tribunal, they 
are willing to surrender that title in consideration of benefits to be granted 
in extinguishment according to the ancient usage of the Crown. I think it 
would be a pity that this question should be o bscured or involved in the diffi 
culties which you have encountered about the procedure, and which the Indians 
presumably would be no better able to understand. Therefore, without making 
any further attempt to explain the procedure which perhaps could not succeed 
within the compass of an ordinary letter, I suggest that the Indians should 
be permitted to consider the question in which they are really interested as 
submitted by the Order in Council. It is unlikely I should think that the 
Indians would concern themselves with procedure. They have I imagine 
sufficient discernment to perceive, if their deliberations be not influenced to 
the contrary, that a question of procedure is at present quite irrelevant; but if 
necessary you may unhesitatingly assure them that no point of procedure will 
be permitted to prejudice a decision upon the merits of the case, and that the 
Government will see to it that the proceedings are brought and conducted in 
such a manner as to provide for the admission of all the facts and arguments 
which are material to the controversy. 

May I be allowed to add that in A iew of what I have stated I do not 
propose to consider the procedure until it is ascertained that the Indians have 
acquiesced in the conditions of the Order in Council which are preliminary 
to any procedure 

I have the honour to be, 

Sir, 
Your obedient servant, 

(Sgd.) C. J. DOHERTY, 

Minister of Justice. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 



63 



Copy 59,335-4. 



OTTAWA, 25th September. 1916. 



Rev. ARTHUR E. O MEARA, 

1621 Hutchison Street, 
Montreal. 

DEAR MR. O MEARA, His Royal Highness ha interviewed the Honourable 
Dr. Roche with reference to your letter of the 29th May and your interview 
with me and I am commanded by His Royal Highness to state that he considers 
it is the duty of the Nishga Tribe of Indians to await the decision of the Com 
mission, after which, if they do not agree to the conditions set forth by the Com 
mission, they can appeal to the Privy Council in England, when their case will 
have every consideration. As their contentions will be duly considered by the 
Privy Council in the event of the Indians being dissatisfied with the decision of 
the Commission, His Royal Highness is not prepared to interfere in the matter 
at present and he hopes that you will advise the Indians to await the decision 
of this Commission. 

Yours sincerely, 

Lieut.-Col. ED. S. STANTON. 

Governor General s Secretary. 



Copy 59335-4A. 

OTTAWA, 17th March, 1920. 

Rev. A. E. O MEARA, 

Chateau Laurier, 
Ottawa, 

SIR, I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor General to acknowl 
edge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo with regard to the Nishga 
Indians. You are probably aware that the claims of the Nishga Tribe of Indians 
in British Columbia have already been considered by the Privy Council. In 
May, 1913, a petition to His Majesty in Council was lodged on behalf of the 
Nishga Tribe of Indians praying that certain claims of theirs to land in British 
Columbia might be referred to the Judicial or other Committee of the Priv>> 
Council and Their Lordships, having given the petition their careful consideration, 
were of the opinion that no action on their part was required in the matter. 
The Lord President of the Council directed Sir Almeric Fitzroy to state as 
follows: 

1. One of the matters in dispute is set out in the Petition lodged by 
you on the 21st May, 1913, as " the nature and extent of the rights of the 
said Nishga Nation or Tribe in respect of the said Territory ". The other 
is the question whether the Land Act of British Columbia is ultra vires of 
the Legislature of that Province. 

2. If the contention of the Nishga Indians is, as it appears to be, that 
they have suffered an invasion of some legal right, the proper course 
would, in the opinion of the Lord President of the Council, be for them 
to take such steps as may be open to them to litigate the matter in the 
Canadian Courts from whose decision an appeal in the ordinary way can 
come to the Judicial Committee. It would seem that any intervention by 
the Crown by referring the matter specially direct to the said Committee 
would be an unconstitutional interference with the local jurisdiction. 

3. If however the claim of the Indians does not rest on any legal 
basis, but is, in effect, a complaint of the executive action of the Provincial 
or the Dominion Government, it would appear that, in accordance with 
constitutional principles governing relations between -the Crown and the 



64 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Colonial Governments a special reference to the Judicial Committee to 
consider the action of the Dominion or Provincial Government could 
only be ordered on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for the 
Colonies, and that the latter could only advise such a reference after 
consulting, and in accordance with the advice received from the Dominion 
Government. 

You have already been informed on several occasions of the attitude of the 
Dominion Government towards this claim and there does not appear to be any 
thing further for me to add except that the Governor General takes no action, 
nor does he desire to take any action, except upon the advice of his constitu 
tional advisers. Under these circumstances, I must ask you to consider this letter 
as final. 

I have, etc., 

(Sgd.) Lieut.-Col. H. G. HENDERSON, 

Governor General s Secretary. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 65 



APPENDIX H 

DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, 
CANADA 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT GENERAL, 

OTTAWA, October 29, 1923. 

Memorandum: 

Honourable CHARLES STEWART. 

I have the honour to transmit herewith the stenographic report of the meet 
ings with the Executive Council of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia in 
Vancouver and Victoria. As you are aware the meetings at Vancouver were 
preliminary to the more detailed discussion which took place in Victoria. 

As you thought it advisable that some representative of the British Colum 
bia Government should be present at the round table conference with the Indians, 
I wrote to the Hon. Mr. Oliver as follows: 

" NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C., July 27th, 1923. 

The Honourable JOHN OLIVER, 

Prime Minister of British Columbia, 
Victoria, B.C. 

DEAR MR. OLIVER, You were kind enough to promise me an appointment 
on Monday morning next, and I shall expect to be in Victoria and call upon you 
then. 

We propose to have some further conferences with the Indians on general 
matters pertaining to their claims, and I expect to be able to arrange a time for 
these meetings in Victoria by Tuesday or Wednesday. 

The Honourable Mr. Stewart would urge upon you the advisability of the 
Government of British Columbia being represented by one of your Ministers at 
these meetings. I have, therefore, on his behalf to ask that you will give that 
matter your careful consideration. 

Yours very truly, 
(Signed) DUNCAN C. SCOTT, 

Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 
OTTAWA, ONTARIO. 

As I knew that the Prime Minister intended to leave Victoria and be absent 
three or four weeks, I thought it well to make a special trip to the capital in 
order to urge upon him the consideration of what is known as the Supplementary 
List of Reserves. I interviewed him on the morning of July 30th. The Hon. Mr. 
Patullo was present during part of the interview. In discussing the matter I 
went into it rather fully and urged very strongly that the Supplementary List 
should be favourably considered. Mr. Patullo promised on behalf of his Govern 
ment to have it carefully examined by Mr. MacKenzie, Grazing Commissioner, 
and Chief Inspector Ditchburn, but he did not give any assurance that any of 
the additional applications would be granted. Mr. Oliver expressed the opinion 
that there could be no finality of the Indian reserve question taking into con 
sideration the Thirteenth Article of the Terms of Union, as under this section 
the Province was bound to give lands for Indian reserves from time to time 
whenever such were really required. This appeared to me to be Mr. Oliver s 

4232S-5 



66 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

personal opinion. I referred to my letter dated at New Westminster July 27th, 
and asked him to consider appointing a representative to be present at our meet 
ings with the Indians. He said that he would consider that in Council that 
afternoon, and Mr. Ditchburn received later a note dated the 31st July, signed 
by Mr. Oliver s Private Secretary, as follows: 

PRIME MINISTER S OFFICE, 

VICTORIA, B.C., 31st July, 1923. 

Mr. W. E. DITCHBURN, 

Indian Agent, 

City. 

DEAR SIR, In reference to the conference held yesterday between your 
self and the Superintendent of Indian Affairs with the Premier and Hon. 
Mr. Patullo, I am directed by the Premier to say that the question of a 
representative of the Province attending any conference held between 
representatives of the Government of Canada and the Indians of British 
Columbia, was considered by the Executive Council this morning, an^ 
it was the opinion of the Council that whereas the charge of the Indian 3 
and their trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for thei; 
use is a function of the Dominion Government, therefore, any conference 
with the Indians should be solely with the representatives of that Govern 
ment. 

Any questions arising in respect of the Indians of B.C., involving any 
responsibility on the part of the Province, should be adjusted as between 
the Province and the Dominion, and therefore it is not necessary or advis 
able that the Province should be represented at any conference between 
the Indians and the Government of Canada. 

Yours truly, 

(Signed) J. MORTON, 

Secretary. 

The meetings in Victoria opened on, Tuesday morning, August 7th. The 
Executive Committee of the Allied Tribes was present and Mr. O Meara, their 
counsel. There was some preliminary discussion as to what procedure should 
be followed and I made clear to them the purpose of the meeting and the extent 
of my powers; also that it was your wish that we should have a full and frank 
presentation of the Indians case and that they should be prepared to state what 
they would accept as compensation for the Indian title in the Provincial lands. 
They requested me to allow Mr. O Meara to make a general statement of their 
case and I thought it proper to allow this. This statement will be found on 
pages 34 to 56 of the typewritten report. Mr. Kelly, the Chairman of the 
Executive Committee asked me to explain the true meaning and intent of the 
statute which was passed to enable us to confirm the report of the Royal Com 
mission, and the effect of the passage of Orders in Council under that statute, 
and similar legislation by the Province of British Columbia. This I attempted 
to do and probably succeeded. There is lack of distinctness in the stenographic 
report of this passage, but I believe the Committee finally understood the 
matter. 

After Mr. O Meara made his statement we entered into a discussion of the 
report of the Royal Commission, and at first an, attempt was made to deal with 
it somewhat in detail. Although the members of the Committee had been in 
possession of this report for some time, they were not familiar with its contents. 
After some waste of time in dealing with certain agencies, it became evident 
that no progress would be made if we were to attempt to consider with minute- 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 67 

ness the allotted reserves, the reduced reserves, and the new reserves. (See 
pages 85-87-88.) I expressed willingness to go on with the discussion, but the 
Chairman of the Committee said that the task would be "endless". 

The Committee then, fell back on a statement which had been made in a 
pamphlet prepared for the British Columbia Government in 1920, and as the 
discussion developed, it became clear that the Indians intended to rely on the 
claims made by that pamphlet, and in the end it will be found that all the 
claims made there, with one important addition, are now made conditions for 
the cession of the Indian title. I think it well, therefore, to place with the report 
a copy of this pamphlet. 

The Indians expressed unwillingness to accept the report of the Royal Com 
mission, giving their reasons and stating what in their opinion would be an ade 
quate reserve allotment. These statements will be found on pages 87 to 101. 
The Indians demand that all foreshores, whether tidal or inland, be included in 
the reserves, and that a per capita standard of 160 acres of average agricultural 
land should be adopted in. the allotment of reserves. While the demands and 
their reasons are set forth in the typewritten report of proceedings, it will prob 
ably be more convenient for you to read them in the printed pamphlet; they 
run from page 8 to 15. 

The questions of grazing lands and irrigation were dealt with and the full 
est information was given, on these questions, which are of such great moment 
to the Indians in the central section of the Province. 

The other conditions put forward by the Committee as a basis of settle 
ment are set forth and argued in the remaining pages of the report and are as 
follows: 

Fishing Rights 

There was an extended discussion on the question of fishing rights, which 
will be found between pages 135 and 172. At page 166 and for a few pages fol 
lowing the Chairman of the Committee made certain definite proposals in con 
nection with the fishing question. 

The Indians wish to claim the right to catch fish in all rivers, lakes and 
tidal waters of the Province without permit and without any limit, with the 
explicit understanding that the fish will be used by the Indians for food only. 

They wish to be allowed to fish or troll for salmon without license in all 
tidal waters of the Province, and to be allowed seining licen.ses (both drag seine 
and purse seine) at half the prevailing fees. 

They desire that the Indians only should be granted seining licenses to 
catch fish at the mouths of streams or rivers which flow through Indian reserves. 

They desire that in all fishing districts certain waters be reserved for the 
exclusive use of In,dian band? or tribes in those localities. 

You will observe that on page 172 I got the Chairman of the Committee to 
state that they considered the favourable consideration of these requirements 
as absolutely essential to the surrender of the Indian title. 

I am informed by the Chief Inspector for the Province of British Columbia 
under date of October 17th, that Mr. J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fish 
eries for the Province, has stated that salmon and herring seinjng licenses similar 
to those which in the past have been issued to resident whites will in the 
future be available to Canadian Indians in their own names. 

These are matters which will have to be discussed with the Department of 
Fisheries. I am in sympathy with the desire of the Indians to take fish for food 
and I do not think they should suffer any disabilities whatever in the prosecu 
tion of the fisheries. They should be on the same footing as any citizen of the 
Province when it comes to the prosecution of this industry. 

The Fisheries Department had instructed their Chief Inspector, Mr. Mother- 
well, to give sympathetic attention to any representations that were made and 

42325 5J 



68 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

I had two interviews with Mr. Motherwell in, Vancouver. I found him to be 
entirely willing to consider any questions relating to fisheries that were brought 
before him ; and the intimation conveyed by the Chief Inspector of this Depart 
ment that the Indians were now able to obtain seining licences, would appear 
to me to be clearly the result of our interviews and the sympathetic attitude 
taken by the officers of this Department. I intend to have an extract made 
from the report of the proceedings of the discussion on the fisheries question 
and forward it to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries. 

Hunting 

The Indians desire that areas should be set aside for hunting, which only 
Indians should be allowed to use; that they should be allowed to hunt un 
restrictedly for food purposes and that the restrictions imposed by the British 
Columbia Game Act, which limits trapping privileges to those regularly em 
ployed in that occupation, should be removed. 

Timber 

The Indians request that they should be secured the perpetual privilege 
of cutting timber outside the reserves for fuel or for the manufacture of canoes 
and baskets. 

Funded Moneys 

The Indians request that an amendment to the Indian Act be passed 
whereby they will have freer use of their Capital Funds. They urge that there 
is a strong feeling among the people that the moneys funded for their benefit 
could be more usefully employed than at present. 

Pelagic Sealing 

They request that an amendment should be obtained to the pelagic sealing 
treaty of 1911 to allow towage of canoes by gasoline launches to the scene of 
the deep-sea hunting. They state that while they were given the privilege 
under the treaty of hunting in their canoes, it is dangerous to venture into the 
deep sea without the use of some larger auxiliary vessels. 

Education 

The Committee urged the establishment of an educational system which 
would reach all the Indian children of the Province; that the education should 
be technical and specially designed to fit the children for their after life, and 
that there should be provision for higher education in special cases. 

Medical Attendance and Hospitals 

The Committee urged the establishment of free medical and hospital 
service which will meet the special needs of the case. This would involve the 
establishment of ganataria for the treatment of tuberculosis. 

Mothers and Widows pensions, as effective in British Columbia for white 
women. 

Cash compensation for Annuities similar to Treaty Annuities. 
To explain this item it is only necessary to quote Mr. Kelly s words given 
at the morning session on August llth. (Pages 251-253) : 

We have come to a time when we are within sight of the closing 
of our series of meetings. And before summing up in a very brief 
general way, the subject matters which we discussed here during this 
conference, I would like to mention two matters of great importance. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 69 

The first one is this: It may be referred to as a monetary compen 
sation. Now I am not unconscious of the position that we have taken 
when we met the Minister and yourself in Vancouver last year that is 
July of 1922. At that time, although the words are not on record, I 
think we all have a very clear memory of what we have said. We 
deprecated the idea of putting on the same basis as the Indians in the 
territory and eastern provinces. That is to say, we deprecate the idea 
of receiving a few dollars annually. This sort of a thing we realize 
in the long run amounts to a great deal; for I understand- that on this 
system the treaties guarantee that those annuities would continue until 
the Indians became extinct, or even absorbed into the larger body of 
citizenship. Generally speaking, Indians in this province have not 
.looked upon that with any great favour. They think it does not really 
bring them anything worth while. Therefore we have taken the position 
that we did. 

But we have learned several things since that time; and the general 
consensus of opinion among the Indians is this, that all that we have 
been claiming as necessary conditions for an equitable basis of settlement, 
plan more for the future rather than the present. When I say that, I do 
not for the moment forget the statement made by the Chief Inspector of 
Indian Agencies in Vancouver on the 27th of July last; but during the 
years since Union took place, since the Province entered Confederation, 
when this matter should have been adjusted, should have been dealt 
with and settled for all time, as was done in the other Provinces, the 
matter of course was left over; not because it was not known, but it was 
ignored deliberately ignored. We all know the history of that. We 
all know the report made by the Chief Justice of the Dominion in 1875 
on that very matter. 

Now I need not try and make out a case there; but because of that 
position taken, we think that a monetary compensation running over a 
given period is nothing more than fair. Now we do not say that there 
should be an eternal annuity; but perhaps because of the brunt of the 
battle borne by the present generation, and also the last generation to 
some extent, in trying to get this matter up for real consideration by 
the Governments from time to time, we take it it would be a fair proposal 
to make, that monetary payments, perhaps covering a given period 
I do not know how long, that is open to negotiation perhaps twenty 
years more or less; so that the people who are now living, and who will 
not be in a position to profit by any of the future benefits that we have 
claimed, would receive direct benefit from the question that is now being 
brought we hope to a position where we are in sight of a settlement. 

Based on the present population of the Province, 24,744, for a twenty-year 
period and at the usual annuity of $5 per capita, this would mean a payment 
of $2,474,400. 

Reimbursement of about $100,000 spent endeavouring to secure settlement 
of land title question. 

To explain this item I would quote further from Mr. Kelly s speech on 
August llth. (Pages 253-254) :- 

And the second point that I want to deal with this morning, is 
what we might term the cost of the case. That is contained in paragraph 
20, p. 15, of our statement. I will just read these words once again: 
" That all moneys already expended and to be expended by the Allied 
Tribes in connection with the Indian Land controversy, and the adjust 
ment of all matters outstanding be provided by the Government." Wo 
have always insisted on this. And since the Minister has recognized 



70 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

our aboriginal title, and has assured us that we are in a position as of 
having won our case in Court, we take the ground that we are entitled 
to the cost of the case. We have been put under heavy expense during 
these years past, when this matter has been pressed; not only in our 
particular organization known as the Allied Indian Tribes, but different 
organizations, we have pressed the matter before that. We think of the 
Indian Rights Organization, we think of the independent efforts that 
have been made by the different bands from time to time sending dele 
gates to Ottawa. 

It is true that those delegations looked only to adjustments in 
their own particular localities, but, nevertheless, it was part of the one 
large question. We are not putting any specific sum in at this particu 
lar time; we say that is open to negotiation, but I am inclined to think 
looking over accounts, the cost up to the present time has been some 
thing like a hundred thousand dollars, in a round sum. This we con 
sider one of the necessary conditions to be seriously considered in the 
final settlement of this question. 

Mr. DITCHBUKN: Has that money all come from the Indians? 

Mr. KELLY: Mostly from the Indians; some of it from other people, 
who have given it as loans. We must pay that back. Now it is not 
necessary for me to dwell on that any longer, I think. I think that is 
sufficiently covered. 

This ends the transcript of the terms and conditions thought by the Indians 
to be essential for an equitable settlement of the Indian title in the Provincial 
lands of British Columbia. At the beginning of the meeting I drew the atten 
tion of the Committee to statements they had made at Vancouver a few days 
before. You will find the words on page 27 of the report, but I think it well to 
repeat it here. 

We see, Sir, that the Government has not got any magic powers to 
bring forth funds, their funds must come from the good-will of the people 
of Canada; and we recognize this, that to take an unreasonable stand, 
to make our demands unreasonable, would be antagonizing the citizens 
of Canada generally, and we are not prepared to go that far. We recog 
nize the danger of taking such a stand. Therefore, we are always open 
to reason, and I can assure you, any demands claims, not demands, that 
we make, will always be within reason. 

It must be taken then that the claims which are made are considered by 
the Committee at least within reason. 

I had expected that the discussion would take a different course but it was 
apparent from the moment the Indians referred to their pamphlet prepared for 
the Government of British Columbia that they intended to take their stand upon 
the demands therein made. They saw fit to add to these claims a plea for a cash 
payment which would amount, at the twenty year period which was suggested, 
to nearly two and a half millions. That, so far as I can discern, is the only 
new item which appears in the schedule, as they had previously claimed a return 
of the money they had expended in the prosecution of this claim. I cannot re 
frain from expressing the opinion that far from being reasonable claims, they 
are exacting and extravagant. Favourable consideration would lead to the ex 
penditure of such very large sums of money on the Indians of British Columbia 
that an envious feeling would be created in the minds of other Indians in the 
Dominion. 

As the matter of most pressing importance was the acceptance by His Ex 
cellency in Council of the report of the Royal Commission, which action has 
already been taken by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia in Council. 
I directed the particular attention of the Indians to it. A short discussion on this 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 71 

point will be found on pages 250-251. It had become clear that they did not 
think the report of the Royal Commission was a satisfactory settlement of the 
Indian reserve question, but I pointed out that they had not stated definitely 
that they would recommend that the report be not confirmed by the Dominion 
Government. The other point that I pressed home was our desire to obtain an 
expression of their wish as to a judicial decision on the general question of title. 
This brought forth a very emphatic declaration from the Chairman; he said: 
" We launch an emphatic negative to the passing of any Order in Council, if that 
Order in Council is going to be the final adjustment of all matters relating to 
Indian affairs in this Province. We claim that Indian lands and Indian rights 
generally are just part of one big question, and, therefore, we refuse to have 
Orders in Council dealing with just one matter when that matter cuts away from 
under our feet, as it were, our constitutional stand." 

With reference to the question of litigation, they wish to be considered as 
willing to have a settlement out of court, but if it seems impossible to get a 
fair and equitable settlement they wish to " press on to the Judicial Committee 
of the Privy Council." 

In spite of this vigorous protest from the Indians as to the acceptance of 
the report of the Royal Commission, I cannot, with a due sense of responsibility 
and having the best interests of these people at heart, recommend any other 
action but the adoption of the report. The Indians will receive in the aggregate 
a large acreage of reserve lands free from any vexatious claims of the Province, 
such as the so-called " reversionary interest " has been in the past. While it is 
true that in some districts it would have been more satisfactory if larger 
reserves could have been set aside for them, conditions peculiar to British 
Columbia rendered that almost impossible, but the report of the Royal Com 
mission provides reserves for these Indians which can be developed and utilized 
by them. Over against their complaint that they have not sufficient lands, we 
must set the statement, often well founded on fact, that they are not making 
good use of the lands provided for them. 

If our Government refuses to further consider the report of the Royal Com 
mission and fails to use the statutory power to confirm the report, I am afraid 
the future welfare of the British Columbia Indians will be jeopardized. The 
report is the outcome of long negotiations between the Governments, of an 
examination into the needs of the Indians on the ground, during which the 
evidence of Indians was taken and their advice and cooperation sought, and 
finally, there was a resurvey of the whole report by officers of the Governments 
and representatives of the Indians. I would recommend that the " cut offs " 
in the Railway Belt be cancelled and the reserves as originally set apart in the 
Railway Belt be confirmed. With the reserve question finally disposed of I 
had expected that the Indians would realize that their aboriginal title was 
in part already annually compensated for by the generous grants that the 
Dominion Parliament is making on their behalf, and would wish to add to those 
obligations of the Dominion an extension of the educational system and some 
better provision for hospitals and medical attendance. Such is not the case, 
and I have to submit the facts for your consideration. 

DUNCAN C. SCOTT, 
Deputy Superintendent General. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TE1BES, B.C. 73 

COMMITTEE ROOM 368, 

THURSDAY, March 31st, 1927. 

The Joint Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition submitted 
to Parliament in June, 1926, met at 10 o clock, a.m., Hon. Mr. Bostock, presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. O Meara, we would like to know exactly whom you 
represent? 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Beament will deal with that very matter. 

The CHAIRMAN: Cannot you state yourself whom you represent here? 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Beament is ready to state that very matter; he has the 
papers and he is with me in this case. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beament, will you just make a statement? 

Mr. BEAMENT: Mr. O Meara, with whom I appear, is appearing as General 
Counsel for the Association of Indian Tribes of British Columbia, which are 
known as the Allied Tribes, and who are the petitioners before these Houses. 
The Secretary of that Association, Mr. Paull, is here at the present time, and the 
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association is, I understand, on 
his way here. Is it desired that I should go into the details of who are the 
Allied Tribes? 

The CHAIRMAN: 1 do not think there is any necessity to do that. 

Mr. BEAMENT: Shortly, Mr. O Meara s position is as I have stated. If it is 
the desire of this Committee, I can file Mr. O Meara s written authority signed by 
the Chairman and the Secretary. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What is the date of that, Mr. Beament? 

Mr. MC!NTYRE: May I intrude? I represent the Chiefs from the Interior. 
I heard the Chairman inquire of this gentleman as to whom he represented, and 
I understood him to say that he represented the Allied Tribes of British Columbia. 
There is no such entity as that from the lawyers point of view, and it is my 
duty to interrupt and to point out to the Chairman that my friend can only 
be representing the Indians known as the Coast Indians, although they are 
under the name of the Allied Tribes. I apologize for interrupting, but it was 
absolutely necessary. A,s I remarked to you this morning, Mr. Chairman, I was 
not present yesterday, nor were the Chiefs present, because we were misled by 
the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent General on Indian Affairs, from 
whom we understood that nothing was to be done yesterday. It was only in 
the afternoon that I learned for the first time that very important matters had 
come up and that a Chief from the Coast had spoken, named Andrew Paull. 
Later on I learned, not from Dr. Scott, but from another party, that he had also 
made a statement. I pointed out to Dr. Scott that these Indians from the Interior 
all should have been present at the meeting of the Committee yesterday. They 
are all here this morning and they profess to represent the whole of the Interior 
Tribes, specifically twenty-eight. Authority to that effect was sent in to you, 
Mr. Minister, about a year ago, subscribed by twenty-eight chiefs. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Do your clients moke any claims with respect to 
aboriginal title? 

Mr. MC!NTYRE: Yes. 



74 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That is all I want to know. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mclntyre, would you file a list of the names of the 
tribes you represent in the Interior, and we will ask this gentleman to do the 
same thing? 

Mr. BEAMENT: Hon. Mr. Stevens asked the date of the authority to which 
I referred; it is 1922. I have in addition a circular letter signed by the same 
Chairman and Secretary to all the Tribes comprising that alliance. 

Mr. MC!NTYEE: What is the date, may I ask? 

Mr. BEAMENT: Dated 2nd December, 1926, in which the authority of the 
General Counsel of their Alliance is specifically confirmed, especially with a view 
to this particular matter. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Is it signed by the various tribes? 

Mr. BEAMENT: No, it is signed by the Chairman and the Secretary of that 
Alliance. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Is the Chairman here? 

Mr. BEAMENT: The Chairman is. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Let us find out from him who Mr. O Meara represents. 

ANDREW PAULL, re-called. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paull, you are already sworn? 

Mr. PAULL: Yes, your Honour. I truthfully say that the Allied Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia are composed of an organization which was formu 
lated in the year 1922, when all these Chiefs, whom Mr. Mclntyre is now rep 
resenting, were a party to this Alliance. A meeting was held in North Vancouver 
and we discussed the formation of this Alliance for three days before we agreed 
to form an organization to represent the Indians of British Columbia in making 
representation to the different Governments. Again I say that every one of these 
Chiefs whom Mr. Mclntyre represents attended that meeting and they were 
parties to the formation of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Have you had a meeting since? 

Mr. PAULL: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: When was the last meeting? 

Mr. PAULL: Last October. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: And what tribes are now represented by Mr. O Meara? 

Mr. PAULL: All of the Coast tribes; the Okanagan Tribes, the Lillooet 
Indians, and some of the Chilcottens; all the Indians of Vancouver Island. Some 
of the Northeastern Interior Indians and a few of the Indians actually residing 
in Kamloops; a member from the Kamloops Reservation is a member of our 
Executive Council. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: You say all the Indians of Vancouver Island? 

Mr. PAULL: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: 1 understand, from a statement that was made yester 
day, that the lands on the Southern part of Vancouver Island were obtained by 
Treaty with the Hudson Bay Company. For instance the Songhees, are they 
represented in these proceedings; are they making any claim? 

Mr. PAULL: I must correct my statement. With the exception of the 
Songhees Indians and the Sooke Indians of Vancouver Island, all the rest are 
in our organization. The Saanich Indians made a Treaty with the Hudson Bay 
Company; the Nanaimo Indians also made a Treaty with the Hudson Bay 
Company. They are included in our organization. It was contended by the 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 75 

officials of the Indian Department, up to the year 1923, that these Indians that 
had made a Treaty with the Hudson Bay Company could not be recognized 
as having any claims for aboriginal title. 

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are getting any further with this 
evidence. The best way is for Mr. O Meara to make a full statement of what 
tribes he represents. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And his authority to represent them. There ought 
to be some minutes of their meetings. This question of whom Mr. O Meara 
represents has been a bone of contention for years. Sometimes he seems to 
represent the Allied Tribes and other times he does not, and there ought to be 
some definite minutes of their meetings showing that Mr. O Meara has an 
appointment. After all, we have got to respect the word of these other Chiefs; 
we cannot ignore that. 

Mr. PAXJLL: If the Committee will allow me, I will go to my hotel and get 
my Minute Book and I can read from the Minutes of our organization when 
Mr. O Meara was appointed. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That was in 1922? 

Mr. PAULL: 1922, yes, sir. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: There is evidently conflict here. If the two Counsel" 
would give the names of the Tribes they are representing that will be sufficient 
for our purpose. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: And the Tribes that are not represented at all. 

Mr. O MEARA: We represent here, officially and professionally, these very 
tribes, as well as other tribes, and that can be proved to you hon. gentlemen. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Mr. Mclntyre says they are his clients. 
Mr. BEAMENT: Is it desired that I should file this authority? I submit 
it is a continuing authority unless there is something shown to the contrary. 
The CHAIRMAN: Mr. O Meara, are you ready to go on? 

Mr. BEAMENT: In addition, I would call your attention to the fact that 
the petition is the petition of the Allied Tribes. Mr. Mclntyre says there is no 
such petitioner. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: We are going to listen to any evidence about that. 

Mr. BEAMENT: Before proceeding, further, might I ask this Committee 
just exactly what they want; whether they want us to stick to these allega 
tions contained in the petition or not. We take a very narrow position, and if 
we confine ourselves exclusively to the petition, the matter, I think, may be 
dealt with very shortly. What we say is this; we are advised, whether rightly 
or wrongly, that we have in law a right by a petition to His Majesty in Council 
to have a judicial determination of the substantive question that rises out of 
the merits of our claim. We may be wrong in that, but we only ask these 
Houses to facilitate the hearing of that claim. This whole question of abor 
iginal title is admittably a most vexed one. I think it is also admitted that 
there are specific questions to be decided on their merits. To date, apparently, 
it has been impossible to reach an agreement with the Indian Tribes. These 
Tribes now come forward and consent to be bound by the decision of the Privy 
Council. We are not asking for an expression of opinion from this Committee 
or from Parliament on the substantive questions involved in our claims, but we 
are simply asking, that you will recommend the facilitation of the hearing of 
these claims without waiving, any defence which the Government of Canada may 
have to our substantive allegations. 

In 1913, the Nishga Tribe which is one of the Allied Tribes, filed a petition 
with His Majesty in Council. Our suggestion is that a further petition be 
prepared. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



76 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What happened to that petition? 
Mr. BEAMENT: It is still standing, I understand. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Were not material charges referred back to this 
Government? 

Mr. BEAMENT: That I do not know. 

Mr. O MEARA: That is a matter to be placed before the Committee. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Was it or was it not? Surely you must know? 
Mr. O MEARA: That wi,ll be fully dealt with. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Was it or was it not referred back to this Govern 
ment? 

Mr. O MEARA: There were communications on the subject, several dis 
patches between the Imperial Government and the Canadian Government; the 
full facts will be laid before the Committee. 

Mr. BEAMENT: What we are really asking is that this Committee recom 
mend that the petitioning Tribes be permitted to file with His Majesty in 
Council, for decision, a petition in the terms extended to include all the Tribes 
who are now petitioning, but in the terms, or similar terras, of that petition 
which was filed in 1913. I was reading a copy of Hansard and saw that Mr. 
Stewart has taken the position that our claims are not sufficiently definite. I 
think the claim as stated in the petition would be sufficiently definite to place, 
without any particular degree of doubt, the question at issue before the Com 
mittee of the Privy Council. 

The CHAIRMAN: This Committee wants you to produce evidence on what 
you base that claim of aboriginal title. Now, are you prepared to do that? 

Mr. BEAMENT: Yes, we are prepared to do that, if this Committee thinks 
it is necessary. We want it clearly understood we are not asking this Commit 
tee to decide the merits of the question of our title. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: But you are asking us to decide the merits as to 
whether we should give you the privilege of going to the Privy Council? 

Mr. BEAMENT: Exactly. It seems to be admitted by Dr. Scott s mem 
orandum that there are specific questions for determination,. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: As I understand it, a petition was presented to His 
Majesty in Council at London, a.nd His Majesty s Ministers referred it to 
Canada, and this Committee is now sitting to determine the matter as a Com 
mittee of the High Court of Parliament in joint session; is that right? 

The CHAIRMAN: Quite right. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: This Committee of the High Court of Parliament is 
going to settle this matter as I understand it, or make a recommendation to 
Parliament. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That is set out in the preamble. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: May I ask Mr. Beament this: The claim of your 
clients, as set forth in this petition to Parliament is: "The Indian Tribes of 
British Columbia claim actual beneficial ownership of their territory, but do 
not claim absolute ownership in the sense of ownership existing in the title of 
the Crown. It is recognized by the Allied Tribes that there is, in respect of 
all public lands of the province, an underlying title of the Crown, which title, 
at least for the present purposes, it is not thought necessary to define." The 
point is, do you claim an underlying title on behalf of your clients? 

Mr. BEAMENT: We claim a beneficial title. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think we had better let them produce what evidence 
they have to support that and give us an opportunity to get to the root of this 
matter. 

[Andrew Paul].] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 77 

Mr. BEAMENT: I take it that it is the desire of this Committee that this 
petition should not be treated in the terms of the petition but should be treated 
as a petition for the determination of the substantive rights of the Tribes, which 
it is most certainly not, according to its terms. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Have you read the terms? It is about 90 per cent 
historical. 

Mr. BEAMENT: I was referring particularly to the relief asked. 

The CHAIRMAN: What petition are you referring to? 

Mr. BEAMENT: The petition this Committee is considering. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: If you limited it to the last of that, our problem is very 
simple. All we have to do is to sit in camera and consider whether we shall do 
a certain thing or not. There is no call for evidence on the latter part of the 
thing at all. 

Mr. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we are carrying out paragraph No. 4 of the 
prayer; that this petition be referred to a special committee for full considera 
tion. That is what we are now doing. The other three paragraphs of the prayer 
involve certain references to aboriginal rights and the third paragraph is the 
one dealing with the facilitation of a reference to the Judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council. This Committee is carrying out now the terms of the reference, 
and I do not suppose Parliament is going to provide money for a reference to 
the Judicial Committee. Are we not to settle it ourselves? 

Mr. MCPHERSON: I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the whole petition really; 
the right to submit it to the Privy Council. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is shown on page 256. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: It is covered really by the third, asking that steps be 
taken to submit these matters. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Paragraph two is the important one; that steps be 
taken for defining and settling between the Allied Tribes and the Dominion. 
That is a clear and definite statement of the situation and we will settle the 
issue here. 

Mr. BEAMENT: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is only a settlement of 
the issue for determination, and not a decision of the substantive question. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: We understand what the English of it is. 

Mr. O MEARA: My learned friend is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. It is 
the deliberate intention to limit that petition to the one matter of judicial 
decision. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The language of prayer No. 4 of the petition is, that this 
petition and all related matters be referred to a Special Committee for full 
consideration. That is what we are doing. 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee desires evidence from Mr. Beament of 
what he bases his statement on. That is what we want now, and are we prepared 
to go ahead? 

Mr. BEAMENT: I take it the committee wishes to go into the whole question 
including the actual merits of the claim. 

Mr. HAY: The committee wants evidence. There has been a statement 
filed. It is already on file and was sent in by mail for certain of the Tribes. 

Mr. BEAMENT: The only question that still concerns me is, exactly on what 
points the committee wants evidence. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: You were told yesterday, and Mr. O Meara was also, 
to confine himself this morning to statements in rebuttal of the statement made 
by Mr. Scott yesterday with respect to the aboriginal title and that alone; other 
matters would come later. Mr. O Meara was instructed to be prepared on that 
point. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



78 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEARA: If that was so understood, it was not rightly understood. 
Hon. Mr. STEWART: You are at your old tricks again, Mr. O Meara. I 
told you myself so that there would be no mistake about it, before you left this 
room. 

Mr. O MEARA: My duty, Mr. Chairman, is to present that petition to the 
Parliament of Canada through this committee, that is what I am here for. 
I am here for that serious business and I am ready to go on and not for any 
limited purpose such as is suggested. 

Mr. HAY: Is it not the rule that we have evidence first submitted as to 
whom you represent; then whom Mr. Mclntyre represents, and so on? 

Mr. O MEARA: I do not admit for a moment that Mr. Mclntyre represents 
those tribes. 

Mr. HAY: He admits it and he has made the statement. Now if you 
will file some evidence with reference to yourself, as to whom you represent 
and whom Mr. Mclntyre represents, we will receive it. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt of the under 
standing reached yesterday. Here it is in the official report. Addressing Mr. 
O Meara the Chairman said: 

The Committee wants you to come prepared to argue the points 
raised this morning. 

Mr. O MEARA: I understand perfectly well. 
What is the use of wasting time now? 

Mr. O MEARA: I think, Honourable Gentlemen, that I can make the 
position clear in five minutes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Then take your place at the foot of the table and pro 
ceed.- 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It is a quarter to eleven now and we have wasted 
all this time. 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Chairman, and honourable gentlemen of the Com 
mittee: Following up my friend s statement to the Committee, I wish to read 
a part of the paper that has been handed in to the Chairman a few minutes 
ago, because it very materially bears upon this petition that is before the 
committee, and deals with the petition. This is a circular letter sent out on 
the 2nd December last by Mr. Kelly, Chairman of the Executive Committee 
of the Allied Tribes, and Mr. Paull, Secretary of that committee. Mr. Paull 
is here at the present time. The part that I am going to read is the part that 
directly bears on and deals with the case before Parliament as it is to-day. I 
read now from that circular letter: 

The present position of the Indian case at Ottawa is that the petition 
as brought before Parliament, and the Indian case as brought before 
His Majesty s Privy Council, therefore manifestly requires to be dealt 
with along sound judicial lines. There is good reason for expecting that 
on an early day of the session, leading members of the House of Commons 
will press for the taking of action upon the petition of Allied Tribes. 
If as a result the House of Commons shall appoint a special committee, 
the first business of such committee will be consideration of the matters 
which are subject of discussion which was entered upon by the General 
Council with the Minister of Justice, namely the fiat which was promised 
by the Minister of the Interior in the House of Commons, and common 
ground which might be reached by the Government of Canada and the 
Allied Tribes in connection with the carrying forward of their independent 
judicial proceedings. The special committee will also consider the closely 
related matter of the first three prayers of the petition asking for, 1st: 

[A. B. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 79 

safeguarding of the aboriginal rights of the Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia. 

2nd: Defining of the issue between the Allied Tribes and the two 
Governments, which require to be judicially decided. 

3rd: Helping forward the independent judicial proceedings of the 
Allied Tribes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Why do you leave out the words "and settling" 
when you are reading it? " That steps be taken for defining and settling between 
the Allied Tribes and the Dominion of Canada ". 

Mr. O MEAEA: I beg pardon; I did not catch the question? Why did I leave 
out? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The words " and settling ". 

Mr. O MEARA: May I remark that I am reading from a circular letter sent 
out by the two executive officers, giving a popular statement, so to speak, to the 
Indian Tribes, but not purporting to give the very words. May I proceed? 

After these matters shall have been discussed we shall be in a position 
to decide whether it has become necessary for the Chairman or other 
representative of the Allied Tribes to go to Ottawa. The Allied Tribes 
are advised that the sending of a larger delegation would be rendered 
necessary only by some quite new developments which might occur in 
Parliament but not now thought to be probable. 

That is the extract. Now honourable gentlemen, I wish next to place before 
this committee for special consideration the exact debate that occurred in the 
Senate, showing for what purpose the committee of the Senate was appointed. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The order of reference covered that. There is no neces 
sity for reading that Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O MEARA: I think the honourable gentleman will see in a minute or two 
why I read it. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: What may be said in the Senate is not necessary. The 
order of reference covers that, Mr. Chairman. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: It does not help us. 

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary. 

Mr. O MEARA: It has a direct bearing upon the proceeding with this petition 
before this committee. And if the honourable gentleman will bear with me, I 
will read a few words from it. 

The CHAIRMAN : What we want to get is the evidence upon which you base 
your claim. You are not producing evidence now. You are only going back 
to what has happened before these committees. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. Chairman, this is an old trick of our friend who is 
now addressing the Committee. He is building up out of quotations from here 
and there, something which he thinks will support his own contentions; trying to 
trip a Senator who may have made an observation in the Senate, or a member 
in the House of Commons, or a public man outside. It is not evidence. Our 
order of reference shows why we are here and nothing that was said in the Senate 
will alter that. I think it is absurd to bring in what members may have said, 
without consideration, and present it to this committee as a support to his 
own views. That is really what the object is in presenting this Hansard report. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: It is in no sense binding. 

Mr. O MEABA: The representative of the Government in the Senate made a 
definite statement. 

Mr. McPHERSON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Stevens that what we 
want is evidence, and we are not going to be bound by Avhat has been said in 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



80 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

the past by public men in. this discussion. If we are, we do not need to hear it 
now; we can read it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You do not help your case a bit, Mr. O Meara, by read 
ing that. 

Mr. O MEARA: If the honourable gentleman will permit me to read these 
few words, then the Committee will see why I want to read them. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: I would like to know whether Mr. O Meara is going 
to respect the ruling of the Chair. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will certainly drop it at once if you say so. My definite 
advice to the Tribes last October was that in dealing with this petition no oral 
evidence was needed; that all the facts could be proved by documentary evidence; 
that therefore there was no necessity of sending from British Columbia any 
witnesses to give evidence before the committee. Also my advice was that it was 
not necessary to send a delegation and that no delegation should be sent on behalf 
of the Allied Tribes until the matters that are referred to in that circular letter 
had been discussed with the Committee or Parliament. The fact is that all the 
tribes of British Columbia were informed of that by circular letter. The fact 
also is that the statement in the Senate will be found, honourable gentlemen, to 
be completely in accordance with the advice that I then gave, and speaks of 
dealing with this case on the record as it stands. 

Hon. Mr. MTJRPHY: Then all we need, Mr. Chairman is the record. We 
need not take time with this at all. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: That record should be handed in. 
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Yes, get the papers. 

The CHAIRMAN: Have you all the documentary evidence there, Mr. 
O Meara? 

Mr. O MEARA: And 1 so informed the Minister of Justice by a communi 
cation which went to him immediately after the first debate occurred on the llth 
February. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Have you handed in that statement of documentary 
evidence? And have we got that statement before us? 

Mr. O MEARA: I have everything right here. 
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : Then hand it in. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That was filed with the Minister of Justice, I may say 
for information. It was not filed with us. 

Mr. O MEARA: The main work immediately to be done is to convince this 
committee of the correctness of everything that is in that petition. I humbly 
submit that that is not altogether a matter of evidence such as would be given by 
witnesses. It involves all sorts of other evidence. Evidence regarding the 
constitutional position as shown by the decisions, for instance, of the Judicial 
Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council. 

Hon. Mr. STLWAET: Mr. O Meara, that document that you filed with the 
Minister of Justice, you did not file with the Department of Indian Affairs at 
all. Is that the one you are now referring to which you say is a complete state 
ment of your case? 

Mr. O MEARA: I beg pardon? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That document or memorandum that you filed is with 
the Minister of Justice. We have no document of that character in the Depart 
ment of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. O MEARA: Does the Honourable Mr. Stewart refer to a paper called 
" Introductory notes for the Parliament of Canada?" 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF. THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 81 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: No, I am asking you about your case that you state 
you filed with the Minister of Justice. I say we have not a copy of that state 
ment in the Department of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. O MEARA: Oh, the communication to him; I sent his statement by 
lettergram to the Minister of Justice immediately after seeing the report in 
the press of the debate in the House of Commons. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I am not asking about that at all. I am asking about 
a full statement that you say you made on behalf of the Allied Tribes, to the 
Minister of Justice. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: A brief that you filed. 

Mr. O MEARA: I am now going to refer to the paper that I have put in 
the hands of the Minister of Justice. I have it here. I did not intend just now 
to refer to any full paper. 

The CHAIRMAN: If you have filed that with the Minister of Justice, it 
is not necessary to take up the time of the committee by reading it. 

Mr. O MEARA: Well, Mr. Chairman, and honourable gentlemen, I definitely 
and deliberately claim to represent all the principal tribes of the province of 
British Columbia, and I say to this august -body that every one of those tribes 
is expecting me to seriously present their case as is shown by that petition to 
Parliament, to this committee, and that is what I am proposing now to do; 
and in order as much as possible to shorten that and also to make it as clear 
as possible I am about to read the main parts of the statement which was 
actually sent by me to the Minister of Justice and it is headed " Introductory 
Notes for the Parliament of Canada." I am about to read the main parts of 
that if the Committee sees fit to permit me. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Have you a copy of that statement with you Mr. 
O Meara? 

Mr. O MEARA: At the present moment I only have the one. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I wish you would file it with the Chairman. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will see that a copy is made. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Proceed then please. I do not want to interrupt you 
any more. 

Mr. O Meara s statement filed as follows: 
"THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LAND CONTROVERSY 

INTRODUCTORY NOTES FOR THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA PREPARED BY THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL OF ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES 

It is important at the outset to make clear that the claims of the Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia which now are presented by me as General Counsel 
of the allied Indian, Tribes of British Columbia are the very claims which had 
been consistently and persistently presented by the Indian Tribes themselves 
to the Governments and all others concerned throughout fifty years when in 
the year 1916 the alliance of Tribes was formed and I undertook professional 
charge of the Indian case. 

As is shown by official Memorandum issued in the month of January, 1922, 
copy of which is on file in the Department of Justice, I am Advocate of every 
allied Tribe "before His Majesty s Privy Council, the Parliament of Canada, 
the Governments and all others concerned." Through my voice every allied 
Tribe speaks. The claims presented by me are the claims Actually made by 
every allied Tribe. Every Indian Tribe of this Province has always said of 
the territory of the Tribe this is our country we claim that to all our terri 
tory we have a real beneficial tribal title. 

423256 [A. E. O Meara.] 



82 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The territorial land rights so claimed have been in a remarkable degree 
misunderstood and misrepresented. The allied Tribes, do not claim such terri 
torial rights for any purpose of ejecting from the territory those who are not 
members of the Tribe or disturbing any title held in good faith in this Province. 
They claim such territorial rights and are seeking to establish them as a basis 
of equitable settlement to be brought about between the Indian Tribes; and the 
two Governments. They think that such settlement should include their per 
manent rights in respect of reserved lands together with their foreshore rights 
and their fishing rights, hunting rights, water rights and all other general_ rights, 
and in respect of all territory which shall be surrendered should provide for 
compensation to be equitably settled. 

The objective of the allied Tribes has always been and now is settlement 
a real settlement based upon the actual rights of the Tribes and equitably 
brought about such settlement as the late Mr. Harcourt Secretary of State 
for the Colonies in course of his Despatch which was sent to the Governor 
General of Canada in the month of July, 1911, described as an equitable solu 
tion of this troublesome case. 

The allied Tribes and all advising them professionally and otherwise and 
all helping them have done their utmost towards accomplishing such settlement 
by means of discussion and negotiation with the two Governments, and they 
continued to do so notwithstanding serious difficulties placed in the way notably 
the McKenna-McBride Agreement and the law of the year 1920, until on 19th 
July, 1924, by passing Order in Council adopting the Report of Royal Com 
mission the Government of Canada closed the door against the bringing about 
of any such settlement. 

From the door so closed against them the allied Tribes turned to the door 
of His Majesty s Privy Council which had already for a length of time been 
opened before them. Thus judicial decision of the Indian land controversy 
became their one fixed immediate objective and they resolved to exclusively 
devote themselves to the establishment of their rights. 

Consequently it will be found that the Petition now before Parliament does 
not bring before Parliament the subject of terms of settlement and that the 
prayers of the Petition seek to obtain, only the safeguarding of the aboriginal 
rights of the Indian Tribes, the defining and settling of the issues requiring to 
be judicially decided, and the facilitating of the independent proceedings of the 
allied Tribes now in His Majesty s Privy Council and such other indepen,dent 
judicial proceedings as shall be found necessary. 

The claims of the allied Indian Tribes, the grounds upon which their claims 
rest, the present position of their case in His Majesty s Privy Council and before 
the Parliament of Canada, and the resulting responsibility resting upon the 
Dominion of Canada are shown with some degree of fulness by three papers to 
which attention is requested, namely: 

1. Letter addressed by General Counsel to Minister of Justice on 17th 

August, 1925. 

2. Petition presented to both Houses of Parliament on the 10th day of 

June, 1926, and fully recorded in both Hansards of the 14th day of 
same month. 

3. Notes prepared for the Acting Minister of Interior by the Chairman 

and the General Counsel of allied Tribes on 10th July, 1926. 

I have advised the allied Tnbes that the territorial land rights which they 
have always claimed are constitutionally of the nature of tribal or communal 
ownership, have been expressly preserved by the British North America Act, 
and under Section 109 of that Act are an interest in all lands acquired by the 
Province of British Columbia which an Indian Tribe can assert against the 
Province. 

[A. E. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 83 

The advice so given is supported by the Report of the Minister of Justice 
issued in the month of January, 1875, the opinion of Mr. E. L. Newcombe, 
K.C., now a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in his book " The 
British North America Acts " published in the year 1908 at page 89, and a 
number of judgments delivered by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee 
of His Majesty s Privy Council notably that delivered in the Southern Nigeria 
case which was decided in the month of July, 1921. 

In the month of September, 1916, the allied Tribes received definite assur 
ances of His Majesty the King, conveyed in writing by His Majesty s Repre 
sentative in Canada the Duke of Connaught. that His Majesty s Privy Council 
would consider the Petition of the Nishga Tri,be which had been presented to 
His Majesty in Council. 

In the month of December, 1918, by correspondence which had been con 
ducted between the London Agents of the Allied Tribes and the Lord President 
of His Majesty s Privy Council it had been made clear, as the allied Tribes 
are advised, that they are entitled to obtain judgment of the Judicial Committee 
deciding the Indian land controversy and that the only question then remain 
ing open was that of procedure. 

The result of what has been stated in the preceding two paragraphs, as 
the allied Tribes are advised, is that their constitutional right of proceeding 
independently in His Majesty s Privy Council and securing judgment of the 
Judicial Committee has been established in the most authoritative possible 
way. Having thus stated the position of the Indian case in England I proceed 
to state the assurances which on behalf of Canada have been given to the 
allied Tribes. 

In the month of August, 1910, at Prince Rupert Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 
Prime Minister of Canada, addressing, in that capacity representatives of the 
Northern Tribes gave assurance that Canada would help the Indian Tribes 
of British Columbia in obtaining judgment of the Judicial Committee of His 
Majesty s Privy Council deciding the Indian land controversy. 

On the 27th day of July, 1923, at Vancouver the Minister of Interior, 
addressing the most representative gathering of the Indians of British Columbia 
ever held and speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, conceded 
that the allied Tribes are entitled to obtain judicial decision of the Indian land 
controversy and gave assurance that the Dominion of Canada would help them 
in obtaining such decision. 

On the 26th day of June, 1925, in course of debate in the House of 
Commons the Minister of Interior speaking on behalf of the Government of 
Canada conceded that the allied Tribes are entitled to obtain from His 
Majesty s Privy Council decision of the Indian land controversy and agreed 
that the Government would give authoritative sanction for doing, so. 

In view of all the assurances which have been above briefly stated, I beg 
respectfully on behalf of every allied Tribe to say that the allied Tribes are 
not prepared to release the Dominion of Canada from the assurances which 
have been given on behalf of Canada, but on the contrary are seeking and 
expect to obtain fulfilment of those assurances. 

By letter which acting under resolution adopted by the Executive Com 
mittee of allied Tribes the Chairman addressed to the Minister of Interior 
on 13th November last the Minister s attention was requested to the assurances 
which have been given on behalf of Canada and to the Petition now before 
Parliament and the Minister was invited to answer all or any of the contents 
of the Petition. The Minister has not yet given any such answer. This ex 
perience does not greatly surprise the allied Tribes. It is exactly the experience 
that they have had in relation to all outstanding papers which by or on behalf 
of the allied Tribes have been presented to the Government of Canada since 
I undertook professional charge of the Indian case, to no one of which the 

42325 6-i 1 A - E - O Meara.] 



84 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Department of Indian Affairs has attempted to give a meritorious answer. It 
is thought by the allied Tribes that for the absence of answer there is a very 
simple explanation. They think that all the main representations which have 
been made by them ancl on behalf and in particular those contained in the 
Petition now before Parliament are unanswerable. 

It is submitted on behalf of the allied Tribes that, as the Petition now 
before Parliament deals with property rights which are the subject of con 
troversy between the Indian Tribes and the two Governments, they are entitled, 
according to British constitutional principles firmly established and founded 
upon the provisions of Magna Charta, to secure that their Petition shall be 
referred to a Special Committee. 

I conclude these Notes by requesting special attention to the following 
words quoted from my letter addressed to the Minister of Justice: 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the law of the year 1920 and the 
position which has arisen from that law as stated in the two papers 
issued by the Delegates and my own letters, the serious character of 
which I fully appreciate. I believe that the Minister s "unending diffi 
culty " might be brought to an end very simply and speedily. If you 
should be prepared to discuss this matter I shall be prepared to suggest 
for your consideration common ground which might be reached by the 
Government of Canada and the allied Tribes. I would with some degree 
of confidence expect to convince you that it is the only common ground 
constitutionally and practically possible. 

The offer then made which was placed before Parliament by paragraph 22 
of the Petition still stands. When, action having been decided upon, a Special 
Committee or Special Committees of the two Houses shall have been appointed, 
I shall be prepare to bring before the Special Committee or Special Committees 
particulars of the common ground to which I made reference. 



A. E. O M. 



VANCOUVER, B.C., 

4th February, 1927. 



Mr. O MEARA: I will put before you the material parts showing the basis 
of what I propose to say to the Committee. It is not a matter of handing in a 
copy of it. 

It is important, at the outset, to make clear that the claims of the Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia, which are now presented by me as general counsel 
of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, are the very claims which have 
been consistently and persistently presented by the Indian Tribes themselves to 
the Governments, and all others concerned, throughout the past 50 years. In 
the year 1916, an alliance of the Tribes was formed, and I undertook the pro 
fessional charge of the case for the Indians. This is shown by the official memo 
randum which has been handed to the Chairman. I am the advocate of every 
Allied Tribe before his Majesty s Privy Council, the Parliament of Canada, and 
the Governments of other provinces. This memorandum represents my voice on 
behalf of the Allied Tribes, and is a presentation by me, of their claims, which 
claims are actually made by every Allied Tribe in the Province of British 
Columbia. Every Indian Tribe in British Columbia has always considered 
British Columbia to be the territory of the Tribes; their country; territory to 
which they have a real beneficial tribal title. 

Hon. Mr. MT;RPHY: Is it stuff like this the aboriginal title is based upon? 
If so, it is a most scandalous waste of time of this Committee. 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 85 

The CHAIRMAN: You stated a moment ago you were going to put forward 
the basis of your contention, supported by documentary evidence. Cannot you 
do that so that the Committee can read and study it, and time need not be taken 
up in this way. 

Mr. O MEARA: I have just had an intimation that I am responsible for 
proceeding with my argument, Mr. Chairman. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: This is not argument, and you ought to know it. 

Mr. O MEARA: It is argument. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is not argument. If you would present facts to this 
Committee, I know the Committee would be delighted. If you have any docu 
ments and decisions that you claim are in support of your contention, the Com 
mittee will be glad to have them. It is these endless dissertations which are so 
wearisome. 

Mr. O MEARA: The trouble has been rather endless, because it has existed 
for sixty years. I know I have a responsible task, hon. gentlemen, but perhaps 
you will have a sufficient degree of confidence in me as counsel for the Allied 
Tribes, or, perhaps confidence in the Tribes, to permit me a certain measure of 
discretion in presenting this case to the Committee. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I must confess that experience teaches us to the 
contrary. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : The gentleman undertook to only take five minutes 
to explain certain things, he has now taken nearly 20 minutes, and has simply 
gone over various questions. From what I know, there is a dispute as to whom 
he represents. He has purported to read from a document which had apparently 
been presented to the Minister of Justice. It cannot be a statement of that 
kind. It is not with any hostility to any claims Mr. O Meara wishes to present, 
that I make this interruption; it is a waste of time to talk of irrelevant matters. 

Mr. O MEARA: With all sorts of deference to this Committee, I never, for 
one moment, gave such an undertaking, that I would make my remarks in five 
minutes. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : You were to make an explanation which would clean 
up the whole matter. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It was then a quarter to eleven, and he has now been 
speaking for half an hour. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will say this; a discussion of this matter was entered upon 
between the Minister of Justice and myself on the 19th o : f "August, 1925, and 
was continued with a number of very serious interviews between the Deputy 
Minister and myself, extending to the month of October of that year. It has 
a very decided bearing upon what I am now presenting to this Committee. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: It has nothing to do with the reference to this Com 
mittee. As Mr. McPherson has said, the reference covers all we have to deal 
with. 

Mr. O MEARA: I was about to give the Committee the exact facts in regard to 
that position; if the Committee does not desire to have that, at this stage 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The Committee have asked you, as you claim to be 
counsel for these Indian Tribes, to present to the Committee the arguments and 
evidence supporting the prayer of your petition, which is shown at page 266 of the 
Senate records of 1926. 

Mr. O MEARA: If it is the pleasure of the Committee, I will reserve certain 
matters until I have done that, and I will go right on with the petition. This 
is a petition of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia 

The CHAIRMAN: You are not going to read the petition, are you? The 
Committee has the petition before them. 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



86 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We have it here, and are waiting for you to give your 
support to it. 

Mr. O MEARA: I am now ready to furnish such evidence as this Committee 
requires. In one part of this petition 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The case for the petitioners must rest upon the facts 
and the law. The facts should he deposed to by witnesses, and the law argued 
by counsel. I should like to ask this witness what he can say in the way of 
presenting the facts, first, that come within the order of reference. Then we 
will listen to a legal argument, based upon authorities. 

Mr. McPnERSON: In addition to that, I think some member asked Mr. 
Paull, yesterday, what was the Indian s claim, and he said he did not wish to 
make a statement, that Mr. O Meara would make the statement. Now, in 
order to get that point disposed of, could we have Mr. O Meara say what is 
the claim of the Indians, for instance, as to their beneficial interest in the lands 
of British Columbia, and then dealing with the other points in succession. Can 
we restrict it to that? 

Mr. O MEARA: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. gentlemen, and 
I was proceeding along that line, I was about to give, in the shortest possible 
form, a statement of this matter. Then I was going on to give the evidence in 
support o l f the petition, as far as the Committee thought necessary. I think little 
actual evidence is necessary, that all the evidence can be given by the documents. 
I would ask the Committee to accept that explanation, and allow me to proceed 
with my very carefully condensed statement. 

The CHAIRMAN: You are now going to deal with the statement you were 
reading before? 

Mr. O MEARA: I have in mind the remarks just now made, and I am asked, 
as a witness, to give evidence. I am here as general counsel of the Allied Tribes, 
but if there is any knowledge I have incidentally acquired, I would not hesitate 
for a moment to give it. But I am here as counsel for the Tribes, and having 
that responsibility, I propose to seriously present their case. Their case is em 
bodied in the petition which is before Parliament. In order to deal with it in a 
satisfactory way, I was proceeding to deal with the very condensed statement I 
have prepared, dealing with the aboriginal title. The hon. members did not 
approve of that course, so I stopped. 

The CHAIRMAN : We stopped you reading that document, because that docu 
ment will be in the hands of the committee, and they can consider it. What we 
want are the facts, to be given in evidence. 

Mr. O MEARA: This is not that sort of document. What I propose to do is, 
if the committee will allow me to proceed 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What could be plainer, as to the requirements of this 
Committee, than was stated in the language of Mr. McPherson a few moments 
ago? Mr. O Meara, acting for the Indians, should state their claims in con 
secutive order. That is all we need. 

Mr. O MEARA: That is what I was about to do. 

Mr. MORIN : You are always about to do it, but never do it. 

Mr. O MEARA: I was stopped. I have to obey the committee. I know 
what the remark was that was made by the hon. Chairman, but I say this is 
not that sort of paper; this is a paper which is intended to enable me in the 
clearest, and most definite, way, to meet the desire of the committee, as I 
understand it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: For goodness sake, proceed. 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 87 

Mr. O MEARA (Reading) : 

The territorial land rights so claimed have been, in a remarkable 
degree, misunderstood and misrepresented. The Allied Tribes do not 
claim such territorial rights for any purpose of ejecting from the terri 
tory those who are not members of the Tribe, or disturbing any title 
held in good faith in this province. 

The CHAIRMAN : I do not want to interfere with you, but you have not made 
any answer to what Mr. McPherson asked you. He asked you for a definite 
statement. 

Mr. O MEARA: I give my assurance to the committee that what I have in my 
hand does contain the answer. Will the committee please allow me a certain 
amount of discretion in placing it before the committee? 

The CHAIRMAN: If you will put in the document, that is all that is neces 
sary. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We will consider that document along with the other 
documents. 

Mr. O MEARA: Am I entitled to do two things, Mr. Chairman and hon. 
gentlemen, first, to support this petition sufficiently to place it before Parliament; 
and then to present the argument upon it? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You are not entitled to occupy the time of this com 
mittee by wandering all over. 

Mr. O MEARA: If the matter is to be seriously dealt with, it is necessary 
to occupy the time. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, will you ask the witness upon what facts 
he raises the question of the aboriginal title of the Allied Tribes? 

The CHAIRMAN : Can you answer the question? 

Mr. O MEARA: I am ready to answer; I have the information right here 
ready to give the answer. 

The CHAIRMAN: Well, answer it. Do not read the document, answer the 
questions of the Committee. 

Mr. O MEARA: The question is not the sort of question to be answered 
just in a few sentences. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Well, start with one sentence. 

Mr. O MEARA: If the Committee says to me, "Mr. O Meara, as counsel 
for the Allied Tribes, do not go on presenting this case"; I suppose I must 
obey the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN: We are not desirous of, in any way, stopping your 
presentation of the case. We ask you to file the document, and to answer the 
questions of the Committee. There is no necessity of reading the document, 
you can file it with the Clerk, and the Committee will have it for their 
information. 

Mr. O MEARA: Apart from every other consideration, Mr. Chairman, 
may I point out that it is a practical certainty that the members of the Com 
mittee would desire to ask questions with regard to the very matters which I am 
now about to put before them. 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee have asked you questions, but you will 
not answer them. 

Mr. O MEARA: I refer to what I was about to place before the Committee. 

Hon Mr. STEVENS: We have asked you, half a dozen times, to file the 
document If you would answer the questions that are asked, in a frank manner, 
we could make progress. I do not think you are doing your clients a bit of 

[A. E. O Meara. 1 



88 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

good by the course you are taking. You must, at least, respect the wishes of 
this Committee as to the manner in which the case is to be presented. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will obey the wishes of the Committee. 

Hon. Mr. STEYKNS: I again ask you, in the interests of your clients, 
to file that document with the Committee, and then be good enough to answer 
one or two questions that have been asked. If you would do that, it would help 
your clients a great deal more than your persisting in this matter. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It is now more than half an hour since this gentleman 
said he would present the case to us in five minutes, and he has not yet began 
to do so. How much more time is the Committee going to waste with this sort 
of performance? 

Mr. O MEARA: Will the hon. gentlemen please accept my assertion that 
I never heard of any remark to the effect that I would only take five minutes. 

Mr. MORIN: You made the remark yourself. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: In view of what is contained in the record, I certainly 
will not accept the gentleman s assurance. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I know that this Committee would like to hear what 
any of the Indians themselves would have to say. I think that Parliament is 
always ready to extend to the personnel of our Indian tribes, representing them 
selves and others, a most courteous and kindly hearing. But I submit, not 
only from what I have experienced this morning, but from my knowledge of 
what has taken place in the last seventeen years with Mr. O Meara acting as 
counsel for the Indians, that he can do nothing but mystify and becloud the 
issue before the Committee. That is my conviction. I have let it go until this 
time, but I think the Committee will agree with me that it is now apparent, 
that instead of listening to Mr. O Meara, we should hear from the Indians 
themselves, and their representatives. We will give to them a most cordial and 
courteous hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN: I understand Mr. Paull, is the representative of certain 
of the Allied Tribes, and Mr. Mclntyre represents other Indians, as their counsel. 
Mr. Kelly is to be here on Saturday. In order to keep the matter straight before 
the Committee; is it the wish of the Committee that Mr. O Meara file these docu 
ments, and we then proceed to hear what Mr. Mclntyre, and the Indians he rep 
resents have to say? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We have to make some progress. 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Chairman, and hon. gentlemen; in view of the remarks 
made and I have a very high regard for every member of both Houses of Par 
liament may I say right now to the hon. gentlemen, that the remarks made are 
not well founded. Moreover, I must state that this paper is the result of the 
most careful thought I have been able to give it, and it has been condensed as 
much as possible. I ask on behalf of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia 
that I have the opportunity of proceeding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the Committee that Mr. O Meara should 
read the document? 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: Yes, if he is going to immediately file it. 

Mr. O MEARA: I do not intend to read the whole document. 

The CHAIRMAN: You understand that the document is to be filed just as 
it is. 

Mr. O MEARA: Certainly, am I at liberty to read it? 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead and read it. 
Mr. O MEARA. (Reading): 

They claim such territorial rights and are seeking to establish them 
as a basis of equitable settlement to be brought about between the Indian 

[A. E. O Meara,] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 89 

Tribes and the two governments. They think that such settlement should 
include their permanent rights in respect of reserved lands together with 
their foreshore rights and their fishing rights, hunting rights, water rights, 
and all other general rights, and in respect of all territory which shall 
be surrendered should provide for compensation to be equitably settled. 

The objective of the Allied Tribes has always been, and now is, 
settlement a real settlement based upon the actual rights of the Tribes 
and equitably brought about such settlement as the late Mr. Harcourt, 
Secretary of State for the Colonies in the course of his despatch, which 
was sent to the Governor-General of Canada in the month of July, 1.911, 
described as an equitable solution of this troublesome case. 

The allied Tribes, and all advising them professionally and otherwise, 
and all helping them, have done their utmost towards accomplishing such 
settlement by means of discussion and negotiation with the two Govern 
ments, and they continued to do so, notwithstanding serious difficulties 
placed in the way, notably, the MeKenna-McBride Agreement, and the 
law of the year 1920, until on 19th July, 1924, by passing Order in Council 
adopting the Report of Royal Commission, the Government of Canada 
closed the door against the bringing about of any such settlement. 

From the door so closed against them, the Allied Tribes turned to 
the door of His Majesty s Privy Council, which had already, for a length 
of time, been opened before them. Thus, judicial decision of the Indian 
Land controversy became their one fixed, immediate objective, and they 
resolved to exclusively devote themselves to the establishment of their 
rights. 

Consequently, it will be found that the petition now before Parlia 
ment does not bring before Parliament the subject of terms of settlement, 
and that the prayers of the petition seek only to obtain the safeguarding 
of the aboriginal rights of the Indian Tribes, the defining and settling 
of the issues requiring to be judicially decided, and the facilitating of 
the independent proceedings of the Allied Tribes, now in His Majesty s 
Privy Council, and such other independent judicial proceedings as shall 
be found necessary. 

I had not intended reading the whole of the document, but I think, as it 
has to be handed in, I will read the whole of it. 

The claims of the Allied Indian Tribes, the grounds upon which 
their claims rest, the present position of their case in His Majesty s 
Privy Council, and before the Parliament of Canada, and the resulting 
responsibility resting upon the Dominion of Canada, are shown with 
some degree of fullness by three papers to which attention is requested, 
namely: 

1. Letter addressed by general counsel to Minister of Justice on 

17th August, 1925. 

2. Petition presented to both Houses of Parliament on the 10th 

day of June, 1926, and fully reported in both Hansards of the 
14th day of the same month. 

3. Notes prepared for the acting Minister of Interior by the Chair 

man, and the general counsel of Allied Tribes on 10th July, 1926. 
I have advised the Allied Tribes that the territorial land rights 
which they have always claimed are constitutionally of the 
nature of tribal or communal ownership, have been expressly 
preserved by the British North America Act, and under Section 
109 of that Act, are an interest in all lands acquired by the 
Province of British Columbia, which an Indian Tribe can assert 
against the province. 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



90 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Do you mean all the lands of the Province of British 
Columbia, the whole 350,000 square miles? 

Mr. O MEAEA: All the lands of the Province. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Do you claim aboriginal title to the whole 350,000 
square miles, to the whole Province? 

Mr. O MEARA: To all territory, except certain parts that have been ceded. 
Claim is made in respect of practically all the lands, because it is all territory 
of the Tribes. 

Mr. O MEARA: (Reading) : 

The advice so given is supported by the report of the Minister 
of Justice, issued in the month of January, 1875, the opinion of Mr. E. 
L. Newcombe, K.C., now a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, and 
stated in his book, " The British North America Acts " published in the 
year 1908, at page 89, and a num ber of judgments delivered by their 
lordships of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council, 
notably that delivered in the Southern Nigeria case, which was decided 
in the month of July, 1921. 

In the month of September, 1916, the Allied Tribes received definite 
assurances of His Majesty the King, conveyed in writing by His Majesty s 
representative in. Canada, the Duke of Connaught, that His Majesty s 
Privy Council would consider the petition of the Nishga Tribe, which 
had been presented to His Majesty in Council. 

In the month of December, 1918, by correspondence which; had 
been conducted between the London agents of the Allied Tribes, and 
the Lord President of His Majesty s Privy Council, it had been made 
clear, as the Allied Tribes are advised, that they are entitled to obtain 
judgment of the judicial committee deciding the Indian Land controversy, 
and that the only question then remaining open was that of procedure. 

The result of what has been stated in the preceding two paragraphs, 
as the Allied Tribes are advis,ed, is that their constitutional right of pro 
ceeding independently in His Majesty s Privy Council, and securing 
judgment of the Judicial Committee has been established in the most 
authoritative, possible way. Having thus stated the position of the 
Indian case in England, I proceed to state the assurances which, on, 
behalf of Canada, have been given to the Allied Tribes. 

In the month of August, 1910, at Prince Rupert, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 
Prime Minister of Canada, addressing, in that capacity representatives 
of the Northern tribes 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Mr. O Meara has stated the facts upon, which he 
relies to support the claim with respect to aboriginal title, as referred to in the 
reference, but he is now going outside of the subject matter of the reference. If 
he were to quote judicial decisions, I would agree, but when he proposes to read 
extracts from addresses made by members of Parliament, I do not agree. For 
instance, in a court of law, you would not be allowed to quote from Hansard. 
It seems to me that what Mr. O Meara now proposes to read, cannot possibly 
advance us. I do not want to interrupt. 

The CHAIRMAN: How much more is there? 

Mr. O MEARA: Not very much more. I suggest that you permit me to 
finish it, whatever may be the merits of it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The only point is that the Committee should not per 
mit Mr. O Meara to place on the record a statement o/ the late Sir Wilfrid 
Laurier s, or any other prominent public man, who happened to be passing 
through the Province of British Columbia, and was courteous enough to receive 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED LVD I AN TRIBES, B.C. 91 

delegations, so that it may be quoted as having been given, as evidence to this 
Committee. 

Mr. O MEARA: That evidence is available, there are those in this room 
who can testify to what was said. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: You are now attempting to quote a statement made 
by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. You quoted one statement I made, but you 
failed to quote what I had said in prefacing my remarks. The same is true 
with respect to the statement alleged to have been made by the late Sir Wilfrid 
Laurier. It is like the statements which are made by public men when touring 
in Canada. 

The CHAIRMAN: You state in the document that you want to have your 
case presented to the Privy Council. It is important that we should get down 
to what are the facts, and we can deal with them. 

Mr. O MEARA: What I am now reading is the result of absolutely con 
densing what is material, to the very last degree of condensing it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier said on his trip to 
British Columbia is not germane, at all, to the question. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I assure the hon. gentlemen that the facts can be 
shown that it was a serious interview with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, given to a dele 
gation representing the Northern tribes of British Columbia. Sir Wilfrid 
Laurier said, in so many words, that he was representing the Dominion of 
Canada; I think the exact language was that he was the Government of Canada. 

The CHAIRMAN: You have practically made your statement, and you are 
now adding to it by argument. 

Mr. O MEARA: I am endeavouring to answer the question. 
The CHAIRMAN: The decision of the Committee will be that you must 
stop right there. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will obey that. I simply reserve the other matter. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Other matters of that kind. Anything else that you 
have you may give to us, I should think. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested, and is it definite, that 
I should not now go on with that paper any further? 
The CHAIRMAN: Yes. 

Mr. O MEARA: Because the last paragraph of it is probably the most 
material to this Committee to have. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Then let us have the last paragraph and file it. 
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Let it be only one paragraph though. 
Mr. O MEARA: I will read then, with your Committee s approval, the last 
two paragraphs of the paper. I conclude these notes by requesting special 
attention to the following words quoted from my letter addressed to the Min 
ister of Justice: These words are quoted: 

"Notwithstanding the provisions of the law of the year 1920, and the 
position which has arisen from that law as stated in the two papers issued 
by the delegates and my own letters, the serious character of which 1 
fully appreciate, I believe that the Minister s unending difficulty might 
be brought to an end very simply and speedily. If you should be pre 
pared to discuss this matter I shall be prepared to suggest for your 
consideration common ground which might be reached by the Govern 
ment of Canada and the Allied Tribes. I would with some degree ot 
confidence expect to convince you that it is the only common ground 
constitutionally and practically possible." 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



92 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Those words were quoted from my letter of August, 1915, addressed to the 
Minister of Justice. 

Then my concluding paragraph is this: 

" The offer then made which was placed before the Parliament by 
paragraph 22 of the petition that is the petition of June last still stands. 
When action having been decided upon and a special committee or special 
committees of the two Houses shall have been appointed, I shall be pre 
pared to bring before the special committee or special committees, par 
ticulars of the common ground to which I made reference." 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: "What are the particulars of the common ground? 

Mr. O MEARA: When the committee has permitted me to sufficiently present 
this petition of the Allied Tribes, sufficiently prove it and sufficiently satisfy 
the Committee of the real claims of the Tribes, I shall be prepared to put upon 
this table the exact particulars of the common ground which I shall submit to 
the Dominion of Canada, that the Dominion and the Allied Indian Tribes of 
British Columbia can stand upon with a view to bringing about as rapidly as 
possible an equitable settlement of the whole controversy satisfactory to the 
Government as well as to the Indian Tribes. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard enough of this 
piffle, of a man telling us that he will do something if we will allow him to do 
something else. I think we have heard all we want to hear from Mr. O Meara. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The five minutes have been expanded into fifty. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And now he comes to the point where he wants to com 
mence. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: And after that he will come to something else. If the 
Committee will permit it, he will go on for two weeks with this kind of rubbish. 

The CHAIRMAN: If you have finished that statement, Mr. O Meara, we 
want the document handed in to the Clerk of the Committee. 

Mr. O MEARA: I am now ready to present the petition. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We do not need the petition. We have been pleading 
with you to give us something in support of that petition, and you have up to 
this moment persistently refused. 

Mr. O MEARA: No, pardon me, I have been endeavouring to reach that 
point. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You have not even reached a beginning. I think this is 
an exhibition of what the Indian Tribes have been obliged to put up with. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: It is what they have had to put up with. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes, it is what they have had to put up with, and the 
manner in which they have been deluded and deceived by this man for nineteen 
years to my knowledge is plain. I remember the first meeting in Vancouver; 
I presided over it as acting Mayor and I took the stand then that his attitude 
was inimical to the interests of the Indians. I have been in touch with him ever 
since, and this is an exhibition of what these tribes have been up against for 
nineteen years. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: And now he wants to do to the committee what he 
has been doing to the Indians. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think it is an outrage myself, just an outrage. 

The CHAIRMAN: Have you any further evidence you want to put in Mr. 
O Meara? 

Mr. O MEARA: I beg to say that it is not an outrage at all. 

The CHAIRMAN: We do not want any argument. Have you any further 
evidence that you want to put in in answer? 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 93 

Mr. O MEARA: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is this: that Mr. 
Beament who was with me, has discussed that matter with Dr. Scott and has 
suggested to him to go over the petition and point out as to which para 
graph it is necessary to put in as documentary evidence. At the present moment 
I have not received an answer with regard to that. I hope that very little 
evidence is actually needed. 

Dr. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Beament asked me to go over the petition 
and to designate those paragraphs on which there should be no contention and 
which the Department would admit. I refused to do that. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Naturally. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: There are only four clauses. 

Dr. SCOTT: Anyway the petition is before the Committee. I would not 
presume to touch the petition and decide what should be considered by this 
Committee. I told Mr. Beament that this morning. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is not within your right to decide that, of course. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I propose that, if this witness has no evidence to 
offer, we proceed with some witness who has evidence. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I second that motion. 

The CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried. Then will you step down, Mr. 
O Meara, for the time being. 

Mr. O MEARA: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman; I must point out that I am not 
a witness. 

The CHAIRMAN: No, you are here as Counsel and we have been hearing 
you as Counsel. 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, and I must in view of my responsibility in the matter, 
reserve all rights and just simply reserve what further has to be said. 

The CHAIRMAN: The committee will consider the question and give you 
another opportunity. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The sooner his responsibility ends the better for the 
Indians. 

Mr. O MEARA: I have here such documents as seem to be necessary. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: Put them in then. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: We have asked you for them. 

The CHAIRMAN: Have you any witnesses now here that you wish to call. 

Mr. O MEARA: I do not desire to call any Indian witnesses. On account 
of what occurred yesterday before this committee, and the communications 
with the province of British Columbia, and the refusal of the province to be 
represented before this committee, and in view of the important documentary 
evidence regarding that matter which is with me among these papers, I desire 
that the Committee take appropriate steps for securing that the Honourable 
John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia should be here. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Rot. Nonsense. You are here to present your side 
of the case and we will attend to Mr. Oliver. 

The CHAIRMAN: Does the committee wish to hear Mr. Paull, who is the 
only witness Mr. O Meara has here? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I am willing to hear anything he wants to say. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: If Mr. Paull wants to be heard, yes, certainly. 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Paull is the secretary of the Allied Tribes of British 
Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: We have been told that twenty-five times. 

[A. E. O Meara.] 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEARA: And I am general counsel for the Allied Tribes. I have 
not called Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: We are calling him. 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee has a right to ask any questions the 
members please. You say you have no witnesses, and I ask the Committee if 
they wish to hear Mr. Paull at this stage. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: We will. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: Yes. 

Mr. O MEARA: I just wish to point that out, that I am not calling him. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Make way then please for Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I would like you to note, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. 
O Meara has up to the present refused to file the documents that he claims 
to have. If we have not these documents it is his fault. 

The CHAIRMAN: The clerk has received one document. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I repeat what I have said? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Oh no. You have put in fifty-five minutes of repeti 
tion now. 

Mr. O MEARA: What I intended to convey was that I did not think, as 
stated in so many words I thought that very little documentary evidence was 
needed, and I wanted to find out just what was needed and then commence to 
offer it. 

The CHAIRMAN : We understand that you have put in all the documentary 
evidence you wish. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will do so. 

Hon. Mr. MTJRPHY: Next witness. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paull, will you take your place? You are already 
sworn. 

ANDREW PATJLL recalled. 

The CHAIRMAN: You do not need to take up the time of the committee 
by making any further statements of your case. You are recalled for the 
purpose of the committee asking you questions, if they have any questions they 
with to ask you. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think he should take a chair and we will ask him 
any question we wish. 

The CHAIRMAN: Do any members of the committee wish to ask Mr. Paull 
any questions? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN: Proceed then. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. You have been well educated I understand, Mr. Paull. A. I attended 
Borden school that the government has provided us with; and I have had some 
experience. I have been told by my people, ever since I entered school, to make 
a special study of the Indian Land question ; which I have done. 

Q. What is your age? A. 35 years. 

Q. And you have been devoting yourself to the study of this question? A 
Yes. 

Mr. MORIN: A little louder, please. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 95 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Can you provide the committee with any evidence on which you base 
the claim of the aboriginal title? A. Yes. 

Q. Will you be good enough to give it now? A. If I may stand up, I prefer 
it, if you will allow me. So much has been said about the aboriginal title that 
perhaps the committee will be patient with me if I give it in an Indian way so 
to speak. 

Q. Yes, that is what we want. A. Perhaps if I tell you some of the ex 
periences of the Indians before my time you will far sooner understand the reason 
why they have continued to press this claim ever since the time even prior to 
the advent of the white people in British Columbia. In former times the Indian 
Tribes reigned supreme in British Columbia. When the white people came into 
British Columbia, the adventurers by some means acquired pastures that the 
Indians had cleared, and naturally that caused trouble, and as the population 
increased the trouble increased. 

New, we maintain that we were never conquered. We were never conquered. 
And we should not be submitted to anything that a conquered people or nation 
has to put up with. 

The Indians of British Columbia have sworn allegiance to the British Crown 
and flag and therefore we expect justice. 

Soon after Confederation trouble arose as to the reserves that were to be 
allotted to the Indians and an awful amount of correspondence occurred between 
the local government and the Dominion Government. An agreement was entered 
into, namely Article 13 of the Terms of Union. I think the honourable gentle 
men are acquainted with the terms of that agreement. The Indians contend 
that the policy that has been adhered to by the Colonial government was not a 
sufficiently liberal policy for the Dominion government to strictly adhere to. I 
find in my study of this question that in colonial days the per capita area 
allotted to the Indians was only about 10 acres. Now you can readily under 
stand that that is an insufficient amount, and if the government were to adhere 
strictly to the terms of that 13th Article I am sure that the government would 
find if unsatisfactory. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Was that for reserve purposes? A. That was for reserve purposes only. 
This Committee will find that that is altogether inadequate for the Indians. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Does it disturb your thought, Mr. Paull, if I interrupt you with questions? 
A. It does not disturb me at all, sir; in fact I welcome interruptions. 

Q. I do not want to interrupt you, but what was the condition prior to 
British Columbia coming into Confederation, during the days when British 
Columbia was a Crown Colony? Just give us the situation, if you do not mind, 
as you find it at that time. A. From the Indian viewpoint? 

Q. Yes. A. I find that each tribe had a certain territory which was recog 
nized by the other tribes as the territory of that particular tribe. The Indians 
of that particular tribe would hunt and fish and exercise all the privileges of 
free men in that tribal territory. The same would apply to an Indian in the 
next territory. Since the white men came to British Columbia these privileges 
have gradually been diminished. 

Q. What was the condition, if you know from your study, at the time British 
Columbia became part of the Dominion, before the 13th Article? I wish to know 
the condition of the Indians with relation to the land. A. They thought they 
owned the whole country. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



96 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Green: 

Q. Between 1843 and 1871? A. Oh, I am sorry to say that I have not 
documentary evidence to substantiate the position of the Indians at that time. 
Perhaps this is what the honourable gentleman wishes. I was employed by the 
government in the year 1923 to visit the southern part of British Columbia, and 
during the course of my work I found out what was the position of the Indians 
at that time. I visited the west coast and the Indians related to me their 
knowledge of the former conditions. One Indian told me that he was quite a 
youngster at one time when a battleship visited their country and a man by the 
name of Brown was the spokesman for the government officials who came in 
what he called a battleship. Mr. Brown is alleged to have said this: " Indians; 
we are going to occupy your country. We have been sent here by the Queen and 
we are going to govern this country. Whenever we sell a piece of land we will 
put into a fund one-quarter or one-third "the Indians were not sure, they were 
not conversant with fractions or decimals, but anyway they were told that a 
certain portion of the proceeds of any sale of lands would be allotted to a fund 
for the Indians, another portion would be sent to the Queen, and the other portion 
would be held .by the local authorities. 

Now I also found that many of the Indians adjacent to the city of West 
minster and on the southern coast made a similar statement. 

The Indians also related to me that Governor Douglas held a meeting of 
a great number of Indians in the city of Westminster, wherein he made a similar 
statement, and that one Father Foquet, missionary, was the interpreter. 

In order to try and ascertain whether the statement of the Indians were 
correct or not I wrote a letter to Father Cherouse, another missionary, and 
asked him to search the diary of Father Foquet and see if there was anything 
noted down, in his diary that would in some measure coincide with the statement 
of the Indians. 

Father Cherouse wrote to me saying that he had searched the records, the 
diary of Father Foquet, and he found the statement that on a certain day 
Governor Seymour met two thousand Indians and sixty chiefs at Westminster 
which was then called Queensborough. 

Q. Have you got that letter? A. I am sorry to say that I have not, but I 
have wired for it and it will be here to-morrow. I will place it before the com 
mittee before I leave. 

Q. Do you remember the date of the letter? New Westminster was not 
called Westminster then? A. No, it was called Queensborough. The date of 
that reported meeting with the Indians is given in the letter from Father 
Cherouse. Now that was the position of the Indians at that time, that they 
were going to be dealt with justly and that a time would come when they would 
be properly compensated according to the alleged agreement that was entered 
into by Governor Seymour and these men who represented the Imperial Gov 
ernment on this war-ship. 

Now my investigations also show this. I have found that some similar 
statement was made in the northern country. And prior to Confederation that 
was the mind of the Indians. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Mr. Paull, was Mr. Brown associated with Governor Douglas? A. No 
Sir. 

Q. There were two different times? A. Two different times. 

; 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Mr. Seymour would be the commander of the ship? A. No, he was the 
Governor. Governor Seymour was the man who made the statement at Queens- 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 97 

borough. Now we cannot find any documentary evidence to substantiate this, 
but that is what was in the mind of the Indians as to what occurred. 

Q. Apparently the thought in the mind of the Indians, as it comes to you by 
tradition, is that a battleship or a warship, and the Governor or Governors and 
representatives of the King or Queen, stated that \_hey were taking the country 
and they promised that they would deal with the Indians in a certain way. 
A. Yes. 

Q. And that was that they would provide them with portions, we will put 
?.t, of the monies that might come from disposing of the property .A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Mr. Paull, may 1 ask you this question: Do I understand you to_say that 
there was an entry in the diary of the missionary whom you mentioned? 
A. Yes. 

Q. And that entry is in corroboration of this statement that you make. 
A. Yes, but not in toto. 

Q. Will this letter you say you expect to-morrow, give the text of the 
entry in the diary? A. It will, yes. Now that was the mind of the Indians, I 
must suppose, prior to Confederation. Now at a time soon after Confederation 
steps were taken to allot the different reserves to the different Tribes. 

Now I must say this, that the Indian in British Columbia is an Indian who 
has a special location for each different reason. During the fishing season, at 
certain times of the fishing season he would be in one location. At berry- 
picking time he would be in another location. During the hunting season he 
would be in another location. In every one of these locations he would have a 
place cleared and a little shack built. 

Now I think it was the intention of the governments that all existing Indian 
settlements were to be made Reserves. But my information is that when the 
alloting Commissioners visited these different villages, oftentimes the owners 
or occupants of these different little houses and settlements were not at that very 
spot at the time of the visit of the Commission. The result was that many of 
these Indian villages were not made reserves. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. That is the Commission of 1912? A. No, the Commission of 1871. 
Q. At Confederation? A. Yes, and up to 1878 or something like that. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

,Q. That is the Allotment Commission? A. The Allotment Commission, 
yes. Now even to-day, even after the work of this 1912 commission there are 
yet old Indian settlements that are not made Indian reserves, but I will deal 
with the 1912 commission later on. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q, Mr. Paull, do you state that the commission of 1872 were carrying out, 
at least partially, if not altogether, the arrangement made by Governor Seymour 
previous to Confederation? A. No, I think they were carrying out and I 
know, after reading the correspondence between the two governments, that they 
were trying to carry out the terms of Confederation in that 13th Article, whereby 
the province was to allow the Dominion to establish Reserves here and there. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. And you are explaining why they were not established in certain places, 
because of the season. That is the commission might visit a settlement in the 
berry-picking area during the fishing, season? A. Yes. 

Q. And the Indians were not there but were in a fishing settlement? A. 
Yes. 

423257 [Andrew Paall.] 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Whereby they lost their reserves for berry-picking? A. Yes, that is 
what I am explaining. Now I am not going to take up the time of the Com 
mittee by telling them all the trouble that occurred as a result of that. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Mr. Paull, what I was trying to get was this: Evidently there was 
an arrangement made by Governor Seymour, with the Indians, by which the 
Indians understood that they were to have a beneficial right in these lands, 
and that the commission, following the Act of Union we have not got the date 
of Seymour s visit you say you will fix that definitely in a letter to-morrow? 
-A. Yes. 

Q. That under the Act of Union when there was an attempt made to carry 
out what evidently was the clear intent of that agreement for the allotment 
of lands for the Indians, it was merely carrying out what had been agreed upon 
before? A. Evidently so, yes. I say we must presume that Governor Seymour 
might have said this: We will set aside Reserves for your exclusive use. I 
presume that he said that. And the other portions of the province we will 
sell, and so much will go to Her Majesty, so much to the local government 
and so much to the Indians. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. That is your understanding? A. That is my understanding. 

Q. Do I follow you that your tradition, is that your people were actually 
upon reserves at the tin* British Columbia came into Confederation? A. 
May I ask, what do you mean by Reserves in that question? 

Q. That is what I want you to make clear to me. A. Prior to Confedera 
tion, my information is that there were some portions recognized by the Colonial 
Government as reserves for Indians, but in the majority of cases they were 
settlements, whether they be called reserves or some other name; they were in 
existence and occupied by the different Indians. But I do not think they were 
recognized as reserves, and I contend that the Colonial Government did not 
have time to go through all the province and have all the different settlements 
recorded as Indian Reserves. 

Q. Some were though? A. Yes, some were I think. Yes, some were. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. But certain lands were in occupation of the Indians at different seasons 
of the year, although they were not specifically set apart as reserves for them? 
A. Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: They were not recorded as Reserves. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: No. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. You were going on with the commission of 1872 I think? A. Yes. Now 
before this Allottment Commission had time to complete its work, Indian clear 
ings, pastures and so forth were being occupied by white settlers, either by pre 
emption or in some other way, and the result was that there was a lot of trouble 
and the Indians were protesting and so forth. Visits were made to the different 
localities by the Commissioner of Indian lands, at that time Mr. Powell. 

And then, in 1873, I find there was a petition signed by the Indians of the 
Lower Fraser River I would say from Hope down to the Mouth of the Fraser 
River, and from the southern coast to Bute Inlet. The Indians signed a petition 
praying that they be treated in this way, that there should be a declaration that 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 99 

sufficient land should be surveyed for their exclusive use and benefit. I refer to 
Journals and Sessional Papers (1875)". I will be very pleased if that book 
can be brought here so I can refer to it. 

Now, I would like to deal with Article 13. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Before you go on, may I ask you about the pastures. The Indians still 
had cattle and horses? A. Yes, principally horses. 

Q. The pastures were being used by your people? A. Yes, they were really 
used by the Indians. There was a lot of trouble about their stock, especially 
in the Fraser Valley. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. The Fraser Valley was rich pasture land? A. Yes. The condition as to 
that was that the Indians would have the pasture, and in the absence of the 
Indians, some white man would come and preempt that pasture. On the Statute 
books of the Province there was the provision that whoever owned the pasture 
could take action against the one who encroached upon the pasture. The result 
of that was that the Indians were being prosecuted because the stock were feed 
ing on the pasture which had belonged to the Indians prior to preemption. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. The difficulty between the preemptors and the Indians was a matter of 
discussion and adjustment, and the difficulty was practically removed? A. Ow 
ing to the change of conditions, the difficulty automatically removed itself. 

Q. I may say that I can recall many instances of that character, but those 
difficulties have gradually passed away; the Department at Ottawa, and the 
local authorities have made efforts to get those matters ironed out? A. Ironed 
out to some extent, yes. 

Now, I intend to deal with Article 13, when the book arrives. On behalf 
of the Indians, I want to say they have tried to adjust the matter as between 
the Province and the Dominion as to the allocation of the reserves, and to live 
up exactly to the meaning of Article 13, but it has been shown that Article 13 is 
altogether inadequate. I say that because the Province of British Columbia 
contends that they have satisfied all their obligations by the allotment of those 
reserves. Now, I want to make myself understood as to that. The Province 
says "We have satisfied any obligation that is ours." 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Under Article 13? A. Under Article 13. These reserves were allotted 
to the Indians, but, to put it plainly, the Indians say. "You did not allot 
enough." 

Q. It is your contention that the Dominion Government, under Article 13 
should press the Province of British Columbia for further reserves? A. Yes. 

Q. You contend that the reserves allotted by Article 13 are not sufficient or 
adequate? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Was not an agreement made as a result of this agitation? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And the reserves were increased? A. Increased and decreased. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 
Q. The reserves were readjusted? A. The reserves were readjusted. 

42325 7i [Andrew Paull.] 



100 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Where one reserve was not taken by the Indians, it was taken back by 
the Government, and lands were given to the Indians in other places? A. All 
that was done, of course, without the knowledge or consent of the Indians. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. What was the acreage allowed the Indians per head? A. To my 
knowledge, there is no specified number of acres agreed upon. For instance, on 
the coast, in my tribe, they have, per capita, sixteen and a fraction acres, 
whereas in the Interior of the Province, where grazing lands are acquired, the 
per capita acreage is; far in excess of that. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. The coast tribes are mainly engaged in fishing. A. Fishing, logging, 
working in the mills, and so forth. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And packers. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. And workers in the canneries? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, Mr. Paull, you know that the Dominion Government have been 
guardians or trustees for your people? A. Yes, sir. I know that; and all the 
Indians know that. 

Q. And you look to the Dominion Government, as your guardians!? A. We 
do. 

Q. And as your trustees? A. We do. And we say to the Dominion Gov 
ernment, you have a sacred duty to perform towards us. Now, there is a memo 
randum in that book " Journals and Sessional Papers, (1875)" which was written 
by the Hon. David Laird, the then Minister of the Interior on Article 13, wherein 
he states that living up to the exact terms of Article 13 is altogether inadequate. 
Now, that memorandum was adopted, if my memory serves me right, by the 
Privy Council of Canada, and it was ordered that a copy be submitted to the 
Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to the Lieutenant-Governor of British 
Columbia. I presume that was carried out. 

Q. That letter is also in the " Journals "? A. Yes. That is the position 
taken by the Dominion Government, who were the trustees of the Indians at 
that time, as. well as now; that Article 13 was altogether inadequate. 

Q. Would you mind just there telling how many Indians there were at that 
time in British Columbia? A. The only authoritative information we have is 
the statement by Governor Trutch who estimated the Indian population, prior 
to Confederation at about 100,000. 

Dr. SCOTT: I think I made the statement, in the letter to Sir John Mac- 
donald, which was read yesterday, that the population of the Indians prior to 
Confederation was 70,000. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 
Q. The population has since declined? A. Oh, yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. At what do you estimate the number now? A. 23,000, according to Dr. 
Scott. I wish the Committee would bear in mind, when dealing with the Indian 
question as it relates to British Columbia, that one-quarter of the Indian popu 
lation of Canada is in British Columbia. In Saskatchewan, there are only 
perhaps 4,000, or 5,000 Indians; they certainly would not require the amount that 
would have to be spent in a province where there are 25,000 Indians. 

[Andrew Paull. ] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 10t 

Q. What bothers me, is this: at the time of Confederation, when the allot 
ment of lands was made, there were about 70.000 Indians; now, there are about 
23,000, and the 23,000 have as much, or a greater area than the 70,000 then had? 
- A. Perhaps that is true. But as the Indians advance in civilization, and be 
come agriculturists, being taught in the schools how to raise stock, and become 
farmers, they require more land; whereas my ancestors did not know anything 
about that. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. In relation to the question Mr. Bennett has asked you; there is a great 
deal of land held as reserves by the Indians, that has been leased to outside 
parties, is there not? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Land that was leased on behalf of the Indians. 
Hon. Mr. BARNARD: It is land the Indians do not use. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. I am informed that land belonging to the Indians has been leased to 
people other than Indians, in some 150 cases, or thereabouts; do you know 
anything about that? A. I know there are a great number of leases in British 
Columbia, but I do not think the number of leases should be taken to mean that 
the area is great. Most of the leases are for roads, waterways, and so forth. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. And for grazing? A. There are leases given for grazing lands in the 
Interior. 

Q. And leases given for the operation of saw mills? A. Yes. 

Q. And other uses of that character, on the coast, such as canneries? A. 
Yes. At Duncan there was a 99 year lease given to the Agricultural Association 
for the land where they held their exhibition. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. As a matter of fact, there is something like $20,000 a year received as 
rentals, by the Indians, for those leased lands? A. I am not prepared to 
estimate the amount. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The record will show that. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: The point is there is considerable land that is leased. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. While there were 70,000 Indians at the time of Confederation, and a 
certain allotment was made to them, in addition to that, there were all kinds 
of free lands on which they could hunt? A. Yes. 

Q. And pick berries? A. Yes. 

Q. And now, although the number of Indians has been reduced, they are 
more restricted to the actual use of the land set apart for them, than they were? 
A. Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: That would not apply on the coast. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: That may account for the apparent difference in the 
number of Indians allotted to the same area. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: In the early days, the Indians did not go in for agri 
culture, at all. 

WITNESS: I would like to correct what I have said. In my preliminary 
remarks, I think I stated that the present existing reserves were not then in 
existence as reserves. Of course, 70,000 Indians had more land than what the 
Indians have now. Why? Because they occupied all the area within their 
tribal territories. Do I make myself clear? 

[Andrew Paull.] 



102 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. In other words, do you mean that some of the land occupied by the 
Indians at that time, before Confederation, was not recorded as reserves in the 
allotment that was made after Confederation? A. Not recorded, no. For 
instance, the Saanich Indians ranged from the west side of Howe Sound, up 
Howe Sound, along the Squamish Valley. 

Q. That took in the city of Vancouver? A. Yes. That is where they used 
to camp. They now have only small portions in that area. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. I suppose there was no community of interest among the Indians? A. 
Yes, 

Q. Was there any inter-tribal interest? A. No, the only inter-tribal inter 
est they had was that they had an allia.nce in case of war. 

Q. Each tribe occupied its own reserve, separate from the other Indians? 
A. Yes. 

Q. There was no community interest among the Indians? A. No. If 
another tribe wanted a certain portion of land, they would have to fight for it. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. There was constant warfare between the Indians at Port Simpson and 
the land to the South? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Will you give us an idea of the age of the oldest man from whom you 
have been able to gather traditions? A. I think the oldest person from whom I 
gathered traditions in connection with the transition of the Indians was the great 
granddaughter of the original chief Capalino who met Captain Vancouver in 
Burrard Inlet. 

Q. When you were able to talk with her, what would be her age? A. 
Pretty close to 90. 

Q. Had she still possession of her faculties? A. Oh, yes, she had possession 
of her faculties. 

Q. And she could tell you of the past traditions? A. Yes. In order to 
further my study, I found it, necessary, not only to search the records of the 
white people of the district, but to listen to the traditions of other people. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Was that Joe Capilano s mother? A. No, Jos. Capilano was a distant 
relation. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. What year did Captain Vancouver come there? A. I think it was the 
year 1792. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: I think it was before 1792. 
WITNESS: Does the Committee wish me to read the petition of the Indians, 
that I spoke of, that was made on July 14th, 1874? 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Is that the earliest document to which you refer? A. It is a petition 
written by the Indians soon after Confederation; made to the Indian Commis 
sioner for the Province of British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 
Q. He was a Dominion official? A. Yes. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES. B.C. 1C3 

Q. And it was in consequence of article 13? A. Yes. This is the intro 
ductory remark: 

Having been, along with some others, commissioned by the chiefs to 
present our common petition to you, we have come down to New West 
minster yesterday, and after consultation, we came to the conclusion to 
send the petition by mail. 

You have told Alexis and myself not to go down till you send notice. 
We expect to hear from you through Reverend Father Durieu, at 
New Westminster. 

This is a petition to the Indian Commissioner for the province of British 
Columbia: 

The petition of the undersigned, chiefs of Douglas Portage, of Lower 
Fraser, and of the other tribes on the seashore of the mainland to Bute 
Inlet, humbly sheweth: 

1. That your petitioners view with a great anxiety the standing 
question of the quantity of land to be reserved for the use of each Indian 
family. 

2. That we are fully aware that the government of Canada has 
always taken good care of the Indians, and treated them liberally, allow 
ing more than 100 acres per family; and we have been at a loss to under 
stand the views of the local government of British Columbia, in 
curtailing our land so much as to leave in many instances but few acres 
of land per family. 

3. Our hearts have been wounded by the arbitrary way the local 
government of British Columbia have dealt with us in locating and 
dividing our Reserves. Chamiel, ten miles below Hope, is allowed 488 
acres of good land for the use of twenty families: at the rate of 24 acres 
per family; Popkum, eighteen miles below Hope, is allowed 369 acres 
of good land for the use of four families: at the rate of 90 acres per 
family; Cheam, twenty miles below Hope, is allowed 375 acres of bad, 
dry, and mountainous land for the use of 27 families: at the rate of 13 
acres per family; Yuk-yuk-y-yoose on the Chilliwhack River, with a 
population of seven families, is allowed forty-two acres, five acres per 
family; Sumaas, (at the junction of Sumaas River and Fraser) with a 
population of seventeen families, is allowed 43 acres of meadow for their 
hay, and 32 acres of dry land; Keatsy, numbering more than 100 inhabit 
ants, is allowed 108 acres of land. Langley and Hope, have not yet got 
land secured to them, and white men are encroaching on them on all 
sides. 

4. For many years we have been complaining of the land left us 
being too small. We have laid our complaints before the government 
officials nearer to us. They sent us to some others; so we had no redress 
up to the present; and we have felt like men trampled on, and are 
commencing to believe that the aim of the white men is to exterminate 
us as soon as they can, although we have been always quiet, obedient, 
kind, and friendly to the whites. 

5. Discouragement and depression have come upon our people. 
Many of them have given up the cultivation of land because our gardens 
have not been protected against the encroachments of the whites. Some 
of our best men have been deprived of the land they have broken and 
cultivated with long and hard labour, a white man enclosing it in his 
claim, and no compensation given. Some of our most enterprising men 
have lost a part of their cattle, because white men had taken the place 
where those cattle were grazing and no other place left but the thickly 
timbered land, where they die fast. Some of our people now are obliged 

(Andrew Paull.] 



104 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

to cut rushes along the bank of the river with their knives during the 
winter, to feed their cattle. 

6. We are now 1 obliged to clear heavy timbered land, all prairies 
having been taken from us by white men. We see our white neighbours 
cultvate wheat, peas, etc., and raise large stocks of cattle on our pasture 
lands, and we are giving them our money to buy the flour manufac 
tured from the wheat they have grown on same prairies. 

7. We are not lazy and roaming-about people, as we used to be. 
We have worked hard and a long time to spare money to buy agricul 
tural implements, cattle, horses, etc., as nobody has given us assistance. 
We could point out many of our people who have those past years 
bought with their own money ploughs, harrows, yokes of oxen and 
horses; and now, with your kind assistance, we have a bright hope to 
enter into the path of civilization. 

8. We consider that eighty acres per family is absolutely necessary 
for our support, and for the future welfare of our children. We declare 
that 20 or 30 acres of land per family will not give satisfaction, but 
will create ill feelings, irritation among our people, and we cannot say 
what will be the consequence. 

9. That, in case you cannot obtain from the Local government, the 
object of our petition, we humbly pray that this, our petition, be for 
warded to the Secretary of State for the provinces, at Ottawa. 

Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that you may take this 
our petition into consideration ,and see that justice be done us, and allow 
each family the quantity of land we ask for. 

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. 
That is signed by a number, of chiefs of Douglas Portage, Lower Fraser, 
and Coast Indians. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Would you mind referring back to the quantity of land allocated to the 
Cheam Band? A. 375 acres of bad, dry, and mountainous land for the use of 
27 families. 

Q. That is rather interesting, because I think it bears on the whole subject. 
For the last 15 years, to my knowledge, and for many years before that, the 
Cheam Band have owned what is known as Seabird Island? A. The Indians 
are fighting for Seabird Island. 

Q. As a matter of fact, the Cheam Band claim ownership of that Island? 
A. Not only the Cheam Band, but the Indians from Thompson, and other 
Indians. 

Q. Seabird Island is generally recognized as belonging to whom? A. I am 
not sure of that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Could Dr. Scott tell us? 

Dr. Scott: I think the Department has decided as to the title of the Island, 
but I cannot give you the names. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. No matter to whom the Island belongs, that would indicate that the 27 
families of the Cheam Band only had a few acres. It seems to me the matter 
must have been adjusted, because here is a piece of land, 6,000 acres allotted to 
them, subsequently? A. Yes. 

Q. I understand there is farming land in the centre of the island, also at 
the westerly end, but outside of that land, there has been no clearing undertaken 
in the last 30 years; that is correct, is it not? A. That is a correct statement. 

Q. And furthermore, all the cedar, which is very valuable, and other timber 
on that island has been sold on behalf of the Indians? A. Yes. 

[Andrew Paul!.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 105 

Q. Indicating that this prayer received consideration and some response? 
A. You mean that Seabird Island was included as a reserve for the Cheam 
Band? 

Q. Yes? A. The position in regard to Seabird Island is rather peculiar. 
Several tribes have been fighting for the ownership of that particular reserve. 

Q. I can say this of my own knowledge, that some of the families of the 
Cheam Band did reside on Seabird Island within the last 20 years? A. Yes, I 
think they did. 

Q. My point is that they complain, perhaps justly, in that petition of its 
being a too restricted area; but the fact of Seabird Island, in part at least, being 
allocated to them, would indicate there was a response to their prayer, and an 
adjustment? A. That would indicate it was the case. 

Dr. SCOTT: That was after the date of that petition. A Royal Commission 
was appointed to investigate, as a result of this petition. The Indians and the 
Government got together, and decided upon what land should be reserved. That 
was the first real attempt on the part of the Government to adjust the difficulty, 
with respect to reserves, and to carry out the terms of Article 13. 

WITNESS: Now, I think that in justice to the people I represent,., since the 
Province of British Columbia, as I suppose, depends on Article 13 as the ma 
chinery for enactment through which they have exercised all their obligations, 
I should file, and read, this memorandum which was adopted by Order-in-Coun- 
cil on the 4th of November, 1874. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Is not this a fact, that in consequence of the petitions signed by the 
Indians, and presented to the Government at Ottawa, the Government sent 
Mr. Laird out. He went and made an investigation, and a report. That is 
what you have reference to? A. That must have been as the result of some 
investigation. There was a lengthy report written showing what were the 
actual conditions, made by the Hon. David Laird. Perhaps you might appre 
ciate the value of the memorandum he made, if I were to read the notation by 
the Privy Council. This is a copy of the report of the Committee of the Privy 
Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 4th of 
November, 1874. It states that the committee of the Privy Council have given 
their attentive consideration to a memorandum of the Honourable the Minister 
of the Interior in reference to the unsatisfactory state of the Indian lands 
question in the province of British Columbia, and they respectfully report their 
entire concurrence in the view and recommendations submitted thereunder. 
Then they recommend that a copy of this minute, when approved by His 
Excellency, be transmitted to the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, in 
the hope that the views entertained by the Dominion Government on this 
important question as embodied in the said memorial may meet with an early 
and favourable consideration at the hands of the Government of British 
Columbia. They further advised that a copy of this minute and the annexed 
memorandum be transmitted by His Excellency to the Right Honourable Her 
Majesty s Secretary of State for the Colonies, accompanied by copies of each of 
the other documents submitted as the Minister of the Interior might think 
necessary to enable Lord Carnarvon to understand in all its bearings the great 
national question now seeking solution at the hands of the Dominion and of 
British Columbia. 

Mr. Chairman, this great national question was then in existence in 1874, 
and it is equally a national question, and it is yet before us in 1.927. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. If I may interrupt you for a moment; after that Allotment Commission 
completed its work, an agreement was arrived at between the governments of 

[Andrew Paul!.] 



106 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

the Dominion and Mr. McBride s government, the government of British 
Columbia, which purported to be a final settlement of the differences. 

A. The intention of the two governments was that it was to be a final 
settlement, but it was not a final settlement. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Why? A. Because it only dealt with Indian Reserves, and did not deal 
with the fore-shores, the hunting rights, the fishing rights and a number of 
other things. To put it squarely before you, the agreement thinks that it is to 
be a final settlement. I will read the very words of the agreement: 

Whereas it is desirable to settle all differences between the govern 
ments of the Dominion and the province respecting Indian lands and 
Indian affairs generally in the province of British Columbia; 

Therefore the parties above named have, subject to the approval of 
the governments of the Dominion and of the province, agreed upon the following 
proposals as a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indians affairs in the 
Province of British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. That is the preamble is it to the McKenna agreement? A. No, that is 
the agreement. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. What is the date? A. The 24th day of September, 1912. 

Q. And that was in consequence of Mr. McKenna having gone out with a 
commission and investigated the matter on the ground, and I am informed 
that your people had an opportunity to be heard? A. That is correct. 

Q. And they did, in fact, make representations to Mr. McKenna? A. And 
his co-commissioners, yes. 

Q. And as a result an agreement was arrived at which was adopted, between 
the province and the Dominion? A. That is correct. 

Q. And that purports to be a final settlement? A. It did purport to be a 
final settlement. 

Q. Now your people knew what Mr. McKenna and his associates were there 
for and you presented your case to him as best you could? A. Yes, from time 
to time. Yes. 

Q. Now you knew the settlement was being made? A. We were told. We 
were not in possession of the actual Order in Council or the actual agreement. 

Q. No, but you got the agreement afterwards? A. Afterwards, yes. I can 
speak with some knowledge of this because I was one of the interpreters. 

Q. You were a young man of 21 at that time? A. Yes, I was an interpreter. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: He was active. I recall him very well at that time. 

WITNESS: Now, in justice to the commission I must say that they said 
they could not deal with the Indian title, and they had no power to deal with 
fisheries. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. That is what the commission said? A. Yes, the commission so reports. 
Now that is an illustration of one of the failures of the commission. 

To prove my contention, I will read from Volume III of a report of the 
commission in connection with fishing rights in British Columbia, a minute and 
resolution of the 6th June, 1916: - 

Whereas former Indian Reserve Commissioners, acting under joint 
government agreements, allotted defined fishing rights to certain Tribes 
or bands of Indians in British Columbia; 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 107 

And whereas this Commission has been unable to obtain any advice 
from the law officers of the Crown in right of the Dominion of Canada, 
as to the authorities of the said former Commissioners to allot such 
fishery rights; 

And whereas this Commission desires that any right or title which 
Indians may have to such allotted fisheries may not be adversely affected 
by the action of this board; 

Be it resolved that the expense to which the allotting Commissioners 
have authority to allot such fishery rights, this Commission in so far 
as the power may lie in it so to do, confirms all such allotted fishery 
rights as set forth in the schedule hereto. 

Now that is conclusive that the 1912 commission was aware that it did not 
have power to deal with it. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Not to deal with it? They had no power to create new allotments, but 
they confirmed the existing fishing allotments as made by the original Allotment 
Commission; that is so is it not? A. May I answer that in this way? 

Q. But that is so, they did confirm the allotments of the original Allot 
ment Commission with respect to the fisheries? A. Yes. 

Q. But they declined for the reasons given, to make any new allotments? 
A. They did. 

Q. Now you complained that you should have more fishing allotments, and 
the government of British Columbia would not become a party to granting any 
further allotments. A. Yes, we do contend that we should have more fishing 
places. More fishing stations; and our fishing rights should be explicitly defined 
so that there would be no question. 

Q. Meaning what? That your fishing rights should be exclusively defined, 
meaning what? A. Meaning that we have an absolute right to take fish for food 
wherever and whenever we want to. 

By Hon. ]\Ir. Stevens: 

In other words. Mr. Paull this I think is the point, Mr. Bennett your 
people claim that in disregard of any provincial law preserving fisheries on 
any stream, you should have the right to take fish from that stream for your own 
purposes. A. Certainly. 

Q. Irrespective of place, time, or circumstance? A. Yes, as we had from 
time immemorial. Because the amount of fish that the Indian takes is so 
negligible in comparison with what the big canneries take. It is hardly notice 
able. The amount of fish that the Indians in British Columbia take for their 
own use 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. But, Mr. Paull I can see that you are a man of more than ordinary 
understanding A. I thank you. 

Q. If the province makes allotments, or if they issue licenses and then they 
allow twenty thousand people to disregard the licensed area, that would create 
chaos. You see that yourself, do you not? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. You would not insist upon the absolute right in disregard of all other 
regulations or practices to the full limit of what you have stated, would you? 
A. I think we are civilized enough to come to some kind of an agreement, but 
we do object to being out at the mercy or at the dictates of an official, an 
inspector. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



108 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Or a lessee? A. An inspector, or a cheechaco, you know what I mean 
Mr. Stevens? He is one who comes from some foreign country to our country, 
and all he knows is the Fishery Act which he has before him and he exercise* 
power under that irrespective of sympathy with Indian customs. Just to give 
you an illustration, I think you will not blame me for saying this in regard to 
fishing. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the Antinak Lake, and in 
Nitinat Creek, there was an old Indian there with only one leg, and another who 
was blind, and another so old he could hardly move; they were setting a little 
net in the stream to catch fish for food. The officer of the Crown came there and 
smashed their canoe, smashed up their nets and fined them $10 right there on the 
spot. Now it is that sort of treatment that we do not want to have occur. 

Q. Did they have the money to pay the fine? A. I think the other Indians 
paid it for them. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Was he a provincial officer? A. I think he was Dominion. They were 
asking me to get it back for them. That was some years ago. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Was a complaint made to the department about that? A. Yes, I 
included it in my report. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What about Mr. Ditchburn? A. I included it in my report to Mr. Ditch- 
burn. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. I suppose, Mr. Paull, that the inspector was carrying out the letter of 
the law as it stood? A. Absolutely, in the absence of some definite understanding 
between the government and the Indians. Now I have gone to Mr. Found on 
numerous occasions, nearly every occasion on my visits to Ottawa, and this 
is my fifth visit, and I am sorry to say I cannot get any sympathy from him. 
He wants to proceed on lines that may be right in theory, but to carry them out 
is impossible. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Mr. Paull, nearly all, or a very large number of our coast Indians, get 
employment from the canneries. A. They do. 

Q. And they get usually very remunerative employment. A. If there is 
lots of fish they get employment, yes. 

Q. And usually they get remunerative employment. A. Yes, they do. 

Q. And some years they make very much money. A. Yes. 

Q. Now, don t you think, and do your people not consider, that in a large 
measure that employment will compensate you for the restrictions placed upon 
your alleged absolute rights to fish at all times? A. I am afraid I cannot regard 
that as compensation for these restrictions. 

Q. Then, consider this question. Take the case you mention of those three 
Indians; as pictured by you that is rather a pathetic case; but suppose they had 
been three good husky Indians and here was the salmon running in the sock-eye 
season we will say, and they had put a net across the mouth of the stream, 
stopping the salmon from going in, and they were selling those salmon, not using 
them for their own food, but selling them, then that fishery inspector would have 
been justified in equity as well as by law in doing what he did, would he not? 
A. Absolutely, perhaps, in that case; but we include in our requests, or in our sub- 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 109 

missions which I may have to deal with later on that some areas, not at the 
mouth of streams where the fishes hatch, but some areas be set aside where the 
Indians could fish commercially. 

Q. In other words give them leases of areas? A. Leases. Just as you have 
Indian Reserves. 

Q. There is good sound sense there I think. A. So that only Indians could 
fish there, for commercial purposes, and exclude the Jap and the other foreigners, 
but the Indian or the young man catching fish in streams where the fish hatch I 
am not in sympathy with him. 

Q. You realize that it is in the interests of the Indian and the white man 
both, that we should preserve the freedom of the fish in their hatching ground. 
A. Yes, but not at the expense of depriving the Indians of his fish for food. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Is it not the case that in some of the streams the Indians are accorded 
privileges that are not accorded to anyone else, such as the establishment of 
weirs which are against the law, but they are allowed. A. I don t think they are 
allowed to have weirs now. 

Q. I think you will find the weirs there and lots of them. A. There were 
some in Kowichan River, but the owners were prosecuted. 

Q. That is the river I had in mind. A. Yes, they were prosecuted, and the 
regulation in that river is that they catch fish in the mouth of the river. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Let me see if I follow you about the fish. You claim that you should 
have special consideration at the hands of the government? A. Yes. 

Q. You have not asserted that you have the right to all the fisheries, but you 
say you should receive consideration with respect to catching fish for food. A. 
We do not pretend to say we have the right to all the fisheries, superseding the 
right of the canneries interests and so forth, we do not claim that. 

Q. You do not set that up against the Government. A. No, absolutely 
not. 

Q. You say the Government should consider that you have original rights as 
a matter of grace of the Sovereign. A. Yes, and we should be allowed to take 
fish for food wherever and whenever we want to. But for commercial purposes 
there should be special waters set aside for the Indians only. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. What obstacles are there to that now? The Indians are qualified to get 
those are they not? 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: They cannot compete. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: We should try to help them in that if we can. 

WITNESS: May I have the question again. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. What is there to interfere with an Indian or a group of Indians getting a 
license to fish in certain places, the same as anyone else? A. There is nothing 
preventing him, but he has to fish in competition with numerous other fisher 
men. As an illustration: In Allert Bay, at the mouth of the river there, for some 
years there were only four or five seine boats manned by Indians, and they made 
good money. To-day I think there is 20 or 30 seine boats fishing at the mouth 
of that little stream for sock-eye. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



110 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Do you not find the Japanese competition very keen? A. It was very 
keen prior to the time that this enactment came through whereby they had to 
be gradually put off. 

Q. That was in 1921? A. Yes, they were getting awfully fierce. They 
had a monopoly of the fishing on the west coast of Vancouver Island. 

Q. Now the Indians are getting more employment than they were prior to 
1921 and 1922? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. What you are putting forward is that the Indian, on account of his long 
residence in the country, should be given as favourable treatment as possible 
in prosecuting the fisheries in a commercial way. A Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think that is a very fair request. 
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: I think so too. 

WITNESS: Now take the people, my friends from the Interior. The fishery 
Inspector says, these streams are streams where the fish hatch and you must 
not take any fish. We are in sympathy with the people of the interior or 
anyone else in British Columbia. Their forefathers took fish from these very 
streams before the white man came. Because of their taking the fish from the 
lakes and streams, it never resulted in the extermination of the fish. There 
were so many fish in those streams before the white man came that you could 
almost walk across the stream on the fish. 

Hon Mr. STEVENS: Yes, I have seen that. 

WITNESS: Yes, I have no doubt you have. Because there L an effort now 
being made to rehabilitate the fish in these streams the government should not 
do that at the expense of the Indian being debarred of fish for his food. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Would your people be satisfied with the right to fish as you are in 
dicating? To the degree necesjsary for them to smoke for their winter use and 
their use as they go along. A. Yes sir. 

Q. For family use? A. Yes sir, family use in British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. You know how difficult that is Mr. Paull. I can see that you know much 
more about it than we do, and you can see how difficult that would be? A. It 
would be very difficult, if you leave the fishing regulations as they are now, 
practically at the discretion of the Deputy Minister or the Fishery Inspector. 
But if the Parliament of Canada defined it in some way so that we could 
understand it, and not be left entirely to the discretion of the local officer, then 
I think the problem would be solved. 

Q. Mr. Paull, if there is no supervision locally with respect to the matter, 

you would be the first man, to admit that it would result in great abuses? A 

Yes. 

Q. If you pass a statute as you suggest, to give a certain thing, the result 
would be an abuse of it in a very limited time, whether it be by a white man or 
an Indian? A. There is a statute already in the Statute Books of Canada, but 
it provides for local supervision. 

Q. Whether it is the Dominion Fisheries Act or not, I know there is local 
supervision? A. We would welcome all the supervision necessary. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 111 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. How would you suggest that we could control your people from abusing 
that privilege, if it were given to them? Have you any suggestion to make 
about that? A. The Indian has been taught not to destroy anything that he 
uses for food, but to use all of that that is necessary for his food. 

Q. He used to destroy a lot of it though. You know how they used to do 
in their hunting, for instance; set out a string of fires in the bush, so that the 
deer would be driven along certain lines. I have seen that done myself. I do 
not think they would do that now because they have been restricted. A. Per 
haps that happens when they have no guns. 

Q. I recall some very bad fires twenty or thirty years ago. A. I am not 
in a position to dispute that. 

Q. On the fishing question, give us a suggestion how we can control that. 
A. Well, if you will allow the Indian to take fish for food where and whenever he 
requires it. You would have to repeal or amend some of the existing laws. In 
the Indian Act there is a law giving the Superintendent General of Indian 
Affairs power to supervise the fishing on the Indian reserves, and in streams 
flowing through or by or adjacent to an Indian reserve. Now that law exists 
in the Indian Act. On the other hand, the Fisheries Department has an Act 
now in existence that they have supervision over all fishing. 

Q. That is in the province? A. No, it is a Dominion statute. 

Q. Is not that fishery control exercised by the province? A. In inland 
waters it is, but in tidal waters it is by the Dominion. 

Q. I mean, in inland waters; up stream. A. I think the Indian pretty 
nearly has to steal the fish to take for his food in inland waters. What I mean 
by that is that he is automatically a criminal for taking fish for food under the 
provincial law. But suppose the provincial law deprives the Indian from taking 
fish in the inland waters, this Parliament and this committee, in order to bring 
about the requirements of the Indian, would have to approach the government 
and get them to alter their laws. 

Q. You are not restricted very much on the coast regarding the troll fishing, 
like the white men who fish around Vancouver. You are not restricted there. 
A. Well, they can troll all right, but as you know, trolling is principally for 
sport. 

Q. Oh, no; what about all those fishermen on Dead Men s Island? You 
know those people who come in at the Hynes Wharf, all those white fishermen? 
A. They troll in some cases in Howe Sound and Burrard Inlet, for spring 
salmon, during July and the latter part of June, and then they go up the coast 
to fish for codfish. 

Q. They fish the year round? A. Yes, but they have big boats, and the 
necessary equipment for procuring these fishes, that the Indian has not got. 

Q. Oh no, the Indian can get equipment as well as they can. They are 
mostly poor men; poorer, most of them, than the Indians are. A. They belong 
to a co-operative company; they advance them the money to equip themselves. 

Q. But they are not restricted by law? A. To procure fish they are, but 
not in the matter of trolling. 

Q. You want the privilege of gill net fishing at any time? A. We should 
be allowed to gill net for food. 

Q. I am afraid you would find it very difficult to control that. A. What 
I mean by that is a short net, not a gill net of 150 fathoms or 300 fathoms, but 
a small net, say the length of this room, to put in adjacent to the mouth of the 
streams. Not to put across the streams near Vancouver; a little net, say 150 
feet long, big enough to put in a canoe, about one fathom in depth. We should 
be allowed to gaff fish if we want them, fresh fish, if we have not a net, in 
Capilano Creek. 

[Andrew PaulL] 



112 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Q. To spear them? A. Yes, spear them. 

Q. At night? A. No, in the daytime. Capilano has been closed by the 
Fisheries Department. We cannot fish there. We cannot gaff them as we have 
done, although that stream passes through an Indian Reserve. It appears that 
the authority of the fishing inspector supersedes the authority of the Superin 
tendent General to look after fishing in streams which pass through the Indian 
Reserves. One of my Indians was prosecuted there last year for gaffing dog 
salmon. Now the sort of salmon that the Indians use is not the sock-eye salmon, 
which is greatly used for commercial purposes; it is a cheap kind of salmon, 
that they do not can very much of, and not sock-eye, but dog salmon, Cohoes 
salmon, and other cheap varieties. 

By Hon. Mr. Bennett: 

Q. Who carries on that authority? A. The Fisheries Department of Can 
ada through their local officer. Mr. Perry and myself defended an Indian, 
and we won out in the Police Court. They appealed the case and it was heard 
before Judge Cayley. I think he gave a sort of fifty-fifty decision, but the 
Fisheries Department said the decision was in their favour. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Well, that ought to be about right, a fifty-fifty 
decision. 

The CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Paull, it is just one o clock. Probably you 
had better stop there. Have you more evidence that you want to give? 

The WITNESS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have. I have just got beyond Con 
federation in my narrative. I want to get to the McKenna agreement at some 
time. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: I congratulate you very sincerely, Mr. Paull, on your 
statement. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that upon this 
point there might be a Conference between the Indian Department and our 
fishery people. 

Hon. Mr. BENNETT: Mr. Scott said Mr. Found would like to be heard. 
Dr. SCOTT: Mr. Found would like to be heard on the question later on. 

Discussion followed. 

The Committee adjourned. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 113 

EXHIBIT No. 1. 

(Filed by A. E. O Meara) 

THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 

Memorandum Regarding General Counsel 

We, Peter R. Kelly Chairman of the Executive Committee of the allied 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia and James A. Teit, special agent of the allied 
Tribes, hereby certify as follows: 

1. In the month of May 1916, Mr. Arthur E. O Meara, Barrister, who had 
previously acted as Counsel for the Nishga Tribe in an honourary capacity, agreed 
to take full professional responsibility for the Petition of that Tribe and to 
represent that Tribe before His Majesty s Privy Council, the Parliament of 
Canada, the Governments and all others concerned. The Delegates of the Nishga 
Tribe then in Ottawa by letter addressed to the Minister of Interior informed 
the Government of Canada of the arrangement so made. 

2. An alliance of Tribes having been subsequently formed, upon occasion 
of meeting of the Executive Committee of the allied Tribes held at Vancouver 
in the month of February 1919 it was arranged between the allied Tribes and 
Mr. O Meara that he should act as General Counsel having charge of the British 
Columbia Indian case, in whatever way it might be carried through to final 
adjustment of all matters. 

3. A larger alliance of Tribes having been formed in the present month, 
upon occasion of meeting of the Executive Committee of that alliance this day 
held it was arranged that Mr. O Meara should continue to act as General Counsel 
having charge of the Indian case and Mr. O Meara was duly appointed to be 
General Counsel of the newly formed alliance of Tribes. 

4. In particular Mr. O Meara has been fully authorized as such General 
Counsel to present to and discuss with the Government of Canada all matters 
contained in and arising from the Statement which in the year 1919 the allied 
Tribes prepared for the Government of British Columbia, the matter of the laws 
enacted by the Parliament of Canada in the year 1920 known as Bill 13 and Bill 
14, and the matter of all funds expended and all funds which will require to be 
expended by the allied Tribes in connection with the British Columbia Indian 
case now before His Majesty s Privy Council and in securing determination of 
all questions related thereto and final adjustment of all differences between the 
two Governments &nd the allied Tribes. 

PETER R. KELLY, 

Chairman of Executive Committee. 

J. A. TEIT, 

Special Agent. 
VANCOUVER, B.C., 

20th January, 1922. 

I Andrew Paull, Recording and Corresponding Secretary of the newly 
formed Alliance of Indian Tribes of British Columbia, hereby certify that 
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the above memorandum are correct in every particular. 

ANDREW PAULL. 
Recording and Corresponding Secretary. 

423258 



114 



SPECIAL COMMITTEE 



EXHIBIT No. 2. 

(Filed by A. E. O Meara) 

ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 



ANDREW PAULL, 

Secretary Executive Committee, 
North Vancouver, B. C. 



Rev. P. R. KELLY, 

Chairman Executive Committee, 
763 Albert St., Nanaimo, B.C. 



VANCOUVER, B. C., 2nd December, 1926. 

DEAR FRIENDS: In order that at the present time we may report to you as 
clearly and briefly as possible we first ask that you again read the chief con 
tents of the circular letter sent out on 31st December last. 

The Petition which had then been decided upon was presented to Parliament 
in the month of June last and contains a full and strong statement of the case 
of the Indian Tribes of this Province. The great importance of the Petition 
having been recognized in both Houses of Parliament, it was printed in full 
in the official reports of proceedings in Parliament known as Hansards, copies 
of which were sent from Ottawa to all members of the Executive Committee 
and to others. 

All possible was done for securing that the Petition should be seriously 
debated in Parliament and that the desired action of helping forward the case 
in His Majesty s Privy Council should be taken. The accomplishing of this 
result, of which there seemed to be good prospect, was made quite impossible 
by the political upheaval that occurred and the dissolution of Parliament that 
followed. 

In the month of July the case was brought before the Government of Right 
Hon. Arthur Meighen. Important and encouraging interviews were had with 
members of that Government. The Hon. R. B. Bennett of Calgary, then acting 
Minister of Interior, gave to your Chairman and General Counsel assurances 
that the Government if sustained in power would take early action in accord 
ance with Mr. Meighen s statement made in the House of Commons on 26th 
June, 1925, declaring that the Indian Tribes of British Columbia are entitled 
to obtain from His Majesty s Privy Council decision of the Indian Land 
controversy. 

The Executive Committee of Allied Tribes upon occasion of meeting held 
in October after full explanation unanimously adopted resolution approving all 
contents of the Petition presented to Parliament and all other action taken 
by the Chairman and General Counsel at Ottawa. 

In pursuance of another resolution adopted by the Executive Committee 
the Chairman addressed to the Minister of Interior letter expressing the hope 
that the present Government of Canada will recognize that all assurances on 
the subject of the Indian Land controversy which have been given by previous 
governments are binding upon the Dominion of Canada and should now be 
fulfilled, and to that end will help forward early action of the House of Commons 
referring the Petition to a Special Committee as requested by the Allied Tribes. 

Upon occasion of the same meeting of the Executive Committee the General 
Counsel advised that as rapidly as possible the case should be carried through 
Parliament and carried forward in His Majesty s Privy Council. 

The Committee decided that for securing funds sufficient for taking full 
advantage of the very strong position reached by means of the Petition now 
before Parliament and if possible carrying forward the case and the whole work 
of the Allied Tribes to early and complete success a campaign should be carried 
on throughout the Province during the month of December. 

The present position of the Indian case at Ottawa is that the Petition has 
brought before Parliament the Indian case as brought before His Majesty s 
Privy Council and therefore manifestly requires to be dealt with along sound 
judicial lines. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 115 

There is good reason for expecting that on early day of the Session leading 
members of the House of Commons will press for the taking of action upon the 
Petition of Allied Tribes. 

If, as result, the House of Commons shall appoint a Special Committee, the 
first business of such Committee will be consideration of the matters which are 
subject of discussion which was entered upon by the General Counsel with the 
Minister of Justice, namely the fiat which was promised by the Minister of 
Interior in the House of Commons and common ground which might be reached 
by the Government of Canada and the Allied Tribe? in connection with the car 
rying forward of their independent judicial proceedings. The Special Commit 
tee will also consider the closely related matter of the first three prayers of the 
Petition asking for, (1) Safe-guarding of the aboriginal rights of the Indian 
Tribes of British Columbia, (2) Defining of the issues between the Allied Tribes 
and the two Governments which require to be judicially decided and, (3) Help 
ing forward the independent judicial proceedings of the Allied Tribes. 

After these matters shall have been discussed we shall be in a position to 
decide whether it has become necessary for the Chairman or other representative 
of the Allied Tribes to go to Ottawa. The Allied Tribes are advised that the 
sending of a larger delegation would be rendered necessary only by some quite 
new developments which might occur in Parliament not now thought to be 
probable. 

We trust all the Indians of the Province will clearly understand that there 
are not two separate objectives of the Allied Tribes, Parliament and the Privy 
Council, but there is one objective, that of carrying the case right through to a 
hearing before the Judicir.il Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council. Also 
we trust it will be clearly understood that all work done and to be done at Ottawa 
is intended for accomplishing safely and rapidly this one great purpose by reach 
ing a complete understanding with Parliament and if possible securing the power 
ful help of Parliament. 

It is necessary to bear in mind that the Allied Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia is the only organization officially recognized by the Government of 
Canada. Any statement coming from other sources may be regarded as unre 
liable and should be ignored. The Executive Committee will promptly inform 
you of all important events. 

For practically carrying out the decisions of the Committee above stated 
it is most important that commencing during the first week of December every 
tribe should carry out a well organized plan for securing larger funds than have 
ever before been raised. To accomplish this end in a systematic way the Com 
mittee advises that every member of the tribe of eighteen years of age should 
provide at least three dollars and in the case of tribes that did not provide funds 
last Spring at least five dollars. The Committee earnestly hopes that those able 
to provide larger funds will do so. It is strongly advised by the Committee that 
this work of securing funds be completed before end of December or in cases in 
which the letter shall be delayed at the earliest possible date of January. 

If every tribe will do its share in meeting this responsibility the common 
goal of all the tribes will be reached. 

All funds to be secured as result of this campaign should be sent to the 
Treasurer, Rev. P. R. Kelly, 763 Albert Street, Nanaimo, B.C. 

With every good wish for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. 

Yours faithfully, 

P. R. KELLY, 
Chairman and Treasurer. 

ANDREW PAULL, 

Secretary. 

42325 SJ 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 117 

COMMITTEE ROOM 368, 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 

MONDAY, April 4th, 1927. 

The Joint Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition sub 
mitted to Parliament in June, 1926, met at 10.00 o clock, Hon. Mr. Bostock 
presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, it is past our time for beginning, and we shall 
commence our morning sitting. Mr. Paull, have you any further evidence to 
bring before the committee? 

Mr. PAULL: Yes, sir. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. 

ANDREW PAULL recalled. 

The WITNESS: At the last session of this committee, Mr. Chairman and 
hon. gentlemen, I was about to read a memorandum issued by the Hon. David 
Laird in 1874 dealing with Article 13 of the Terms of Union. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Do you think it is necessary to take up the time of the committee read 
ing that? A. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Province of British Columbia depends 
upon Article 13. Dr. Scott has mentioned some material facts in connection 
with Article 13 and this memorandum of the Honourable the late David Laird 
coincides with our opinion of this whole matter in connection with Article 13. 

Q. The committee already have that before them in the statement which 
Doctor Scott placed in the record. A. I am sorry to say that Doctor Scott did 
not include this in his remarks, and that is why I want to include it. (Reading) : 
" When the framers of the Terms of Admission of British Columbia 
into the Union inserted this provision, requiring the Dominion govern 
ment to pursue a policy as liberal towards the Indians as that hitherto 
pursued by the British Columbia government, they could hardly have 
been aware of the marked contrast between the Indian policies which had 
up to that time, prevailed in Canada and British Columbia respectively. 
Whereas, in British Columbia, ten acres of land was the maximum 
allowance for a family of five persons, in all Canada the minimum allow 
ance for such a family was eighty acres: and a similar contrast obtained 
in regard to grants for education and all other matters connected with 
the Indians under the respective governments. Read by this light, the 
insertion of a clause guaranteeing the aborigines of British Columbia the 
continuance by the Dominion government of the liberal policy heretofore 
pursued by the local government, seems little short of a mockery of their 
claims. 

The first step taken by the government of the Dominion of Canada 
in dealing with this subject, was the passing of an Order in Council of the 
21st March, 1873, recommending that eighty acres of land should be 

[Andrew Paull .1 



118 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

assigned by the local government of British Columbia to every Indian 
family of five persons. 

To this recommendation (Made in accordance with the general policy 
heretofore pursued in old Canada in such matters, but without taking 
into consideration the bearing of the 13th clause already referred to, 
securing a liberal policy to the. Indians of British Columbia), _ the govern 
ment of that province peremtorily declined to accede, alleging that the 
quantity of land which the Order in Council proposed to assign to the 
Indians was greatly in excess of what was found to be sufficient by previous 
local governments, and the Indian Commissioner was notified that the 
government of British Columbia had decided that the land reserved for 
the Indians should not exceed twenty acres for each head of a family of 
five persons. 

Even this allowance of twenty acres for each head of a family, in 
adequate as it would have been considered by the Indians, has, by the 
interpretation lately put by the local authorities in their Order in Council 
granting it, been very materially reduced. They now hold that that Order 
in Council was intended to apply to new reserves only, and not to the 
old reserves existing at the time of "Union. Such, with the exception of 
the latter interpretation, was the position of the Indian land question in 
British Columbia when the duty of administering Indian affairs devolved 
upon the undersigned in his capacity of Minister of the Interior. 

His first step in connection with the subject was to submit a memo 
randum to Council setting forth the facts of the case and recommending, 
as under the circumstances was inevitable, that the Order in Council of 
the 21st March, 1873, assigning eighty acres to each Indian family, be 
rescinded, and that only twenty acres be allowed to each family, but also 
recommending, inter alia, that the local government should be invited to 
reconsider their Indian land policy with a view to co-operate in every way 
with the government of the Dominion in satisfying the reasonable demands 
of the native tribes west of the Rocky Mountains. 

This memorandum was approved by the Governor-General in Council 
on the 24th April last. 

Mr. Indian Commissioner Powell duly submitted this Order in Council 
to the British Columbia government accompanied by such arguments as 
he could use in favour of the adoption by that government of a more 
liberal land policy toward the Indians. 

The British Columbia government, however, appear to be reserved 
to adhere to their determination not to go beyond the grant of twenty acres 
to each Indian family, and even that allowance, as already observed, is 
authoritively declared to be intended not " to affect or unsettle reservations 
before established, but is confined to the cases in which, at the time of 
Confederation, the original tribes were not provided with the land set 
apart for their exclusive use." 

The Indian Commissioner, on being officially notified of the views of 
the local government, felt reluctantly obliged to arrest the surveys of the 
Indian reserves in the province surveys which had been authorized by 
him, and which were then being proceeded with, on the understanding 
(sanctioned, as he believed, by the local government) that twenty acres 
of land were to be allowed to each Indian family, whether on the old 
Reserves or otherwise. 

This suspension of the surveys, though under other circumstances a 
necessary step, is calculated to aggravate the discontent and alarm of 
the Indians in reference to their treatment by the government, and will, 
in a great measure, help to keep open the long-pending dispute between the 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 119 

white settlers and the Indians in reference to their respective land claims; 
disputes which, in the summer of 1873, nearly led to an outbreak of the 
Indian population of the province, and to the recurrence of which it ,vas 
hoped these surveys would put an end. 

How universal, deep-seated, and intense, the feeling of discontent 
among the Indians of British Columbia was, previous even to the last 
decision of the Local Government, limiting the twenty acre grant, is 
unmistakably apparent in Mr. Commissioner Powell s report of his visit 
to the native tribes last summer, and in the letters of the Roman Catholic 
Bishop of the province, and Father Grandidier. 

In this connection Mr. Commissioner Powell does not hesitate to 
write that 

If there has not been an Indian war, it is not because there has been 
no injustice to the Indians, but because the Indians have not been 
sufficiently united. 

These gloomy anticipations are shared, not only by both the Indian 
Commissioners, but also by the white settlers generally in the province, 
and are expressed still more strongly, if possible, in the communication 
already alluded to, of Father Grandidier, and the Roman Catholic Bishop 
of the province. 

All concur in the opinion that, until the land grievances of which the 
Indians complain are satisfactorily redressed, no statement, however 
liberal or humane in the way of money grants or presents, will avail to 
secure peace or contentment among them. As an evidence of the strength 
of this feeling of dissatisfaction, Commissioner Powell states that the 
Indian bands at Nicola and Okananan Lakes, wholly declined to accept 
any presents from him last summer, lest by so doing they should be 
thought to waive their claim for compensation for the injustice done them 
in relation to the Land Grants. 

The views of the Roman Catholic Bishop, and of Father Grandidier 
entirely accord, as we have said, with those of the Commissioners; and the 
opinions of those Reverend gentlemen, are, it is thought, worthy of 
special consideration from the fact that they speak with a thorough 
knowledge of the subject, acquired by long residence among the Indians, 
and close and habitual intercourse with them. 

The other principal land grievances, of which the Indians complain, 
besides that of the insufficient quantity allowed them, as already referred 
to, may be briefly stated under two heads: - 

1st. They complain that, in many instances, the lands which they 

had settled upon and cultivated, have been taken from them without 

compensation, and pre-empted by the white settlers, and that in some 

cases, their buria l grounds have been thus pre-empted. 

2nd. They complain that, in consequence of the present state of 

the law in reference to pastoral land, their cattle and horses are 

systematically driven away from the open country by the white 

settlers, who have taken leases of pastoral land in the neighbourhood. 

All these several grievances have been, for many years past, the sub 
jects of complaint among the Indians. But, during the last two or three 
years, they have assumed a more serious aspect than heretofore; partly 
from the fact that the Indians are now, for the first time, feeling prac 
tically the inconvenience of being hemmed in by the white settlers, and 
prevented from using the land for pastoral purposes; partly because the 
Indians are only now becoming to understand the value of agriculture, 
and to desire the possession of land for cultivation; and partly, it may be, 
because they have been recently made aware of the liberal land policy 

[Andrew Paull.] 



120 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

extended to the Indians of the Northwest in recent Treaties, and naturally 
contrast this treatment with the policy meted out to themselves. 

The Indians of British Columbia, especially those in the interior of 
the Province, are intelligent and industrious, and likely to turn to good 
account any farming lands which may be assigned to them. Moreover, 
they already own large herds of horses and cattle, and a liberal allowance 
of pastoral land is to them a matter of absolute necessity, to enable them 
to support their stock. 

The undersigned feels that the Government of the Dominion cannot 
be charged with want of liberality, in its dealings with the Indians of 
British Columbia, since the admission of that Province into the Union. 
During the last two years, the sum of $54,000 has been voted by Parlia 
ment for their benefit; and before the expiration of the current financial 
year, the whole of that large sum will probably have been expended, 
either in supporting Indian schools, making surveys, distributing agri 
cultural implements and seed, or for other objects calculated to promote 
their material and moral well-being. 

When it is stated that prior to the admission of British Columbia 
into the Union, the entire annual expenditure o f the local Government 
on the Indians, did not exceed, at most, a few hundred dollars; that as 
Mr. Commissioner Powell states: 

Money payments by the Government, on account of the native 
race, have been restricted to expenditure incurred by Indian outrages, 
and no efforts have been put forth with a view to civilizing them; it 
having been considered that the best mode of treating them was to 
let them alone." 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Mr. Paull, I do not want to stop you, but really this 
has been the subject of an inquiry. I want to say to the Chairman that the 
House of Commons begins sittings to-morrow morning at eleven o clock. There 
are a number of witnesses the Committee would like to hear, and I would ask 
you to condense; if you are going to read long articles of this sort, you will bar 
others who are anxious to appear before the Committee, altogether. 

Mr. McPnERSON : Why is it not sufficient to give us the references to what 
you wish read. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Could you not have that filed? 

WITNESS: It would not be fair, Mr. Chairman, since Dr. Scott has read a 
document upon this question. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: You can file anything you want to, without taking up 
time reading long extracts. It would serve your purpose as well, as we will have 
them printed for the benefit of the Committee. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Are you through with that extract? A. It is nearly finished. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: He has just about a paragraph to read; why not let 
him finish it? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Very well. 

WITNESS: I have less than half a page yet to read. 

The CHAIRMAN: Finish it then. 

WITNESS (Reading) : 

" It cannot be alleged that, in this respect, the Government of the 
Dominion has failed, on its part, to continue towards the Indians of that 
Province a policy as liberal as that previously pursued by the British 
Columbia Government. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 121 

In laying the foundation of an Indian policy in that Province, on 
the same permanent and satisfactory basis as in the other portions of 
the Dominion, the Government of the Dominion feel they would not 
be justified in limiting their efforts to what, under the strict letter of the 
Terms of Union, they were called upon to do. They feel that a great 
national question like this, a question involving possibly in the near 
future an Indian War with all its horrors, should be approached in a 
very different spirit, and dealt with upon other and higher grounds. 
Actuated by these feelings, the Government of the Dominion in the 
dealings with the Indians of British Columbia, has acted as has been 
shown, in a spirit of liberality far beyond what the strict terms of the 
agreement required at its hands; and they confidently trust that on a 
calm review of the whole subject in all its important bearings, the Govern 
ment of that Province will be prepared to meet them in a spirit of equal 
liberality. 

The policy foreshadowed in the provisions of the 13th Clause of 
the British Columbia Terms of Union, is plainly altogether inadequate 
to satisfy the fair -and reasonable demands of the Indians. 

To satisfy these demands, and to secure the good-will of the natives, 
the Dominion and Local Governments must look beyond the terms of 
that agreement, and be governed in their conduct towards the aborigines 
by the justice of their claims, and by the necessities of the case. 

The undersigned would, therefore, respectfully recommend, that the 
Government of the Dominion should make an earnest appeal to the 
Government of British Columbia, if they value the peace and prosperity 
of their Province if they desire that Canada as a whole should retain 
the high character she has earned for herself by her just and honourable 
treatment of the red men of the forest, to reconsider in a spirit of wisdom 
and patriotism the land grievances of which the Indians of that Province 
complain, apparently with good reason, and take such measures as may 
be necessary promptly and effectually to redress them. 

In conclusion, the undersigned would recommend that, should the 
views submitted in this Memorandum be approved by the Governor 
General in Council, a copy of the Order in Council passed in the case, 
with a copy of this Memorandum, be transmitted to His Honour the 
Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, with a request that he would 
take an early opportunity of submitting them to his Executive Govern 
ment, and express the hope that the views of the Dominion Government 
therein embodied, may obtain an early and favourable consideration. 

He would further recommend, that copies of the Order in Council 
and the Memorandum, should also be transmitted by the Governor 
General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, accompanied by copies 
of such of the other documents herewith submitted as may be thought 
necessary to enable the Colonial Secretary to understand in all its bear 
ings the great national question now seeking solution at the hands of 
the Dominion Government and the Government of British Columbia." 

(Signed) DAVID LAIRD, 

Minister of Interior. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What is the title of the volume from which you have 
been reading? A. The Journals and Sessional Papers of British Columbia of 
1876. 

Q. And what is the date of the recommendation to Council? A. The 
recommendation to Council is the 4th of November, 1874. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



122 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr.. Stevens: 

Q. What is the point you want to make in regard to that report? A. 
The points I want to make are these: The 13th Article was inadequate to 
satisfy the requirements of the- Indians insofar as the obligation to establish 
Indian reserves were concerned. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think with the Chairman s permission, I would draw 
the attention of the Committee, and of Mr. Paull and his associates, to the 
following facts; I think I have them collected accurately, but the Deputy 
Superintendent General will correct me if my figures are not approximately 
correct. 

The complaint at this time was that twenty acres per family was altogether 
inadequate. Now, the acreage to-day is 756,000 acres of Indian reserves, 
allocated to Indian use. Roughly, that amounts to 132 acres to a family of 
four, taking four as a normal family, which I thinks perhaps would be reason 
able. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: And what is the total population? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I have taken it as 23,000. Now, that means, that 
instead of a grievance based upon an allotment of 20 acres, you have a situation 
where there are 132 acres per family. It was pointed out that there was an 
inadequate expenditure of public money in the interests of the Indians. At 
that time I think there were 50,000 or 60,000 Indians, something like that, and 
the figure mentioned is $50,000, in that memorandum. Last year I think we 
spent $600,000 for 23,000 Indians as against, at the time of this grievance, 
$50,000 for some 50,000 Indians. I merely draw attention to the changed 
situation. Apparently the chief grievances set out in that memorandum have 
been well taken care of by the action of both Governments. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Does Dr. Scott say that the Hon. Mr. Stevens 
summary is a correct one? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, it is correct. I might point out to the Committee that 
on page 46 of the proceedings of March 30th you will find the printed Order 
in Council which put into operation the selection of reserves. That was a 
preliminary memorandum to the Council that was drafted by the Hon. David 
Laird. You will notice that this is signed by the Hon. E. W. Scott, Acting 
Minister of the Interior. I think that Mr. Laird had gone west, at least he 
was not on duty then. I thought that there would be no purpose in burden 
ing the record with the first Order in Council, because that is the operative 
Order in Council on which the Commission set out the reserves. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It superseded what went before? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: The one that has just been read was preparatory to 
the one that is in the Minutes? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes, it was a preparatory Order. 

Mr. PAULL: My purpose in reading the Hon. David Laird s memorandum 
was to show to this Committee the conditions that obtained. I would just like 
to answer the statement that was read by the Hon. Mr. Stevens, as to the area 
of reserves. It is true, perhaps, that the area of reserves now allocated to the 
Indians is in excess of what they were in the past but that condition was brought 
about in an arbitrary way by both governments. To illustrate that; the 1912 
Commission took away from the Indians 47,058 acres, cut it out from their 
reserves. The value of that 47,000 acres is $1,522,704. When the Commission, 
under their powers, cut off that area from the existing reserves, they allocated 
to the Indians an acreage far in excess of what they took away. Probably, that 
is why that statement is brought about. The new reserves comprise an area of 
87,292 acres, valued at $444,853. Now, that shows that the Commission took 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 123 

away good land from the Indians and gave them bad land. I can mention a few 
cases irom my knowledge, but I would not take the time of this Committee. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That is very important evidence for this Committee, 
and if you will just confine yourself to things of that character we will get some 
where. When you make the statement that there were 44,000 acres of land sold, 
which was valuable land, and you got in lieu of that more acreage of less value, 
then that is important for us. I merely mention that so that you will confine 
yourself to evidence of that kind; it is very important to the Committee. 

Dr. SCOTT: I want to point out to the Committee that the Indians will get 
50 per cent of the value of these lands when they are sold. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : That was carried out? 

Dr. SCOTT: It will be carried out. 

Mr. PAULL: I would like to point out the possibilities of that regulation. 
The Provincial Government can sell any of this cut-off land to friends of theirs 
for a dollar, and the Indians will get 50 cents of that. There is no provision 
protecting the Indians at all. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Have you information of any case where that has 
happened, Mr. Paull? 

Mr. PAULL: No, but there is no provision protecting us. I have no vote and 
I am not criticising anybody s policy. I am glad that Mr. Stewart pginted that 
out to me, and in that connection I think I had better deal with the McKenna- 
McBride agreement. The agreement is that this shall be a final settlement. Now, 
we have always contended that conditions would be brought about just as the 
agreement says. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: It would be better for you to say that it is contended it 
was a final settlement of the reserve lands. 

Mr. PAULL: No, I cannot say that, Mr. Stewart. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: There is no final settlement by the Federal Govern 
ment for such other matters as educational matters, and otherwise? 

Mr. PAULL: The Deputy Minister of Justice gave an opinion that it was 
a final settlement. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: So far as lands for the reserves were concerned? 

Mr. PAULL: All matters in British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What is your objection to that? Let us know why 
you object to that term being used? 

Mr. PAULL: Because, by the actions of the Dominion and Provincial 
Governments, they have put to an end one of the provisions of the British North 
America Act; that is, article 13. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is not what I mean. Do you claim that this 
final settlement has injured you or injured your people? 

Mr. PAULL: Because they have not dealt with other matters that are 
of more concern to the Indians, such as foreshores, hunting, water-rights, and 
so forth. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think it is generally recognized that this does not 
deal with foreshores, water-rights and fisheries? 

Mr. PAULL: The agreement says that this shall be the final settlement 
of all matters pertaining to Indian Affairs, yet they do not touch upon matters 
that concern us. 

Dr. SCOTT: It is only contended that it is a final settlement as between 
the Dominion and the Province. 

[Andrew Paull. 1 



124 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: The point I want to make, Mr. Paull, is that there is 
no final settlement of definite amounts, either per capita or otherwise, for 
Indians from the Federal Government; that may be raised from time to time. 

Mr. PAULL: Do I understand you, then, even after the passing of the 
adoption of the report of this Commission, that the Dominion Government could 
go to the Provincial Government and operate the conditions of Article 13; 
that is, secure from the Province additional lands? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: When you confine it to the land question, I say yes. 
I want to make it clear that it is not final, so far as the responsibility of the 
Federal Government to the Indians is concerned. On the land question, yes. 

Mr. PAULL: But the trouble is this; that the Indians require other things 
that are only held by the Province and not by the Dominion. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That is all right; go on with that. 

Mr. PAULL: How can the Dominion procure from the Provincial Govern 
ment things that we will require in the future when the Dominion and the 
Province has agreed that this is final? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: So far as lands are concerned. 

Mr. PAULL: Not only lands, but everything. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: You are right in that respect. The Province of British 
Columbia say, " We are through now, there is nothing more we are going to do. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Tell us what your claim is; let us get some idea of what 
you want; fisheries, hunting, foreshores, and so on. Set them all out so that this 
Committee can have some idea of what your claims are. 

Mr. PAULL: The claims that are not being dealt with by this Commission, as 
I said; foreshores. Perhaps I might condense my statement if I read a state 
ment prepared and presented by James Teit, a white man who was associated 
with the Indians of British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What is the date of that? 

Mr. PAULL: 25th of July, 1920. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Presented to whom? 

Mr. PAULL: Presented to the Banking and Commerce Committee of the 
Senate in the year 1920. 

The CHAIRMAN: That includes all the claims you are now making? 
Mr. PAULL: That includes our objection to this Commission of 1912. Shall 
I read the material parts of this? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Would it not save time to have it handed in? 
Mr. PAULL: I would willingly do that. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Summarize it briefly. 
Mr. O MEARA: It is very short. 

Mr. PAULL: The Indians claim all foreshores fronting on Indian reserves. 
Is that what the Committee wants? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : Yes, that is exactly what we want. 

Mr. PAULL: That statement is briefly just what I am about to say. It is 
a carefully prepared statement 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Could you not put it in this way? The Indians claim 
all foreshore in front of Indian reserves; the reasons for that claim are to be 
found in this statement at pages so and so. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: On pages 30, 31 and 32. 
Statement of James Teit filed as follows: 

I want to read a statement here which was prepared by our late 
friend, Mr. J. A. Teit, in the spring of 1920, in Ottawa, to be presented to 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 125 

the Senate, but it was never delivered. The document has been preserved. 
I would like to just read parts of that. This applies to Conditions which 
. existed at that time, and refers to the conditions which exist now. "The 
Indians see nothing of real value for them in the work of the Royal Com 
mission. Their crying needs have not been met. The Commissioners did 
not fix up their hunting rights, fishing rights, water rights, and land rights, 
nor did they deal with the matter of reserves in a satisfactory manner. 
Their dealing with reserves has been a kind of manipulation to suit the 
whites, and not the Indians. All they have done is to recommend that 
about 47,000 acres of generally speaking good lands be taken from the 
Indians, and about 80,000 acres of generally speaking poor lands, be given 
in their place. A lot of the land recommended to be taken from the 
reserves has been coveted by whites for a number of years. Most of the 
80,000 acres additional lands is to be provided by the Province, but it 
seems the Indians are really paying for these lands. Fifty per cent of 
the value of the 47,000 acres to be taken from the Indians is to go to the 
Province, and it seems this amount will come to more than the value of 
the land the Province is to give the Indians. The Province loses nothing, 
the Dominion loses nothing, and the Indians are the losers. They get 
fifty per cent and lose fifty per cent on the 47,000 acres, but, as the 47,000 
acres is much more valuable land than the 80,000 they are actually losers 
by the work of the Commission." 

Now, this was the opinion arrived at by our late friend, and we attach 
a great deal of importance to statements that he prepared carefully. It 
is not a statement prepared by our general counsel, but by one who went 
carefully into the matter, and who strived to interpret the whole thing as 
he saw it, and that was his conclusion. Perhaps it is educational to read 
some more from this same document. There is another reference to Bill 
13, and I will read that. It will speak for itself, and I think it expresses 
the Indians viewpoint very accurately. 

" Bill 13 is to empower the Government of Canada to adopt the find 
ings of Royal Commission as a final adjustment of all lands to be reserved 
for the Indians. The McKenna-McBride Agreement, the Order in 
Council, the findings of the Royal Commission, and Bill 13, are all parts 
of a whole. The Order in Council states that the Indians shall accept the 
findings of the Royal Commission as approved by the Governments of the 
Dominion and the Province as a full allotment of reserve lands, and 
further, that the Province, by granting said reserves as approved, shall 
be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians against the Province. 
What chance will there be for the Indians in the future to get additional 
lands or a fair adjustment of all their rights, if Bill 13 is made law?" I 
simply read from the document. Mr. Scott has said Bill 13 is merely 
an enabling Act, giving the Government power to deal with British 
Columbia, and that the whole bargain is so advantageous to the Indians, 
that ihe Indian Department feels justified in backing it up. We are sorry 
the Indian Department is of this opinion, for it places it out of sympathy 
with us, and makes it appear to the Indians an instrument of oppression 
and injustice. 

The chief enabling the Indians see in the Bill is that of enabling the 
Government to take their lands without their consent. There may be some 
thing advantageous to the Government in the Bill, but certainly not to 
the Indians. 

Mr. PAULL: The reason the Indians claim foreshores on reserves in tidal 
waters is because the foreshore is just as necessary to the Indians as the 
reservation is. Up to about the year 1920 whenever foreshores fronting on 

[Andrew Paull.] 



126 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Indian reserves were required for public purposes, the consent of the Indians was 
always secured. The Vancouver Harbour Commissioners were given a quit 
claim deed in the year 1918, and the consent of the Superintendent General of 
Indian Affairs was first secured before that quit-claim deed was granted to the 
Vancouver Harbour Commissioners. We also claim ownership of foreshores, or 
water lots, fronting on reserves in the Interior, on non-tidal waters. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : Just say that again, what is it you claim on the in 
land waters? 

Mr. PAULL: Foreshores and water lots fronting on Indian reserves in the 
interior. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Riparian rights? 

Mr. PAULL: No, beyond riparian rights. Absolute beneficial ownership of 
the foreshores. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: What is the foreshore in non-tidal waters? 

Mr. PAULL: On lakes and rivers. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You mean between high and low waters? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: He means water lots, I take it. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: He said it was not that. He said he wants more than 
riparian rights, and I want to know what they mean. 

Mr. PAULL: Riparian rights mean that the Indian would only have the 
right of access. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: What do you want? 

Mr. PAULL: We want to have all the rights beyond that. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Do you want the land under the water? 

Mr. PAULL: No. We want to be allowed, I suppose, to establish whatever 
we want on the foreshores 1 of the reserve. If we did not have that right there 
would be nothing to prevent anyone from establishing some industry or nuisance 
fronting on the Indian Reserve. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: I do not want to get into an argument with you, but if 
the Indians; have the land down to the water s edge, where there is no rise and 
fall of tide, how can anyone establish anything in front of it? 

Mr. PAULL: Perhaps somebody is liable to come in there and put something 
there that the Indiansi object to. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: They cannot do it without being trespassers on the 
reserve. 

Mr. PAULL: Perhaps I am mistaken in giving an expression in that regard. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Presumably what they want is the riparian rights and 
the water lots, whatever they might be, in front of the reserves. There is no 
such thing as foreshores on lakes; there might be, I suppose, between high and 
low water, but really the term does not apply to a lake or river. What they 
want really is unimpaired riparian rights, so that no one can put an obstruction 
on the water lots. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: Up to the present you only have the fear of that being 
done to you? 

Mr. PAULL: Fear of what? 

Mr. MCPHERSON: Of somebody interfering. 

Mr. PAULL: No, we have experienced it already in North Vancouver. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: I am talking of interior waters. 

Mr. PAULL: No, we have not experienced anything in non-tidal waters. 
The province says that the Indians only have riparian rights and we want to go 
beyond that. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 127 

Hon. Mr. BAENAED: I was trying to find out what you want in non-tidal 
water?. You say that you want to go beyond riparian rights; what do you 
want? 

Mr. PAULL: Absolute beneficial interest in the water lots. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Lands under the water? 

Mr. PAULL: In non-tidal waters, in many instances, by some action of the 
provincial government, the stream is diverted and the result is that erosion is 
caused by some action of the local authorities. Now, if we owned siome part of 
the water adjoining the Indian reserve, when the water is diverted and en 
croachment occurs on what is formerly the Indian reserve, we could still 
maintain beneficial ownership of that part of the reserve which is now covered 
by water. I know of a case in Squamish where the provincial government 
diverted the course of a big river and wiped out a big parcel of our reserve. 
We want water for irrigation purposes in the interior. The Commissioners oi 
1878 gave so many inches of water to the reserve, but by some Act of the 
provincial government that was taken away from the Indians and the Indians 
in the interior are now at the mercy of the local authorities as to the amount 
of water they can secure from the streams, many of which run over their own 
reserves. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Just now we are in litigation with the mining com 
panies. The Indians^ have signed away rights, which I personally think they 
should not have done and do not propose to let them do, by which they have 
been deprived of their water rights. We are standing by that, I may say. 
That is what the Commission of 1912 stated that they discovered that water 
rights were allotted to the Indians, but they spoke of it in the same way as 
they spoke about the fisheries. 

Mr. DiTCHBrRN: When these reserves were allotted by the Reserve Com 
missioners, they made certain water lots. They found, however,, under the 
agreement between the Dominion government and the province that water was 
not mentioned; that these Commissioners were merely instructed to set aside the 
land as reserves under the agreement. They found there was nothing in the Act 
allowing them to set aside water for the Indians, consequently they made certain 
allotments. An Indian could not take up water in the olden days, and the Com 
missioners did the best they could with the water allotments with the allotment 
of land. It was taken for granted that they had some value, but under the British 
Columbia Water Act these water allotments had no status whatever, and the 
only way an Indian can get water is by way of license under the provision of 
the British Columbia Water Act. 

Dr. SCOTT: I think, Mr. Ditchburn should go on and explain what has been 
done with reference to the water lots; he should complete his statement to show 
what the Department of British Columbia and the government, working together, 
have been able to do. These matters are practically settled now. There are a 
few cases 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Would it not be better to let Mr. Paull get along with 
his statement now? 

The WITNESS: The trouble is that the Indians are not satisfied with the 
conditions as they prevail now. At the moment we are governed by provincial 
statute. Now, it, is hardly possible for a representative of the Indians of British 
Columbia to confine the statement I am troubled in my mind with what I shall 
say in order to please this committee, and I want to be at liberty to say, as I 
see it 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Just present your troubles, Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Tell us your troubles as they exist now; not as they 
existed twelve or twenty years ago. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



128 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The WITNESS: The trouble is that twelve or twenty years ago these con 
ditions which exist to-day were brought about as the result of conditions then. 
We want hunting rights and fis hing rights recognized. I dealt with the fishing 
rights last Thursday. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. When you say you want hunting rights recognized, state briefly what you 
want. A. We want to be allowed to hunt in all unorganized districts. 

Q. Of course, you recognize, or you ought to recognize, and I hope the com 
mittee will recognize, that that is impossible. Supposing the Indians were given 
carte blanche to hunt at any season in any way they liked, in any unorganized 
territory, it would result in the game being more or less destroyed in a very short 
time. We might as well come to grips on that now; it is hopeless. A. I have 
in mind the northern interior where the Indians absolutely depend on the hunt 
ing and trapping for their existence; they should be allowed to hunt all the year 
round, because that is the only way they can exist. 

Q. Well, it depends on the methods. I would not object to a prospector, 
or an Indian getting food. That is recognized in our province already. I know 
I spent six months in the mountain? and lived off what we could shoot, but to 
have unlimited rights to hunt as you like at all times is another question. A. 
Now, the IncKans in that part of the country had trap lines which were handed 
down from generation to generation, and which were always recognized by the 
Indians as being the property of particular Indians, but the trouble is the sett 
lers go in there and take these trap lines, and the result is the Indian is pro 
secuted for coming in conflict with the white man who took his trap lines. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Mr. Paull, can you not register the trap lines the same as the white 
man? A. I suppose we could. 

Q. Would that not settle the whole difficulty? 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Is not the claim you are putting up now both in regard to the trap lines 
and the hunting that you claim on behalf of the Indians the right to trap and 
hunt in unorganized territory in utter disregard of any provincial regulation? 
A. I do not know that we could, Mr. Stevens. However, that might be reason 
able. 

Q. Let us put it the other way. Are you satisfied to have the privilege of 
hunting and trapping in this unorganized provincial territory, subject to the 
regulations of the province? A. I don t know what those regulations of the 
province are, Mr. Stevens. 

Q. Put it this way; subject to the same restrictions and regulations as are 
imposed upon the white men in the same territory? A. I would readily agree 
to that for trapping for commercial purposes. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I interrupt for a moment, hon. gentlemen? 

Hon. Mr. MCLKNNAN: I suggest we let Mr. Paull go on. 

The WITNESS: We would consent to be governed by the regulations for 
commercial purposes, but where it is necessary to kill game for our livelihood, 
we should be allowed to do it. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. There is a very generous provision in British Columbia for men white 
men or Indians killing for food ; it has always been recognized. A. Just a week 
before I left two Indians were fined $25 for killing a deer for food. 

Q. The chances are they did not require it very badly. 

[Andrew Paull.l 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 129 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Where was that? A. On the Saanich River. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is very near to civilization. 

The WITNESS: They had no money to get their meat from a butcher shop. 
Two years ago Indians went to the game warden and were told they did not 
need a permit as long as they were Indians; that they would be all right; and 
they operated under that misunderstanding That news was spread around 
among the Saanich Indians 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: There is the danger of the very thing you are asking; 
if they had secured a permit they would have been all right. 

The WITNESS: They were told they did not need a permit. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: That is organized territory; anything south of the 53rd is 
organized territory. 

The WITNESS: These regulations are enacted by the provincial government, 
and the Indians are not acquainted with these regulations. It must be under 
stood that at least 90 per cent of the Indians of British Columbia cannot read 
nor write. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Mr. Paull, just so that we will be clear on this; my understanding has 
been that the unrestricted hunting for food not for commercial purposes was 
largely confined to the northern territory. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Unorganized districts. 



By Hon. Mr. kt 

Q. Hunting in the unorganized districts, and the claim is that they should 
not be restricted there. That is right? Or do you want that all over the whole 
province. A. For the whole province. There is a provincial statute to the 
effect that no one can shoot within 500 yards of any dwelling; that operates in 
organized districts. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is for the reasonable protection of human life. 
We cannot consider waiving a regulation of that kind. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: What I am trying to get at, Mr. Stevens, so as to be 
clear on it and if I am wrong I want to be corrected but my understanding 
was tnat it was confined to the northern territory, where it was unrestricted, but 
that the Indians were willing to abide by the game regulations in the southern 
part of the province. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. Paull now complains of a case within 30 miles of 
the city of Vancouver in an organized district, where there are scores and 
hundreds of white settlers where two Indians were arrested for shooting in 
that district, and this, he complains, is an invasion of what he says is an 
Indian s inherent right. I submit that this committee cannot for a moment 
consider a privilege of that kind. 

The WITNESS: The reason that is brought about is because the government 
of Canada has said they have settled everything, and I am illustrating these 
different matters which have not been settled. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Very good, Mr. Paull, but I want to make it clear that 
as far as I am concerned, we cannot for a moment consider that as a reasonable 
claim. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: The same condition is prevailing right across Canada 
in the provinces which control their natural resources, and indeed, in the prairie 
provinces. The price of fur has gone up so materially in recent years that the 

[Andrew Paull. 1 
423259 



130 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

white men are becoming very aggressive hunter?. Formerly, the Indians were 
practically unmolested, but now they are being crowded out. That is a matter 
upon which we are working in British Columbia, and in the rest of the provinces 
of Canada. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think every effort should be made to help the Indians 
in unorganized territory; I agree to that, within reason, but not to the extent 
suggested by Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN : And to protect his trap lines from improper inter 
ference from white men. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That can be done by registration. 
Hon. Mr. STEWART: I think when we come to consider the matter, we can 
throw considerable light on the whole thing. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Surely. 

By Mr. McPherson; 

Q. What you want is unrestricted hunting rights all over British Columbia, 
especially in the unorganized districts? A. Yes. 

Q. You have -that right there now, but you also want it in the organized 
districts? A. Yes. 

By PI on. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Can you tell us more about the fishing rights in tidal waters? What was 
taken a.way from you from your foreshore from your rights of the foreshore? 
A. For fishing? 

Q. For anything that interferes with the rights you believe you ought to 
have. A. The province of British Columbia does not recognize that the Indians 
have any foreshore rights, and they refuse to allow that. The only foreshore 
upon which we could hope to come to some agreement, is the foreshore in 
public harbours; that comes under the jurisdiction of the Dominion. We hope 
to come to some understanding with the Dominion on that, but it is almost 
hopeless to expect any concessions in that respect from the province. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. When a foreshore is sold in a public harbour by the Dominion, do the 
Indians get any of the purchase money? A. In earlier days, the Indians were 
getting all the money accruing from the sale of the foreshore I am speaking 
of the Saanich Indians foreshore but the Quit Claim Deed issued by the 
Dominion government in 1918 allows them only to receive 50 per cent of the 
net rental, whereas in former years we got 100 per cent from anything accruing 
from the sale of our foreshore. 

Q. Who gets the other 50 per cent? A. The Vancouver Harbour Board. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The Saanich, of course, was a provincial matter. 

The WITNESS: Is there any further question on that? Now, Section eight 
of the McKenna-McBride agreement provides that new reserves be set aside 
from existing Crown lands at this time. The Indians contend that there was 
insufficient area of Crown land made available to the Commission at that time; 
consequently parcels of land, which the Indians asked for in their representa 
tions to the Commission, could not be procured for them. We object to the fact 
that these cut-offs as recommended by the Commission, are to be taken away 
from us without our consent. The original thing under the McKenna-McBride 
agreement was that they could only be sold with the consent of the Indians. 
Now, since the law of 1920, these cut-offs can be taken away from us without 
our consent. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 131 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Did you have an opportunity of appearing before the Commission when 
it was sitting? A. Yes. 

Q. And did you have full opportunity of presenting your views? A. (To 
present our views as regards the matters they asked for. 

Q. Did you present any views on this point? A. This agreement was not 
before us. 

Q. On this point, of reduced acreage of the reserves? A. They discussed 
that, but we did not want any of our existing reserves taken away, and in 
addition to that, we asked for new reserves. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Did they give you any compensation for what they took? A. Not yet. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: They are to get it when they are disposed of. 

The WITNESS: Now, I would like to ask the committee if it is within the 
powers of this committee to deal with a great error that the Commission made 
in their report. Perhaps Mr. Stevens will know of this. The Commission 
reported that the Capilano Reserve was surrendered, whereas it was never 
surrendered, but it was recorded that it was surrendered, and I would appeal to 
this committee to take such action as will show the province that it was not 
surrendered. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I am inclined to agree with the Indians that it was 
never surrendered, so I am with you very much on that. 

The WITNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I never did believe it was properly surrendered. 

The WITNESS: Perhaps I may deal with what we rely on in support of 
our claim of aboriginal title to a limited extent. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. That is the agreement you have these are major agreements? A. 
These are some of them. 

Mr. HAY: Let us deal with them. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Perhaps I could help him for the moment. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Would you agree that this memorandum by Kelly and Teit entitled 
"Conditions as proposed as basis of settlement," as appearsi on pages 36, 37 
and 38 of the report of the proceedings of this committee, contain in detail 
your claims? A. Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: If he will agree to that, we have the whole thing in 
our hands. 

The WITNESS: I agree to that, but we made some further additions to that, 
Mr. Stevens. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Let us have further additions, and then we will have the whole thing 
complete. A. Now, the additional demands we make are embodied in Appendix 
H of the appendices submitted by Doctor Scott, on page 65 . 

Q. What part of that? A. It starts on page 67- 

Q. Entitled "Fishing Rights, Hunting, Timber, Funded Money, Pelagic 
Sealing, Education, Medical Attendance and Hospitals? A. Yes. 

Q. With the addition of these, it represents your claims? A. Yes. 

[Andrew Paull.] 
42325 9} 



132 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That will give us the whole thing. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Yes, that abbreviates matters considerably. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Is there anything more you wish to say? A. I would like to say how 
we support our claim for aboriginal title. In the first place we claim we have 
a beneficial interest in the soil, because of the fact that we are the aborigines 
of the country. That has never been disputed, and it is recognized, and we 
have never ceded title in this country. .Now, in support of that, we base our 
claim on the opinion expressed by the Minister of Justice in 1875. We are 
not in agreement with the mode of dealing with the Indians which was related 
by Dr. Scott in his memorandum. That is, that the ways and means of how 
these Indians would be compensated for the extinguishment of their title was 
.decided by an Order in Council, or that it was embodied in the Commission 
of Commissioners to visit the Indians. We are not in agreement with that 
system. The terms should be arrived at by negotiation. We respectfully submit 
that that has been the policy of the Imperial Government in connection with 
British Columbia, and in support of that contention may I be permitted to 
read a short despatch by Lord Carnarvon. On the llth of April, 1859, Lord 
Carnarvon wrote Governor Douglas: 

I am glad to perceive that you have directed the attention of the 
House to that interesting and important subject, the relation of Her 
Majesty s Government iind of the Colonies to the Indian race. Proofs 
are, unhappily, still too frequent of the neglect which Indians experience 
when the white men obtain possession of their country. Their claims 
to consideration are forgotten at the moment when equity most demands 
that the hand of the protector should be extended to help them. In the 
case of the Indians of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, Her 
Majesty s Government earnestly wishes that when the advancing require 
ments of colonization bear upon lands occupied by members of that 
race, measures of liberality should be adopted for compensation to them 
for the territory which they have been taught to regard as their own. 

Now I want to quote an important paragraph, from the opinion 
of the Minister of Justice in 1875 in that connection. It appears at page 
40 of the proceedings of Wednesday, March 30th. 

The undersigned believes that he is correct in stating, that with one 
slight exception as to land in Vancouver Island, surrendered to the Hudson 
Bay Company, which makes the absence of others the more remarkable, 
no surrender of lands in that province has ever been obtained from 
the Indian tribes inhabiting it, and that any reservations which have 
been made, have been arbitrary on the part of the government, and 
without the assent of the Indians themselves, and though the policy 
of obtaining surrenders at this lapse of time, and under the altered 
circumstances of the Province, may be questionable, yet the under 
signed feels it his duty to assert such legal or equitable claim as may be 
found to exist on the part of the Indians. 

Now, this is the important part: 

There is not a shadow of doubt, that from the earliest times, England 
has always felt it imperative to meet the Indians in council, and to 
obtain surrenders of tracts of Canada, as from time to time such were 
required for the purposes of settlement. 

What I want to emphasize in that paragraph is that England has always 
been prepared to meet the Indians in Council. That would appear not to 
be in accordance wfith what Dr. Scott mentioned a? being the system in Canada. 

[Andrew Paull.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 133 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Mr. Paull, may I ask you were not those meetings with the Indians 
that were held by Governor Douglas, and that you referred us to the other day, 
instances of meeting the Indians in Council, in British Columbia? A. It is pos 
sible that that is one instance. But I do not think it would meet the situation 
if the Government of the day was, by Order in Council, without consulting the 
Indians, just to set out what should be their conditions of settlement. We 
respectfully submit that we should be given the privilege of submitting our views 
upon any particular case. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Let me ask you one or two questions on this, Mr. Paull. You have made 
very extensive researches? A. Yes. 

Q. As you gave evidence to us the other day? A. Yes. 

Q. And, I may say very valuable researches. Is it not true, that up until 
recently, the Indians have always discussed with the Dominion and Provincial 
authorities their rights on the basis of the adequacy or otherwise of the area of 
their reserves; that is, that the reserve was too small or too large, as the case 
may be? A. Yes. 

Q. That has been the basis until Mr. O Meara advanced before Parliament 
and other bodies the claim of the aboriginal title to the whole of British 
Columbia? A. No, I think the Indians took steps before that. 

Q. Will you point out when, please? A. In 1906, Chief Joe Capilano and 
two other chiefs waited on His late Majesty, King Edward VII. 

Q. Yes, I remember that? A. And he was told by some authority in Eng 
land, that he should go back to Canada, and take this matter up with the Cana 
dian Government, and if you cannot get satisfaction there, come back to us, 
and we will take it up. 

Q. Have you any record of that? Anything you can put in as evidence of 
that? A. Only this, that Chie f Joe Capalino told me that himself. 

Q. I remember the occasion, and I knew Chief Capalino very well, but you 
could hardly call that evidence upon which to base a claim for aboriginal title, 
could you? A. No, no. The reason I say that I got that from Chief Joe 
Capalino is, because I was groomed in my young days to be his successor, and he 
would speak to me more confidentially and earnestly than he would to anybody 
else. 

Q. But prior to that, the adjustments were alwaj^s made on the basis of 
their reserved areas? A. Well, to be plain; the Indians for some reason or other, 
the older people, had some feeling and they had absolute faith in the Queen. 
They said, " The Queen will do this for us, you are not treating us right. And the 
Queen said it would be this way or that way." 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Do we gather from your remarks that no recommendation, no matter on 
what generous lines it might be, from this Committee, and if concurred in by 
both Houses, would not meet with your approval unless you were consulted? 
A. If the conditions were arbitrary to what we have submitted, then, we would 
not be in a position to agree with them. We have always said we are willing to 
come to some amicable understanding. 

By Mr. McPheryon: 

Q. Providing all the terms you suggest are met? A. That is a pretty sweep 
ing statement to make. I think we have said in our petition that we would not 
be unreasonable. 

Mr. HAY: I was absent the other day, Mr. Chairman, may I ask if all the 
tribes are agreed among themselves? 

[Andrew Paul). I 



134 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, from what has been said. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, they are not. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. When I made that remark, Mr. Paull, I did not mean to be arbitrary; 
but I gathered this, that unless all the terms are as outlined to-day in the printed 
record, you a re not in a position to agree to them? A. I think we may make 
some modifications if we are shown that it cannot be got or is not a reasonable 
claim. 

Q. Take that hunting claim, for instance. Don t you realize personally, 
that it is impossible to throw the organized territory open to indiscriminate 
hunting as a matter of safety only? A. We recognize that. We would not ask 
to hunt in the city of Vancouver, or close to it. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. But the only reason would be because there is nothing to shoot? A. 
That would be a reason. 

By Hon. Air. McLennan: 

Q. Another fact I gather, Mr. Paull, is that even if you agreed with this 
Committee, it would not follow that all the Tribes in British Columbia would 
be bound by what you agreed to? A. Mr. Kelly has made several statements 
here in that connection, and in, some documents that we have presented to the 
Government, it is said that we would be willing to accept something reasonable, 
and perhaps it would be well for Mr. Kelly to deal with that himself, since he 
has made that statement to the Premier, and to the Hon. Charles Stewart in the 
past. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Have you finished your statement Mr. Paull? A. I have almost 
finished, sir. I wish in support of our claim for aboriginal title to read from the 
statement of the Minister of Justice at page 43. It is part of the same statement 
that I have previously quoted from, 

Considering then, these several features of the case, that no surrender 
or cession of their territorial rights, whether the same be of a legal or 
equitable nature, has been ever executed by the Indian tribes of the 
Province that they allege that the reservations of land made by the 
Government for their use, have been arbitrarily so made, and are totally 
inadequate to their support and requirements, and without their assent 
that they are not averse to hostilities in order to enforce rights which it 
is impossible to deny them, and that the Act under consideration, not 
only ignores those rights, but expressly prohibits the Indians from enjoy 
ing the rights of recording or pre-empting lands, except by consent of the 
Lieutenant-Governor; the undersigned feels that he cannot do otherwise 
than advise that the Act in question is objectionable, as tending to an 
assumption which completely ignores, as applicable to the Indians of 
British Columbia, the honour and good faith with which the Crown has, 
in all other cases, since its sovereignly of the territories in North America, 
dealt with their various Indian tribes. 

The undersigned would also refer to the British North America Act, 
1867, section 109, applicable to British Columbia, which enacts in effect 
that all lands belonging to the province shall belong to the province, sub 
ject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest, other 
that that of the province, in the same. 

Now, I further contend that that opinion given in J875 has been supported 
by a decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney General for the 

[Andrew Paull.l 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 135 

Dominion of Canada, appellant, vs. Attorney General for Ontario, respondent, 
and the Attorney General for Quebec Appellant, vs Attorney General for Ontario, 
Respondent. This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, reported in 
Law Reports appeal cases 1897, at page 199. In this case sections 109, 111, and 
112 of the British North America Act were dealt with, but for the purpose of my 
case, I refer only to Section 109 as their lordships deal with it. I am now reading 
an extract from the judgment of their lordships, delivered by Lord Watson,, at 
page 210, last paragraph. (Reading) : 

The expressions subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof? and 
subject to any interest other than that of the province? appear to their 
lordships to be intended to refer to different classes of right, their lord 
ships are not prepared to hold that the word " trust " was meant by the 
legislature to be strictly limited to such proper trusts as a court of equity 
would undertake to administer; but, in their opinion, it must at least have 
been intended to signify the existence of a contractual or legal duty, in 
cumbent upon the holder of the beneficial estate or its proceeds, to make 
payment out of one or other of these, if the debt due to the creditor to 
whom that duty ought to be fulfilled. 

On the other hand, "an interest other than that of the province in the 
same " appears to them to denote some right or interest in a third party, 
independent of and capable of being vindicated in competition with the 
beneficial interest of the old province. 

We contend, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of the Committee, that that 
decision supports the decision of the Minister of Justice, in 1875. 

Now, we also know that the Crown has dealt with the natives of the country 
in a fair way by recognizing the native title, such as in Canada east of the 
Rockies. That has been recognized in New Zealand also, and the native title is 
recognized in Southern Nigeria. 

These are just a few of the principal reasons with which we can support our 
claim. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Is that all you wish to say, Mr. Paull? A. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That 
concludes my presentation of my case. 

The CHAIRMAN : If it is the pleasure of the Committee we might hear Mr. 
Maclntyre now and get through with him. It is as the Committee wishes. Mr. 
Maclntyre, will you state to the Committee what you have to say? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as counsel 
for the interior Tribes only, I have a few remarks to make. As I have explained 
to the Chairman on a previous occasion, when the Indian chiefs appear before a 
council or authority, and bring a counsel with them, the most that they expect 
of their counsel is to sit and look wise, and advise them when they request him to 
do eo. They never expect him to orate at all; they do that for themselves. So 
my instructions are just to make a few remarks, so as to place the chiefs whom 
I represent before you. 

But, in the first place, Mr. Chairman, I should clear up the question of who 
represents the Tribes of the interior. I will only require one or two minutes to do 
that. Mr. Paull I think his name is, hag assumed that he represents certainly 
some of the Okanagan tribes. Now, there is nothing to be gained by simply 
contradicting that, but I may say that having lived for a quarter of a century 
adjacent to and in confidential council with these Tribes and I may mention 
two or three of the prominent counsel, the late Mr. Dennis Murphy, and the 
present Mr. Stewart Murphy, and Mr. James Henderson, and other counsel who, 
like myself had represented the Indians of the interior right through to Prince 
George, I have assumed that we have represented them and I can say that during 

[A. D. Maclntyro 1 



136 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

all those years, I have never in my life-time seen Mr. Paull or the Reverend 
Mr. Kelly. They may have been in Kamloops, but that is all I know about it. 
I have here a list of the Indian chiefs whom I have represented, over their own 
signatures by the three chiefs and an additional chief who came with them this 
time. I have promised to give this to the secretary. If the Committee wishes, 
I can rapidly go over it. There are 29 chiefs altogether. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Just hand in the list. The names mean nothing. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I have already handed it in. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: 29 of them, you say? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Yes, sir, 29. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Could you tell about how many people are repre 
sented by those 29? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Or rather, I suppose you mean bands and reserves. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Yes. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: That is what I mean. The 29 represent, as far as I can 
make out, 29 reserves. But what I suppose the hon. Senator meant was, that 
they are separate reserves, and not two chiefs in one locality. Now, this list 
represents reserves reaching from Port George away at the north, right down to 
the American boundary, and practically the whole of the interior. 

Mr. HAY: How many people? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I cannot give you the number. 

Mr. HAY: One thousand? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I have not the faintest idea. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That includes all the Indians from Fort George, down 
the Thompson and the Lillooet? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: East to the coast range? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: That is about it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And the Kamloops and Okanagans? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Most assuredly, the Okanagans. 

The CHAIRMAN: There is a letter that has been placed in my hands which 
I want to read to the Committee. (Reading) : 

OLIVER, B.C., Mar. 16, 1927. 

DUNCAN C. SCOTT, 

Department of Indian Affairs, 
Ottawa, Ont. 

DEAR SIR: I have heard John Chillihitza has gone to Ottawa but I 
do not know the object of his going. 

I wish to inform you that he is not representing the Indian Tribes 
from the interior of British Columbia, but he might be a representative 
from the Shuswap tribe. 

Last May I asked him what was his purpose of going to Ottawa but 
wouldn t give me an answer or explain his reason for going. 

Yours truly, 

NARCISSE BATISE, 
Committee of Interior Tribes, Oliver, B.C. 

[A. D. Mnclntyre.l 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 137 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Dr. Scott showed me that letter and I was aware of such 
a letter being in existence. I told Dr. Scott, and he ought to have known himself 
that Chief Narcisse Batise, is an obscure chief down there and represents nobody 
but himself. The existence of his protests against Johnnie Chillihitza has been 
known for some four or five years. I would like to ask if he is the Chief that 
was put on to this Allied Committee as representing the Indian Tribes; may I 
ask if that is the case? Dr. Scott would be able to tell me. 

Mr. KELLY: I think, as Chairman of the Executive Committee cf the Allied 
Tribes, that it is my duty to answer such a question. The purpose of the 
formation of the Executive Committee of the Allied Tribes was to bring before 
the Government such grievances as have been brought before this Committee. 
On that Executive Committee were represented all the Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia, from every part of the interior of British Columbia, and they have 
never repudiated their membership on that Executive Committee to this day, 
except by a letter which was sent out by Chief John Chillihitza, not over the 
signatures of these chiefs, but simply with their names written down by the 
interpreter for Chief Johnnie Chillihitza. That is what has been done. They 
have never repudiated; those tribes who became members of the Allied Indian 
Tribes have never repudiated their membership. 

Mr. HAY: Are they now represented? 

Mr. KELLY: They have never repudiated. 

Mr. HAY: Have you had any indication now that they are repudiated? 

Mr. KELLY: Nothing at all, except what has been brought before us by this 
gentleman. I take it that this Committee, which is the High Court of Parlia 
ment, has been constituted to consider the petition of the Allied Tribes of British 
Columbia, and if these Tribes which Mr. Maclntyre represents are not members 
of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia, then I contend they have no business 
to be here. 

Mr. MACIXTYRE: I would like to ask Mr. Kelly how many tribes of the 
interior he represents. 

Mr. KELLY: We have filed a list with the Secretary. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Did you have the signatures of any of them? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. At the formation of our Executive Committee they were 
present. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: What year was that? 

Mr. KELLY: In the year 1916. We have the signatures of Chief Johnnie 
Chillihitza and Chief Basil David, who are the leading Chiefs of the interior. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: That was in 1916? 

Mr. KELLY: Exactly. 

Mr. MAC!XTYRE: Did you have any connection with them, so to speak, since 
1916? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. 

Mr. MAC!XTYRE: Where and when? 

Mr. KELLY: In North Vancouver, when their alliance was made. There 
were certain tribes who were not in the alliance and they came into the alliance, 
and at that meeting these two chiefs were present who are here this morning. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: What year was that? 

Mr. KELLY: I think it was in January, 1922. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I will just recall it to you, so as to make it clear; there 
was a meeting took place in Vancouver three or four years ago at which the Hon. 
Minister, Dr. Scott and Mr. Ditchburn were present. Now, was there not some 
sort of a Committee struck at that time on which Mr. Alex. Leonard was put? 

[A. IX Maclntyre.] 



138 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. KELLY: There was no committee struck. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: When was Alex. Leonard put on? 

Mr. KELLY: June, 1919. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Is he a Chief? 

Mr. KELLY: I am not prepared to say; he was a representative of his people. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I will differ with you there, but we will not argue on that 
point. What about Narcisse Batise? 

Mr. KELLY: He is a son of Chief George Batise. 

Mr. MAcI:N 7 TYRE: Is he on the Committee? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: That is two. Were there any others representing the 
Tribes of the interior? 

Mr KELLY: Chief Thomas Adolp he. 

Mr. MAC!NTYKE: Is he actually a chief? 

Mr. KELLY: Actually a chief. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: These three, you say, represent the Tribes from the 
interior? 

Mr. KELLY: No, Chief Stephen Retachet is also another member. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Where does he live? 

Mr. KELLY: He is also from the Lillooet district. 

Mr. MAG!NTYRE: Mr. Minister, I propose making you acquainted with what 
actually took place at this meeting, because you were there. A circular was sent 
out, as I reminded Mr. Ditchburn only last evening, calling a meeting down 
there. Chief Johnnie Chillihitza was very much worried, as Mr. Kelly properly 
stated, and the other man 

Mr. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I contend that if Mr. Maclntyre is here on 
any kind of business from that of our petition, he has no right to take up the 
time of this Committee which was appointed for one specific purpose, to con 
sider the petition of the Allied Tribes of British Columbia. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Mr. Kelly is explaining to you why this Committee was 
appointed and what its duties were. 

Mr. HAY: Is there any difference between these inland Tribes and the 
coastal Tribes? 

Mr. KELLY: I would like to say this and explain that there is no difference. 

Mr. HAY: I do not think we are concerned as to local differences between 
these Tribes. 

Mr. KELLY: I would like to say that there has been agitation by several 
factions from the interior 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: This is altogether out of order and I object. I have not 
interrupted any other speakers nor attempted to butt in. 

The CHAIRMAN: I think you had better let Mr. Maclntyre finish what he 
has to say. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: On the way down to that meeting in Vancouver I met 
Chief Johnnie Chillihitza, he had hurried away from important engagements in 
his harvest fields, so to speak. I met him at Spence s Bridge and on finding out 
that Mr. Maclntyre was on his way down there on Mr. Maclntyre s own 
business, he asked me to call on the Minister, Mr. Stewart, and explain that 
the Indian Tribes of the interior wished to be represented only by their own 
men. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: This is in 1922? 

[A. D. Maclntyre.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 139 

Mr. MACI.XTYRE: I think it was 1923. I could not give you the date exactly, 
but it was a very important meeting. The Minister, or Dr. Scott, or Mr. Ditch- 
burn can give you the exact date. Mr. Maclntyre went down there and met 
Alex. Leonard. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Is that yourself? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVFNS: Then say "I". 

Mr. MAC!NTYRF: I met Mr. Alex. Leonard down there. He is one of the 
most efficient interpreters in the country. He has never got above the grade of 
Captain, and consequently the Indian Chiefs would no more think of putting 
him _ on as their representative on a Committee than the Minister would of 
putting his stenographer, no matter how efficient the stenographer might be. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is this man an Indian? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: He is a half-breed, but he ranks as an Indian, because 
he lives on the reserve. He has obtained the rank of Captain, but has never 
got to be a sub-chief, or anything like that. He was sent down on that occasion 
with merely a watching brief to find out and report exactly what occurred; 
that was his sole purpose. I met him on the street and asked where the meeting 
was to take place. I took the trouble to go around to this meeting and sent a 
note in to Dr. Scott, whom I had met repeatedly before and with whom I was 
on very friendly terms, acquainting him with the fact that Chief Johnnie 
Chillihitza found it impossible to come down and was worried at to what had 
taken place and had asked Mr. Maclntyre to see the Minister and to lay before 
him three medals which he is very proud to wear. These medals were presented 
to him by different, individuals ; one by Queen Victoria, and one by His Holiness, 
the Pope. Mr. Maclntyre sent in notes twice to Dr. Scott asking for an inter 
view with the Minister, but found it impossible to get, and accordingly had 
to leave the meeting. I think it was that same evening that Mr. Maclntyre 
took the trouble to find out 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Why don t you say "I?" 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What has all this got to do with the business of the 
Committee, who presented medals or who wears them? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I want to put the Chief, who is to present his grievances 
to you, in the proper position and to show why he did not present these griev 
ances before. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Who is this Chief? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Chief Johnnie Chillihitza. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is he here? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Could we not hear him? 

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee understands the situation. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: The majority of the matters brought before you by the 
coast Indians do not concern the Interior Indians at all. They were careful to 
draw up a list. The first one is in regard to the foreshores. So far as the 
interior Indians are concerned, we are not bothered about that. No. 2; further 
land grants by the B.C. Government. We do not understand what that means. 
No. 3; Unrestricted rights to take fish for food purposes. They claim that. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Who claim that? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: The interior Indians claim that. No. 4; full rights to 
fish for commercial purposes off the foreshores of Indian reserves. We are net 
concerned with that. No. 5; rights for commercial fishing without license fee. 
We are not concerned with that. No. 6; right to secure license for purse and 

[A. D. Maclntyre.] 



140 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

seine fishing at half usual fee. We are not concerned with that. No. 7; right 
to cut timber outside of reserves for fuel and for the manufacture of canoes 
They are allowed to do that, so really they do not find it necessary to trouble 
the Committee about it. No. 8; amendment of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty. We 
are not concerned with that. No. 9; Ample water for irrigation purposes. What 
they require is the water pertinent to the land, especially in the dry belt. This 
is the most serious one. There was a concrete case which was called to the 
Minister s attention a week or two ago. This was close to the Kamloops reserve, 
through which the Canadian National runs. This is a very old reserve, and for 
hundreds of years the Skidam Creek has been pertinent to that. Nearby is the 
valuable ranch, known as The Harbour Ranch, owned by the old Hunter people. 
Within the last two or three years, the water rights of the Indians have been 
absolutely taken away by the local Provincial Water Board, upon the ground 
that the right was granted to the Harbour Ranch in priority to the Indians. 
It startled everybody, but there is the position. That is all I have to say on 
that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Dili they ever use that for irrigation purposes? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Right along. 

Mr. DiTCHBrRN: That was a decision of the Court of Appeal of British 
Columbia. 

Mr. MAC!NTYEE: Was that case appealed from? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: The Court of Appeal decided that case. The Water 
Board gave the Indians priority. 

Mr. MAC!XTYRE: I think you are mistaken. 

The CHAIRMAN : That is right. 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: They gave priority over the ranch and the Ranch Com 
pany appealed against it. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Over the Harbour Ranch? 

Mr. DITCHBX T RN: Yes. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: And then it went to the Court of Appeal? 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: Yes. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: It was on the evidence of James Todd that they lost the 
right, but it must have been the way it was brought up before the Board that 
caused the Board to give that decision. But at any rate, Mr. Ditchburn will 
admit that the Indians of the Kamloops reserve have lost that right? 

Mr. DITCHBURN : That is right. 

Mr. MAC!NTYKE: It was simply a rank outrage. We are interested in 
No. 9. No. 10; Unrestricted right to hunting and trapping and hunting areas 
to be reserved where necessary. They claim that also. No. 11; Extension of 
the present school facilities. They are completely satisfied. No. 12; Free 
medical and hospital attention. They get a fair amount of that, so that does 
not concern them. No. 13; Sufficient grazing areas. This is a very important 
matter in the upper interior and the dry belt; they are not getting a square deal 
there. No. 14; Mother s and Widow s pension. They a.re not concerned with 
that. No. 15; Cash compensation. They do not quite understand what the 
other Committee is driving at. No. 16; Reimbursement of about $100,000 spent. 
They do not quite understand that. I have named those that these Indians are 
specially concerned with. 

There is one question that I can explain more easily than the Indians; that is, 
as to tenure in the land. 

Hon. Air. MURPHY: You mean aboriginal title? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I am not going into that at all. They must have some 
sort of tenure, that is the on y term I can apply to it; they must have some sort 

[A. D. MarJntyre.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAX TRIBES, B.C. 141 

of holding so that they cannot be dispossessed of it because they reclaim too 
much of the land. That particular outrage was perpetrated on this very Chief 
himself, and it still exists. He, with his two brothers, 50 years ago my 
authority for this is the well known priest, Rev. Father Lejeune reclaimed large 
acreages between the Douglas Cattle Company on the one side, and the Triangle 
Company on the other. He suddenly found out that the Department proposed 
calling upon him to show whether he had sufficient cattle to pasture on that, and 
if he had not they would bring it up with the Minister. I leave that just as it is, 
because it could not be settled by the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN: That is the reserve, Mr. Maclntyre? 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Outside the reserve. 
Mr. MAC!NTYRE: That is part of the reserve. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Is it in the reserve? 
Mr. MAC!NTYBE: Yes, it is in the reserve. 

The CHAIRMAN: What you are referring to is that they want some individual 
title to the land? 

Mr. MAC!XTYRE: Yes, individual title to the land for their lifetime, after 
they have reclaimed it. You can call it Squatters Rights " or anything else 
you want to, but they want to be certain that if they fence in the land and build 
the ditches on the promise of the agent that it shall be looked upon as theirs, 
and their children s, they shall have that right. I do not know that I have any 
more to say. 

The CHAIRMAN: What Indians have you here whom you want to be heard? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: I think only Chief Johnny Chillihitza, about the upper 
interior. That is the usual way they do; they insist upon three or four attending, 
but they fix upon one to present their case. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: As their spokesman? 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: I think the committee will have no objection to that. 

Mr. MAC!NTYRE: Oh, yes; there is one thing about the deer. Mr. Stevens 
will pardon me for mentioning that. In an organized district an actual instance 
took place three weeks ago. The Indians have a grievance there and it should be 
corrected. My firm defended two Indians for killing two deer out of season. 
The hardships were very great in each case. Each Indian came before the 
magistrate and announced he had killed the deer. In one case the Indian had a 
mother-in-law, another relative practically stone blind, and two others almost 
helpless; in the other case the Indian had a father and one or two others, and 
the question was asked of the provincial police officer in the presence of the 
magistrate if these facts were correct, and the provincial policeman corrobor 
ated those facts; so it was a clear case of killing for food, but in spite of that, 
a heavy fine was inflicted by the magistrate, who said he saw no way out of it. 

That is all I have to say. 

CHIEF JOHNNY CHILLIHITZA called and sworn. 

(The evidence of this witness was given in the Okananan language, and 
was translated into English and vice versa by Mrs. Williams, sworn interpreter.) 

The CHAIRMAN: Does any member of the committee wish to ask this witness 
any questions? 

The WITNESS: I am very well pleased to meet all the committee here. ] 
did not come here to Ottawa to say what is not true; I came to speak about 
what is true. You see how old I am, and still I try to speak about my country. 

[A. D. Maclutyre.] 



142 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q, How old are you? A. I am about 80 nearly 80. My forefathers and 
my own father and my other people were all old men, and when they discuss 
about that country I know every one of them, because I have been listening to 
them and know how they speak about the country. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. What is your grievance? What remedies have you to suggest that would 
make it more comfortable for your tribe? A. I know what I am to say about it. 
I am going to refer to it. My forefathers and my own father were some of the 
leading chiefs of British Coilumbia and they never relinquished their titles, but 
now they are dead, and I am their successor, and I still have the title; I did 
not give them to anybody, and now I come over here in Ottawa so that the 
government in Ottawa will give me power in my titles and my rights. 

The Indians do not want to be enfranchised; they want to be as they are. 
All the Indians want is to be just Indians, and not to be taken as white people, 
and made to live like the white people; they want to be the way their fore 
fathers used to be, just plain Indians. That is what my people want. They do 
not want to be enfranchised. Long ago the Indians had Indian laws, but since 
the white people came, the Indian laws are cast aside by the white people, and 
they impose their white man s law on the Indians. I am going to refer to the 
time when Sproat came as a messenger from the Queen, and he said "The Queen 
has heard of you people here, and sent me over to have a conference with you 
Indians." They asked him to tell the Indians what the Queen intended to do 
for the Indians, and Sproat said "The Queen has learned of your country, and 
it is a big country, and the Queen wants to keep your reserves, and put them in 
four posts," and Sproat said, "Now, if you Indians believe in the Queen, and she 
will say this I will tell you what she intended to do," so they asked him to tell 
them what the Queen was saying, and he said "If you believe in the Queen, and 
take her as your sovereign, she will take care of you always; she and her 
successors will look after the Indians; if in any way you have trouble in your 
country, you will speak to the Queen and she will send word over and have the 
trouble fixed up for you Indians". That is what the messenger Sproat said. 

The Indians did not seem to agree to have their lands in four posts, and 
then Sproat told the Indians that if they consented to have their reserves 
posted, that is, made out the reserves there is another promise that the 
Queen made that she would send another messenger even if it was not Sproat 
it would be somebody else to come and have another conference with the 
Indians about their country, and he said, "When the messenger comes again you 
will speak about your country ; it is a big country, and all what is in it, and you 
Indians and the Queen will make an agreement". So the Indians were told 
by Sproat that the Queen would not touch their Indian rights and their rights 
would include their right to keep their native titles. Sproat told a lot of things 
to the Indians of what the Queen said, but I will not speak about that, as it 
will take up too much time, but the Indians have kept in mind what Sproat 
told them concerning the white men. 

I want to speak to you about grazing. Long ago the Indians already 
started to have cattle, horses, and everything, and they had the use of the range 
and the Indians succeeded in getting large stock for themselves, and at that 
time they had big use of the range; it was not under control then, and they 
had a lot of stock, and it increased because there was range for the Indians at 
that time open range. Now the white people sell it between themselves, and 
they are all taken up, and the Indians have no more land, and finally the Indians 
cattle diminished, because they were short of land. There is one white man 
his name is Mr. Ward of Douglas Lake who took all the land and the 

[Chief Johnny Chillihitza.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAX TRIBES, B.C. 143 

Indians have not any pasture, and their horses, of course, are diminished 
because they had not sufficient land. So. for that reason, the Indians came 
over and decided to come here and have a conference with the government about 
their country and their lands, so that they will get enough range for their 
stock. That is what they want; they want grazing land for their horses and 
cattle. I am not the only one who has not had sufficient land in my country; 
there are 28 reserves there just the same; they have not enough land. At the 
time Sproat came and had the reserves surveyed out for the Indians he said, 
"This stream that runs through the reserve is for your use; after a while you 
maybe will get to know how to cultivate your land, and that will be for your 
water for irrigation. Now, I am going to record this water for you Indians 
with the Queen." Now, the water is taken away from the Indians by the 
white people. It is not only at Kamloops, but all over the reserves, that their 
waters are taken away, but Kamloops is the worst that is badly treated by the 
white people about the irrigation by the waters. Long ago, when they had the 
use of the waters, the Indians had a lot of grain and potatoes which they 
planted, and they sowed their wheat, and were just like cattle when the cows 
are fed. Now the Indians are poor because their water is taken away from 
them, and the water is taken from the Indians in Kamloops by the harbour 
account, and their land is dried up, and they have no water to irrigate it. Now, 
the Indians want to have their water given back to them. Right in my own 
country there is a big lake that is up in the mountains, and from that lake the 
stream runs out, and from that stream the Indians used to get their water, 
and the source of the lake is taken by the white man on the other side the 
feeder of the water is taken by the white people. The other part of the feeder 
is going to be taken by Mr. Warwick, and then there will be no more water for 
the Indians, and the lake will be dried up. That stream that goes out of the 
lake is used by the Indians for their irrigation. There are 16 ditches that have 
been made from that stream. 

Ever since the Indians came into their lands they have never known 
anything for their food only the deer and the fowls. There were plenty of deer 
and plenty of fowls. The Indians killed both deer and fowls, but still there 
was always plenty of game. Now, the white people have made laws concern 
ing the deer and they have told the Indians not to kill any more deer. They 
say to the Indians: " It is you Indians that exterminate the deer, and the 
fowl by killing them off in such numbers ; now, we will not allow you to kill any 
more deer; if any of you Indians is found out killing the fowl or the deer, 
you will be sent to prison." The Indians do not know why it is that they are 
treated in that way. Now, there are some Indians who are not well-off; there 
are some of the Indians who are poor, and they go and steal the deer; they 
steal them, that is, they take them underhanded, and use the meat, and that 
was their food from long ago. Now, he has to steal it while formerly he was 
free to take it, and if any of them are caught while they are hunting, they 
are put in jail. If the Indian who is caught has any money, he pays his fine, 
and if he has not he stays in jail. When he has not the money to pay his fine, 
well, he stays in jail. For that reason now, I am here before these gentlemen 
to get for us our food or to keep our food, the deer and the fowl. That is one 
thing that the Indians want. 

Then, as to the salmon. The Indians used to cure the salmon for their 
food. When the salmon came the river was full of them and so the Indians 
cured their salmon, because they knew how to go about it. If they have sufficient 
salmon, they cured them to last until the next run of the salmon came again. 
If they have not sufficient salmon, they have to go hungry. Now, the white 
people" told the Indians not to kill any more salmon, because they said, " You 
are killing off all the salmon." Now, they have made a law concerning the 

[Chief Johnny Chillihitza.] 



144 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

salmon. But the chief says the salmon do not come back after spawning, they 
die anyway. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Does he mean that he wants to get the salmon when they go up the 
stream to spawn? A. The chief says that the salmon die off, and still, the 
white people are putting laws on for the Indians not kill any salmon. The 
Indians want to kill the salmon in their own times. When they used to dry 
salmon in the old times, there was no law against it, and that is what the Indians 
w_ant to do. They want to have their former w^ys of living, about the salmon, 
and they want to have the use again of their food, that is, the deer; and the 
Indians want to have some grazing lands. Now, the country of the Caribou 
Indians, is not a very good country. It is not good for crops. It is just good 
for trapping and from that the Indians make their living. Now, where the 
Indians used to trap the land has all been taken by the white people, and those 
Indians over there want to get back their land where they used to trap. 

And the chief says, now, 1 leave my case before the Committee here for 
them to decide, but before I conclude I want to speak concerning the Indian 
agents. Long ago, the man who was called Dr. Powell came over and saw his 
chief s father, Chillihitza. Dr. Powell said: " I am going to tell you that the 
Queen said that all of the Indian reserves are going to have agents." So the 
Indians asked him what the agents were going to do. He said that the agents 
were going to look after them, and if anything is going to happen to the Indians, 
the agent is there to defend the Indians. So the Indians said they accepted the 
agent, as he was going to look after their welfare and help them in everything. 
And at that time the agent looked after the Indians so well that they believed 
in what the Queen told them to do. But now, the present agents are not acting 
as the other agents used to act towards the Indians. The agents now do not 
come and talk with the chiefs before they do anything. They just go with the 
half-lnx-eds, and take what the half-breeds say. That is, they speak with the 
half-breeds, and they do not talk with the Indians, and now when the agent 
wants to do anything, he takes bad people, both men and women. The chief 
says now that you ought to know that wherever a half-breed is, there is always 
something bad coming from him ; and if there are more than one, they have 
made bad friends with the other Indians. The half-breeds come and tell the 
Indians, "I am going to write down my name with you people," and now there 
are many half-breeds in the reserves. The Indians have consented to that. 
Then, if a chief is going to have a Conference with the Indians, they call a meet 
ing, the half-breeds will not go over there and mix with the Indians. The half- 
breed says, "I am not an Indian to be going to these meetings, I am a white 
man." The Indians are satisfied to have the agents, but if there is an agent to 
be made, the Indians want to have the right to state about which one they would 
like to have for their agent. AVe do not want the white people themselves to 
select our agent, if that agent is not of good-will towards the Indians. He has 
said to Commissioner Sproat, and to George Reilly and Dr. Powell, that the 
Indians have chiefs, and they have policemen on their reserves, and they do not 
want the white policemen to come and arrest the Indians from their reserves, 
unless they ask the consent of their chief, and the chief says "all right," then 
they have the right to take a man out of the reserve and to arrest him. Mr. 
Powell told the Indians that they would have that right, but in disregard of what 
Mr. Powell has said, Indians are still getting arrested from their reserves. The 
white people just come and arrest any of the Indians, without asking the consent 
of the chief. Now, when he was over in London, they told him to come here to 
Ottawa, and his case would be settled. The chief says: "I did not have the 
pleasure of seeing the King," but Mr. Hume, who is one of the authorities under 

[Oliief Johnny Chillihiiza.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 145 

the King, was the one who was speaking to him when he was in London. And 
Mr. Hume told the chief that there was an election at the time when he was 
over in London, and he says, if it is not his Honour, Mackenzie King who is 
going to be Premier in Ottawa, you could put your case before another Premier. 
So the chief says, "I was told to come and settle my case here in Ottawa, and if 
I am not satisfied with anything, then I may go over again and have another 
talk with the Government." And Mr. Hume told them to settle their case here, 
and this is to be always their court. Long ago, there used to be a village for the 
Indians at Mara lake and the Indians put in potatoes, and got everything they 
needed out of the ground. They made a ditch to their gardens; but the Indians 
were driven away from that reserve by the white people ; they would not give it 
to them, but the white people said it was their lands, and so they drove the 
Indians from their village, and white people are using lands that the Indians 
made long ago. Now the Indians are living in very bad shape, they have no 
water, not anything, and the Indians want to take back that land that is taken 
away from them by the white people, because it is their land. There is a white 
man that is living in the reserve that the Indians do not want. The Indians do 
not want that white man to be living in the reserve. That is on the Squilax 
Reserve. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What is that white man doing there; is he on the C.P.R. tracks? A. 
He is staying inside of the reserve. 

Q. But is he working for the C.P.R.; is he one of the C.P.R. trackmen? A. 
He made a store in there. 

Q. He has got a store? A. Yes. 

Q. Is he down on the lakeshore? A. No. 

Q. Up on the hill? A. He is quite a ways from the lake, but it is inside 
the reserve. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Ditchburn? A. I do not know whether Mr. Ditch- 
bum is acquainted with it. 

Q. You ought to tell him; that is something that ought to be told Mr. 
Ditchburn. A. (No audible answer.) 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee appreciates the statement you have made 
to them and will take these matters into consideration. 

The WITNESS: I am finished with my statement and I leave this to the 
Committee to decide upon me. I forgot to tell you about Jimmie Teit. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. What do you want to say? A. It is a little long and I think the gentle 
men are tired. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. W T ho is Jimmie Teit? A. He used to be interpreter for English. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Is that the one you were speaking of, Mr. Kelly? 
Mr. KELLY: Yes. He is dead now. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. We have got right here something signed by Jimmie Teit. A. I went 
over to see him at the time he was sick and he told me before he died 

Mr. MACINTYRE: Chief Basil David would like to address the Committee. 
Witness retired. 

CHIEF BASIL DAVID called and sworn. 

(The evidence of this witness was given in the Cariboo language, and was 
translated into English and vice versa, by William Pierrish, sworn interpreter.) 

4232510 [Chief Johnny Chillikitza.] 



146 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

The WITNESS: I do not want to be very long, but I have just a few words. 
My Indians throughout Cariboo, they are all short of irrigation waters and they 
are short of grazing range. I want some water for them and I want some 
grazing range for them. Farther to the north they live just on trapping and 
fishing and hunting; I want some hunting for them and trap exploring lines. 
Another word I want to say; some of my boys went in the War and I want my 
case to be settled before the Committee here and the Government will hear what 
I say. Some of my children are lying in France and some of them come back 
wounded. I want to satisfy them. At the time of the War I used to collect some 
money to help Red Cross. All my returned soldier boys, some are wounded 
badly. I wish we had something to satisfy them. We are all glad to see the War 
is over and everything settled but I want to satisfy these boys. I am glad to say 
this and the Government will hear this. That is all I want to say. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: How many soldiers were there from your Tribe? 

Mr. PIERRISH: From my Tribe about twelve, I think. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Did you lose your arm over there? 

Mr. PIERRISH: Yes, I lost my arm over there. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Are you from the same band as the Chief? 

Mr. PIERRISH: I am from the Shuswap Tribe. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And the Chief is from the Cariboo Tribe? 

Mr. PIERRISH: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Whereabouts does he live? 

Mr. PIERRISH: Bonaparte. 

Mr. O MEARA: We wish to ask some questions. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We do not want to get into a wrangle between Mr. 
O Meara s group and these others, if it is some personal fight. 

Mr. KELLY: We do not want to get into a wrangle, but I do not like to have 
our group referred to as Mr. O Meara s group, and somebody else s group. We 
do not belong to Mr. O Meara. We have engaged Mr. O Meara as legal adviser, 
and, as I said to the Minister of the Interior in Vancouver, I think in the year 
1922, he agitates just insofar as we allow him to agitate, just as any legal adviser. 
We take exception to that sort of statement very much, that we belong to Mr. 
O Meara or are Mr. O Meara s children. I, for one, do not wish to say anything 
to the Chief who was the last speaker, or to the other Chief. They have made 
their statement and that is all there is to it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: There was no offense meant when I said that. What I 
mean is this; we have two groups of Indians here and it is quite clear that there 
is some feeling between the two, and we do riot want to listen to a wrangle 
between two groups of persons. That is my objection, Mr. Chairman, and I 
think it is pertinent. 

Witness retired. 

The Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. 

The Committee resumed at 3.30 p.m., the Hon Mr. Bostock, Chairman, 
presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Are we ready to hear Mr. Kelly? 

SEVERAL MEMBERS : Yes. 

Rev. PETER R. KELLY called and sworn. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly, I understand you are the chairman of the Allied 
Indian Tribes of British Columbia. Will you proceed with your statement? 

The WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, and hon. gentlemen: I feel just a little at a 
luss to commence, in view of several things which have transpired here since 

fRet-, P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 147 

my arrival. I want to say this, speaking on behalf of the Indians of British 
Columbia, that this, I take it, is the culmination of about fifty years of endeavour 
on the part of the Indian tribes of British Columbia to obtain a hearing. I say 
this to bring before you the importance of the effort made by the Indian tribes 
of British Columbia. 

Long before my time long before I saw the light of day the Indian tribes 
sent delegations to Victoria and also to Ottawa to bring before 1hem their 
grievances. During the last eleven years ten years ago last June the Indians 
were organized in a more definite way to press their claims so that the "powers 
that be" would listen to them in the manner to which they felt they were entitled, 
and as a result, we have been here several times, sometimes coming without the 
invitation of the government, and at other times with the invitation of the 
government, to present our views to the government, and the government has 
taken steps on different occasions t/o listen to us, but nothing has resulted from 
that. We have submitted our claims to the government, I think, in a very full 
way. The Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, who is well 
acquainted with this whole situation, knows just what we have done, and I am 
glad he has included in his evidence and presented the things we have brought 
before the government at different times. 

Now then, there are two groups of things which must be considered; one is 
the Indian grievances, and I suppose it was to overcome one phase of the Indian 
grievances that a Royal Commission was appointed in the year 1913. But that 
Commission looked into just one thing, only one phase of Indian grievances, and 
that was to provide Indians with adequate lands. The Indians were visited and 
were asked to present their views, which they did. That Commission laboured 
for nearly four years and then made its report, but the Commission dealt with 
only one thing, and one thing only, which they reiterated again and again, that 
they had no right at all to touch on any other grievances excepting the adequate 
area of lands for Indians. Only that was dealt with. Connected with that, as was 
shown this morning by the different witnesses brought before your committee, 
there were many other grievances, and these grievances need to be righted. Now, 
the other side is this: at the bottom of all that is a fundamental issue a 
fundamental issue. That is to say, the Indians of British Columbia were not 
treated as Indian tribes in other provinces of this Dominion, not because it was 
not known at all, but after some endeavour on the part of the Colonial govern 
ment in the early days, which government strove to deal with this great 
fundamental issue, and I frankly refer to the aboriginal title of Indians. 

When British Columbia was organized as a province, the British Columbia 
government knew all about it, talked about it, discussed the whole thing, but 
because it was a disagreeable sort of thing, it was dropped. It was introduced 
into the House of Commons shortly after British Columbia entered Confedera 
tion. When the British Columbia Lands Act was introduced, it was disallowed, 
on the advice of the Minister of Justice, because it ignored that great funda 
mental principle as having obtained in British Columbia. It was ignored, as 
you hon. gentlemen know. That thing has not been righted to this day. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Just one moment; wfTen the Land Act as it subsequently 
came, into effect in British Columbia, was passed, was this question of dis 
allowance discussed again? 

The WITNESS: No, it was passed at the following session of Parliament, 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: The same Act? 

The WITNESS: Yes, the same Act. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Just one other question, while you are interrupted: you say it was dis 
allowed on that fundamental principle? Would you mind elucidating that, 

42325-10} IRev - P - R - Kell - v -l 



148 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. Kelly? A. I mean this, it was because the British Columbia government 
acted as though there was no other interest in the Crown lands of British 
Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Than their own? A. Than their own that is, the province. 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I would like, Mr. Chairman, to get that point cleared 
up, because I think it is important. 



By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Was not the argument for disallowance based upon this; that the Land 
Act of British Columbia that was the subject of disallowance was in contra 
vention of the trust features of Section 109 of the British North America Act? 
A. I do not just understand your question. 

Q. You referred, I think, to the Honourable Mr. Fournier, Minister of 
Justice. Here is a clause I notice in reference to that: 

The undersigned wlould also refer to the British North America Act, 
1867, Section 109, applicable to British Columbia, which enacts in effect 
that all land belonging to the province shall belong to the province, "sub 
ject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other 
than that of the province in the same." 

Now, is not that the real point of conflict upon which the Minister of Justice 
founded the disallowance? A. Exactly; that is the point I am trying to make. 
It was in view of that, that it was disallowed. At that time, it was recognized 
that the Indians had not ceded their aborignal title, and since that day, it has 
not been done. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Can you tell me what caused the Dominion Government to change its 
attitude the next year? A. I am not prepared to say. I cannot say just why it 
was done. 

Q. Evidently their previous attitude was abandoned within 12 months? 
A. I think it was abandoned if you will allow me to pass my opinion, it is the 
only thing I have now it was abandoned because it was likely to disrupt Con 
federation. That is the only thing I can say. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Have you anything upon which to base that opinion? A. I have not 
anything to back that up right now. Now, if I may proceed; it is because of 
that, and in a very authoritative way, when, on behalf of the Government, the 
Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, issued a memorandum recently, 
I think, in 1924, conceding that the Indian title had never been extinguished. 
But the point made was this: that there were other interests than the Indian 
interests at stake, therefore, being the minor interest, it should not be taken 
too seriously. I think that was the purport of that argument; and on that 
ground, that memorandum proceeded, that the Indians were receiving as much 
as Treaty Indians were receiving inthe way of their education grants, and other 
benefits coming to Indians all over this country. ^ 

Now then, your honourable Committee, Mr. Chairman, seem to press for one 
thing. At least, if I am in the wrong, I would like to be corrected, but my im 
pression has been this: you want us to bring before you grievances. If we 
have any grievances to be righted, you say let us have it, and we will right those 
grievances, or recommend the righting of them. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. If possible? A. Yes, in so far as they can be righted. I grant that. But 
let us say for the sake of argument that this Committee recommends a certain 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 149 

thing to Parliament, and Parliament passes a bill, and all the grievances are 
made right at one blow at it were; there would still remain this fundamental issue. 
I contend that there would still remain this fundamental issue, and I was highly 
pleased when the Minister in reply to my wire advised me of the fact that a 
Committee of Parliament had been appointed to look into this matter. Now, 
since that has been done, I beg of this Committee to be a little more tolerant 
in supporting our petition, which was lodged with Parliament last year. We 
realize that this is the one privilege for which we have been pressing for the 
last fifty or sixty years; and I also realize that at the present time I might say 
the dying moments of Parliament I notice that Parliament is trying to finish 
business by the 14th of this month, and I know you are rushing things through 
but in view of the fact that the rightful dealing of this question affects the 
future of 23,000 Indians who are not represented in Parliament, who have no 
voice in the affairs of this land, except through the Indian Department, I beg 
of you to be a little more tolerant, and if we are to have a constitutional argu 
ment to present, I think it is only fair that this Committee should hear it, and 
let us have it on record. Now, I know that by saying these things, I may raise 
several vexatious points, and that some such thing as a shadow of doubt may be 
cast upon our general counsel. I would like to say this; would you kindly forget 
any disagreeable features which may have arisen in the past, and give us the 
same right and the same privilege as would be extended to any other body of 
people, coming with their grievances, to present our constitutional argument in 
a connected way, so that it will appear before you in a connected form; because 
you would have to consider that in any case. 

I notice that your Committee asked to have documents presented. Well, 
let me say that if we did nothing more than simply present document? this 
afternoon, and say to you gentlemen, "now we have finished, we have nothing 
more to do," you would still have the task of analysing those documents in 
camera. In view of that, I think it is only fair that we should be allowed to 
present our constitutional argument in a connected way, and then we will have 
done with it, 

Now, that is the position I take here this afternoon. I may continue, and 
discuss several features of this, but just in support of what I may say, I wanted 
to read a passage or two which might bring before your honourable body the 
importance of this, if you have not been seized of it before. I read from Law 
Reports Appeal Cases 14. 1889, at page 55: 

There was a great deal of learned discussion at the Bar with respect 
to the precise quality of the Indian rights, but their lordships do not 
consider it necessary to express any opinion upon that point. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What is the case you are citing? A. It is the St. Catherine s Milling 
Case. Now, that is one quotation. Later on in the same case, we have this 
passage: 

The fact that the power of legislating for Indians and for lands which 
were reserved to their use has been entrusted to the Parliament of the 
Dominion, is not in the least degree inconsistent with the rights of the 
provinces to a beneficial interest in these lands, available to them as a 
source of revenue whenever the estate of the Crown is disincumbered of 
the Indian title. 

So, in view of that, this is the issue: 

Q. But, Mr. Kelly, surely you observe that that refers to lands reserved for 
the use of the Indians. It does not refer to the general lands of the province 
at all; it refers to lands reserved for the use of the Indians? A. I contend that 
if it refers to lands reserved for the use of the Indians, it refers in a ten 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



150 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

thousandfold higher degree to lands not reserved for the use of the Indians, but 
to which their aboriginal title has never been extinguished. That is the point 
I wish to make. 

Q. All right; go on. I was just calling your attention to that? A. And in 
view of that I plead for tolerance once again* that you allow our general counsel 
to present in a connected way our constitutional case. It may take some little 
time, but once again let me say we have been labouring for this for the last fifty 
years, and surely the Committee will be tolerant enough to allow us if need be, 
three or four additional hours to present that important feature of the argument 
which is necessary. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, I am a new member on this Committee. I was under the 
impression that that had been submitted to the House before by Mr. O Meara in 
an address at some length, some years ago. Is that not correct? A. 1 do not 
think so. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Are you quite sure of that, of your own knowledge? A. I do not think 
it was just that kind of an argument. 

Dr. SCOTT: I think, Mr. Chairman, it was presented in 1923, in Victoria. I 
asked, that instead of having a speech on the subject, we should have a memo 
randum on the constitutional question, and I think that was submitted and 
incorporated in the evidence at that time. If that is available now 

WITNESS: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Deputy Super 
intendent General s correction, that that is quite true. But I would like also 
to say that I do not think the presentation of the case at that time was quite 
adequate. I think we have additional information to add to that, which should 
be embodied in that, and brought before this Committee. I contend, gentlemen, 
that every information that can strengthen our position, we are entitled to 
present before this Committee. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Yes, Mr. Kelly, we want to get all the information we can; but in order 
to save the time of the Committee, could you not put in your argument that 
was made at that time, and now add to it what you want to add? A. I beg 
pardon, Mr. Chairman; I did not quite hear that. 

Q. Could you not put in that presentation of the case that was given to 
Dr. Scott in 1923; could you not put that in now, and then add to it what you 
wa-nt to add? A. Yes, that can be done; we can put that in; we have that in 
writing here. But in addition to that, I still maintain that our general counsel 
should be given the privilege of presenting in a connected form, the arguments 
supporting our stand. 

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Committee to consider, after we 
have heard all the evidence that you wish to place before us. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I would like to say this, Mr. Kelly, that I am certain 
that the Committee would very much like to hear whatever evidence you have 
to offer now. I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that the 
evidence we have received from Mr. Paull and from others, has helped us 
a great deal more than the attempted evidence we had the other day, or the 
attempted argument, and I think you will advance your case a great deal if you 
will give us, out of your experience, your evidence now. 

WITNESS: Well, one s own experience, is after all, a very limited thing on 
which to advance an argument. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I mean your experience, and your knowledge of the 
case, obtained as Chairman of your Executive Committee. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 151 

Mr. HAY: And your own knowledge of the conditions, perhaps. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: As I see the case, Mr. Kelly, the Committee will be 
very grateful for any presentation of facts which might modify their judgment, 
and to which we will give full weight, rather than a constitutional argument on 
deductions from I know not what. I think we all felt very grateful the other 
day to Mr. Paull when he told us about Governor Douglas, and we will be 
grateful for any similar things. If you can show us facts of that kind, or the 
absence of any dealings with the Indians through the old Colonial government, 
all that would help the Committee, whereas an argument will not help it. 

WITNESS: I see, and I am just a little nonplussed when that phase of the 
question is brought forward. I thought an argument would be the necessary 
thing, and would be the most important thing. Perhaps I should say, not 
exactly an argument, but rather the presentation of the evidence in a connected 
way, on the -constitutional issue, which would show that the Indian title has 
always been recognized, and has never been extinguished. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. Kelly, we tried the other morning to get evidence, 
and we could not get any. 

WITNESS: I am prepared to say that you will get it now. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. O Meara took the ground that he was counsel and 
not here to give evidence at all. 

WITNESS: Well, whether counsel or not, I think the counsel is here to present 
the constitutional points in support of the position of his clients, and that is the 
right that we ask. 

Mr- MCPHERSON: Mr. Kelly, are you basing your case really on past state 
ments made, and reports made, either by Government officials, or representatives 
of the Crown, in one form or another? Is that where you expect to get your 
constitutional evidence, or the -evidence that will support a constitutional 
argument? 

WITNESS: No. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. It is in the state papers of all kinds that are before us? A. Yes, in the 
State papers that came into existence, bearing on the subject, and the decisions 
that have been made on similar points in other cases, both in Canada and -else 
where. That is what we depend upon, and I think if you will pardon a layman 
speaking in this way, that that is the procedure of law, is it not? 

Q. I must say, as far as the case you have cited goes, I think I would quote 
it against you; that is, the reasons for the whole judgment? A. Then, that is 
our loss, if that is the view taken of it. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: That is only my personal view. I have been reading 
the case. 

Hon. Mr STEVENS: I think the -case as cited a moment ago would go against 
you. 

WITNESS: Well I would be sorry to think a. court would take that view. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: They might not. 

WITNESS: However, the point I would like to make is this- I am not going 
to labour anything because of this. The grievances we have set out in a rather 
full way in 1919, embodied in a pamphlet which was submitted to the Govern 
ment of the province of British Columbia, have been included by Dr. Scott in 
his statement. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We have that here in his documents. 

WITNESS: Yes. Now, I do not know what this Committee is prepared 
to do about that, but I realize that a Committee like this cannot very well deal 

[Rev. P. R. Kolly.] 



152 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

with it in a detailed way. You may make a general recommendation, and 
that is about as far as anybody can go; but there would still remain the deter 
mination of the form of machinery or the effective way of dealing with those 
different grievances that have been brought before you. The question has 
become acute, because of conditions that have arisen of late years. In the 
early days, that is, prior to Confederation, and during the earlier time of 
Confederation, although the question was quite pronounced, all along, even 
after the date of the entrance of British Columbia into Confederation, it has 
become more and more acute. I think it was in 1887 that a large delegation 
came down from Fort Simpson to interview the Provincial government in 
Victoria. At that time they brought before the Government this fact, that 
they were not adequately provided for as far as land was concerned, and they 
became conscious of the fact that in days to come rights which they had inherited 
from time immemorial would be taken away from them. Even at that early 
date, forty years ago, they were conscious of that, and it was brought to the 
notice of the Provincial Government, About that time, when Reserve Commis 
sioners went around and approached the Haida Tribe of the Queen Charlotte 
Islands, I heard this from the lips of those who were present asking them to 
state a certain area of land to be set apart for them with which they would 
be satisfied. The Chiefs who gathered in council together said this, " Why 
would we ask you to set lands apart for us This territory is ours and it has 
been ours as far back as we can remember. Any time any other.people claimed 
our lands we disputed their claim w*kh force. Why are you coming here and 
asking us to say what area of land would satisfy us?" The Commissioners 
were treated courteously; they were always on the best of terms with those 
Commissioners. They told the Commissioners that they were not prepared 
to name any area because the whole area of land was theirs. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. What commission was that? A. I am not prepared to name any partic 
ular Commissioners, but it was the Reserve Commissioners who went around. 

Q. That was one that was appointed in 1875 or 1876? A. I would think 
about that time. That was their view. Gradually they have been hemmed in 
little by little until the things which they had enjoyed in the past have been 
taken away Jrom them. I know it is the viewpoint taken here by some mem 
bers of this Committee that because of the encroachment of civilization it is 
necessary to regulate things. We grant all that. I do not think anything should 
be allowed to go on without a certain amount of regulation. Nevertheless, we 
must recognize this also, that the people that you have been regulating things 
for are not up to your standard. These people were not in contact with civili 
zation more than seventy-five years ago. I grant that on this eastern coast of 
the North American Continent the Indians have been in contact with civilization 
longer than we have been on the coast. You would ask those people to subscribe 
to the same regulations as you haA^e made for yourself, and ask them to make a 
living under those conditions. I contend, gentlemen, that it is becoming harder 
and harder for them to come under that restraining hand and at the same time 
not being adequately brought forward to take their place among the body politic 
of this land. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Does that apply to the younger generation as well as the older? A. 
Generally, yes; there are a few exceptions always, but that applies to all the 
Indians. I stressed this to the present Minister of the Interior, and also the 
Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, when they came to visit us 
on the coast. It was in view of that that we stressed that the Indians should 
receive intensive training, conditions making it necessary that if it is not done 
the time will soon come when they will lose out in the race for existence. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED 1XDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 153 

Another point I would like to raise, is this: I would like to say, whether 
this Committee sees fit to recommend to Parliament that the aboriginal title of 
the Indians of British Columbia is not a good one and cannot be supported, and 
recommends to Parliament that it be set aside and not considered at all, the 
fact remains that you have not treated us as you should have treated us in the 
days gone by. That is the great issue. In 1871, when British Columbia entered 
Confederation, if treaties had been made with the Indian Tribes of British 
Columbia, as was done elsewhere, we would have received certain benefits from 
that date, and we have not received those benefits. There was brought against 
our claims a computation of what annuities of five dollars per capita would 
come to, something over $2,500,000, in the course of twenty years. I contend 
that if the country can get off with $2,500,000, I think they would be getting off 
rather lightly, in view of the fact that the Indian Tribes who are receiving 
annuities continually, and will receive them until the last Indian dies or is 
enfranchised, they are receiving many times more than $2,500,000. In the course 
of time it will amount to a huge sum of money, and yet it has been brought for 
ward as an argument to hinder the fair consideration of the case insofar as our 
claim is concerned. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. You do not expect, of course, that title will be given to the Indians of 
British Columbia? A. Oh, no. 

Q. You expect further consideration, though? A. Consideration, and bene 
fits. 

Q. What amount do you think is right? A. I could not say that; I do 
not think that is a fair question. 

Q. I wondered whether you had arrived at an amount? A. No, I have not, 
I think even the Privy Council has refrained from stating any amount, and I 
am not presuming to be a greater authority than that wonderful body. 

Q. You are the man that is asking for value received? A. Yes, I think it 
could be worked out. 

Q. It is up to you to put your price on it? A. Yes. I see your point, but 
this procedure has been followed in the past and I think we have documentary 
evidence in support of that to satisfy any claims of the Indians along those lines. 
The Imperial Government, before the days of Confederation, followed the pro 
cedure of negotiating with the Indian, Tribes; met the Tribes in Council and 
negotiated with them. The negotiations with them perhaps was just a formal 
procedure. What was said by the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs may 
be true when he said something to the effect that treaties were already prepared 
and were simply submitted to the Indian Tribes. That may be quite true; I 
cannot dispute that. Nevertheless, they went through the formality of negotiat 
ing with those Indian Chiefs who were responsible and who represented their 
Tribes. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Your real desire is to receive official acknowledgment of the aboriginal 
title; that is your point? A. Yes. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Which title would be in the province of British Columbia and not in, the 
Dominion of Canada? A. Quite true. 

Q. How can we do that? A. Well, I think that is for you to decide, not 
for me. There seems to me, under the terms of union when British Columbia 
entered Confederation, there were certain things agreed to. Among those is 
article 13, which was quoted by Premier Oliver in his telegram to Hon. Charles 
Stewart the other day; that after British Columbia gives an adequate area of 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



154 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

land to the needs of the Indians it seemed to him that Canada becomes respons 
ible for satisfying the claims of the Indians. 

Q. There is just the point. You say they have not giveA that? A. We 
tried to get adequate lands and we have not been successful. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Mr. Paull read this morning, and also on Thursday, extracts from the 
petitions or reports indicating that certain areas were inadequate 30, 40 or 50 
years ago? A. Yes. 

Q. Well, it is quite clear that since that time, not only in 1912 but prior to 
1912, very substantial additions were made which apparently satisfied the claims 
raised at that period? A. (No audible answer.) 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Mr. Stevens worked it out on the basis that what was originally 20 
acres is now 127 acres? A. I think that needs explanation. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I am not talking about whether that is adequate now or not. The point 
is; the Indians raised this very question of inadequacy of land, say, 50 years 
ago I think there was one in 1874, which would be 52 years ago and the basis 
then was 20 acres. There is ample evidence to show that that amount has been 
augmented very considerably since then, indicating that the Government did 
respond to the request of the Indians and apparently satisfied them, because 
there was very little heard of it again for a long time. In 1912 a settlement of 
the same question was attempted again. You will admit that, will you not? 
A. I do admit it. 

Q. We come to this situation; you want either one of two things; either the 
claim to aboriginal title or the claim for further consideration of the amount 
of land set aside in the reserve? A. Well, this is what we did. We criticized 
the report of the Royal Commissions of 1913 and 1916. In view of our criticism, 
the present Minister of the Interior, when he came to British Columbia in 
the year 1922, agreed that we should be privileged to supply the Commission 
with additional claims for land. We did that, and I think of all the claims that 
were submitted at that time, not one has been acceded to. Three of us went out 
to interview the Indian Tribes and they asked for certain things. Those claims 
were filed with the Commission as additional claims of the Indians, as far as 
lands were concerned, and as far as I am aware I do not think a single claim 
was acceded to. I just want to point that out. 

Q. That was subsequent to the filing of their report? A. Yes, but before 
the report was accepted. 

Q. But it was subsequent to the filing of the report by the Commission? 

A. Yes. That is the position to-day; there is not any more land available. 

Now, we talk about lands, because it is one of the basic things of one s living. 
We admit that conditions are different in British Columbia. I think in that 
province we have all the living conditions that are found all over the Dominion. 
It is true that we are not dependent entirely upon lands for our living; we are 
not agricultural people entirely. Certain portions of the province are dependent 
upon "their land for a living, such as the interior, the Fraser Valley, and other 
stretches of land that are fertile, but the fact is this; in other parts of the 
Dominion, say in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Indians are 
provided with adequate lands to ensure their living for all time to come. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy:. 

Q. Do you know how much land per head the Indians have in Saskatche 
wan? A. I am not just prepared to say; I think the figures are available. 

Mr. O MEARA: About nine times as much. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 155 

The WITNESS: I think Dr. Scott has it. 

Dr. SCOTT: A square mile represents five; 640 acres for a family of five. 

The WITNESS: And that is land which is capable of producing things, 
where we have great heaps of mountains in our lands, which were quoted as 
107 acres, I think. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: 132 acres. 

The WITNESS: 132 acres for each family. You must realize that the 
greater portion of that is composed of rocky land. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Take for instance all through the lower Fraser Valley, anywhere on 
the coast; you would not require 132 acres for a family? A. Yes. 

Q. I do not recall of one. Indian on the Fraser Valley cultivating more than 
a very few acres, and the very great bulk of them will cultivate nothing at all? 
A. Quite so. 

Q. Although they have the land there? A. Quite so. That is not to be 
wondered at, Mr. Chairman; I think you know the reason why. They have 
not been agricultural people until just within the past few decades. Con 
ditions have forced them to change and conditions will force them more and 
more to depend upon their land. 

Q. Take that remarkably fertile reserve at Kamloops, where the two 
Thompson Rivers join. I haA^e been watching that for thirty-five years now, 
and the Indians never use that land? A. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Stevens, 
you cannot grow a blade of grass on that unless you bring water on that land, 
that Kamloops Reserve. 

Q. Right beside it is some of the most productive land on the whole 
continent, and white men have gone on there and are growing the most magnifi 
cent fruits, and so on? A. No doubt about it. 

Q. Then come down to Penticton, that very fine reservation about two 
miles south of Penticton. I have known that for thirty years and it is just 
lying there. I was down there last year and right in almost to the city 
boundaries of Penticton there are thousands of acres of land highly developed, 
and on this reservation there is nothing done. I merely draw your attention 
to this to show that while you criticize the treatment, with all the efforts that 
have been made the Indians will not cultivate this very valuable, fertile land. 
After all, there are two sides to this problem? A. Quite so. H want to be 
fair; I do not claim anything that we are not entitled to. Take the Kamloops 
area, for instance the Chairman has a large area of land there and he knows 
just as well as I do that you cannot grow a blade of grass unless you have water 
on that land. 

By Hon. Air. Murphy: 

Q. What do you say about this contrast that Mr. Stevens has drawn down 
at Penticton? A. Well, as I said before those people have been more interested 
in stock than in fruit growing. As you know, the Okanagan valley has only 
become a wonderful fruit growing district within a comparatively short time, 
and the Indians have not been keeping up to the times. The time is coming 
perhaps the time is now when the Indians will be forced to do what their white 
brothers are doing. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I think it is just as well to get the other side of this picture. You 
complain and justly perhaps that the provincial government seems to be 
somewhat unsympathetic. All the witnesses have complained of that. Now, 
take Penticton, and this area around Summerland, or around Vernon any of 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



156 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

the districts in the Okanagan and one of the great problems facing the 
authorities is the infection of the orchards from the Indian orchards; you cannot 
get an Indian to look after his orchard. Mr. Ditchburn or any of the officers 
of the Department will agree that they have great trouble in getting the Indians 
to clean their orchards up, so there is an infection of the other orchards. That 
is one reason why the provincial government is not sympathetic. I think the 
committee should get both sides of the picture. A. As I said before, I think the 
Indian needs more intensive training to-day than the white man does. 

Q. That is one of your problems, is it not? A. Yes. 

Q. And if that problem were solved, this chimerical demand, that we 
recognize the right to all underlying land in British Columbia, would fade out 
of existence? A. No, I don t think so. 

Q. You do not like to let go of that bone? A. No, and you would not like 
to let go of it either. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Our ancestors have all gone through that at one time or another; they 
have been conquered A. We have not been conquered. 

Q. Well, call it peaceful penetration in British Columbia, fortunately. 
A. It probably was! peaceful penetration. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: When we talk about their being conquered 
The WITNESS: We were not conquered. We might have been exterminated, 
if necessary. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That touches a sore spot with Mr. Kelly. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: I was simply giving 

The WITNESS: No, it does not. 

The CHAIRMAN: He seems to be giving a good demonstration of it here. 

The WITNESS: That is a thing of the past; it does not worry me any. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Can you tell me any reserve on the southern portion of Vancouver Island 
that is cultivated by Indians up to 50 per cent of its capacity? A. I cannot say 
offhand. The secretary tells me that the reserve in Duncan county is cultivated 
up to 50 per cent. I am not going to argue that point out, because I do not think 
I can; I am not prepared to do so. This is the point I wish to make; gentlemen, 
if the white people, after hundreds of years of agricultural life, find it necessary 
to send their brainiest boys to agricultural colleges so they may learn still further 
how to till the soil, how much more necessary is it for the Indians to learn the 
primary principles of agriculture? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is sound. 
By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Is that one of your claims? A. That is one of the claims. 

Hon Mr. STEVENS: That is sound commonsense, and you will have a sympa 
thetic hearing here. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: You have struck a sympathetic chord in all of the 
committee on that. 

The WITNESS: That is one of the things we have asked for. You belittle 
my contention for our aboriginal title, because when our aboriginal title is estab 
lished some people seem to have said in the past that it is very questionable 
what the Indians will be satisfied with. Once their title is established, perhaps 
they will wreck the city of Vancouver and drive out all the population 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: They will have a hard job doing that. 

The WITNESS: Ridiculous as it sounds, that has been stressed in certain 
places, to the detriment of the Indians, because there is not the faintest kind of 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES. B.C. 157 

a notion in the mind of any intelligent Indian to do that to-day. It is purely an 
academic thing. We claim the right exists and has never been extinguished, and 
we ask you to deal with that right as you have dealt with it elsewhere. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, let me ask you at this point; you belong to the Haida tribe 
on Queen Charlotte Island? A. Yes. 

Q. And you remember the Tsimpsians at Fort Simpson? A. Yes. 

Q. I have some recollection from stories told me by old residents up there, 
and you have no doubt heard your people talk about it how long has it been 
since the Haidas came over and fought with the Tsimpsians? A. I would say 
about 60 or 70 years. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. And if the necessity arose, would they not do it to-day? A. No, not to 
day; we have got beyond that stage. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I have heard them 30 years ago tell about coming over there. A. Yes. 

Q. Now, another question I want to ask you is this ; take the tribes along the 
north shore from Fort Simpson up the Skeena river; they never had quite estab 
lished possession of their area; they were always subject to invasions by other 
tribes, were they not? A. Yes, but not for territorial conquest. 

Q. And they never had what might be termed a government of possession of 
the land? A. Oh yes, they had. 

Q. Where were the boundaries of the Tsimpsian Indians? A. They have 
very well denned boundaries ; I am not prepared to state where their boundaries 
are. I can tell you better where the boundaries of the Haida Indians are, 
because I know considerably more about that. 

Q. You take in all of Graham Island pretty well? A. Yes, we take in 
Graham Island. You know, there are clans and tribes of the Haida nation. 

Q. Where were your headquarters? A. At Skedigate Inlet. 

Q. Was there a government established there? A. Yes. 

Q. Did that government administer the island? A. Yes; it was not a 
central government, a large central government such as you have, for instance, 
in a provincial government; it was more of a municipal government. Our 
government was something like the city state of the Greeks of long ago. There 
was no large central government, but there was a municipal government. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Each grove had a government of its own? A. Yes. 

Q. And the groves came together for certain purposes of their own? A; 
Yes. 

Q. But normally it was, as you say, like a Greek city? A. Yes. 

By the Chapman: 

Q. And the Haidas had control over Graham Island? A. The whole of 
Queen Charlotte Island, Graham Island, and Normsby Island. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. And you used to go to the coast very frequently? A. Yes. 

Q. And it was a constant war or shall we say "strife" between the coast 
tribes and the Haidas? A. Yes, it was for gain; not for territorial conquest. 
They did not want the land of the Tsimpsians because it was no good to them; 
it was across the water. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



158 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. They made raids there? A. Yes, they made raids; the Indians used to 
deal in slaves, and they would make a raid and carry off so many slaves, and 
slaves represented property, and, therefore, these wars continued. 

Q. The early Greeks again? A. Yes. The benefits I have been stressing 
one of them is agricultural training, and the present Minister of the Interior 
and Doctor Scott will bear me out that I stressed this very thing in my address 
before the committee in Victoria; that is, that we should have such intensive 
training for the Indians as would enable them to earn a decent living among 
the civilized people of to-day. That was my big point, and I still stress that 
point. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Do the Indians as a whole the young people want that, or is that 
merely because you know better what they should have? A. I am not prepared 
to say the greater majority yes, I think so; I think the majority of the young 
Indians want that, and feel the necessity for it to-day. 

Q. You will remember the elderly chief who spoke to us only pleaded for 
one thing, and that was to let them be Indians? A. With all due respect to that 
veteran chief and we all respect him I do not think he realizes what he is 
saying; we have always taken that view. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I notice there has been spent on education in British Columbia a consider 
able amount. I will go back but a few years and give the figures, and then I 
want to ask you a question on them. In 1920-21 there was spent $318,000; 1921- 
1922, $478,000; 1922-1923, $354,000; 1923-1924, $492,000; 1924-1925, $422,000; 
and 1925-1926, $381,000. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What are those figures? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Figures of amounts spent on the education of the Indians 
in British Columbia by the Dominion government. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Now, these figures will compare very favourably with the amount spent 
on the education of the white children by the provincial government, will they 
not, in your estimation? A. I think so, because I think a certain part represents 
capital expenditures; that is to say, putting up permanent buildings. 

Q. Very likely.- A. Buildings to the cost of perhaps $200,000. 

Q. That is quite possible, but take it all through since Confederation, there 
has been spent $5,500,000, some of it in capital expenditures, no doubt. Now, 
take these aids to agriculture; they are not very large sums; they only amount 
to $6,000 or $8,000 a year, which is very small. But what I am trying to 
impress on your mind, or get you to admit, is that these figures compare very 
favourably with what has been spent for education of the white population, so 
that if you could tell us where the complaint is you must admit we cannot 
spend too fabulous a sum, this seems very generous. A. I would like to say 
this, and I would like to make myself clear on this; I think every progressive 
Indian is grateful for every cent which has been expended on education. I feel 
that way, and I say that from the bottom of my heart: it has "made me what I 
am to-day," and we are grateful for it. But after all, is it not a fact that 
education is the duty of the State to anybody, not just the Indians? 

Q. Yes; nobody is objecting to that; do not misunderstand me. What I am 
getting at is if this is wrongly directed, we would be glad to have a suggestion 
as to a more proper direction. The amount seems to me to be fairly reasonable. 

Hon. Mr. MTJEPHY: Fairly generous. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: If it is not being properly expended, we ought to know 
it. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 159 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. In other words, would your view be that a larger proportion should be 
spent on agricultural education? A. I do not just say that; I do not say 
lessen one to increase the other. 

Q. But if it is shown that what is being done for education is not being 
properly done, we should know it, and I think your view is that these amounts, 
which are quite small $6,000 or $8,000 per year should be increased. A. To 
$60,000 or $80,000. 

lion. Mr. STEVENS: But these amounts, this $6,000 or $8,000, are separate 
from education. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: That seems to me to be a very small amount. 
Hon. Mr. STEWART: A very small proportion of that $8,000 would be spent, 
on agricultural education; that is more as aids to agriculture. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes; it says "Aids to agriculture, cleansing orchards, 
etcj., spraying." 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: As I understand Mr. Kelly, his idea is that when the 
public school course, which is practically the same as that given to the children 
in all the schools, is completed, something might be done supplementarily 
in the way of agricultural education. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That might be worth considering. 

The WITNESS: Not only agriculture, but vocational training for Indians. 
That is what we have been demanding. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think that is very valuable evidence myself. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The best we have had. 

The WITNESS: Because necessity is forcing the Indians to demand that 
more and more. While the sums expended on education seem -large ones, yet 
they are not too large at all 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We are not suggesting that. I want you to get that 
out of your mind. If we can increase it, if it is desirable, or properly directed, 
or if we can direct it in a different way 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: It was said by the old chief there were quite a 
number of invalids of the war, and as I understood him, they were not getting 
the consideration he thought they should be getting. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I thought he referred rather to some meiribers of 
his own family. 

The WITNESS: Some members of his own band. I am not prepared to 
speak of that in any definite way 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Have you noticed any such cases? 

The WITNESS: I know there are some cases, but in nearly every case, the 
returned Indian soldier has been treated the same as any other returned soldier. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. That is your opinion on that point? A. Yes; there is no difference at 
all; the returned Indian soldier has been treated just as Considerately as any 
other returned soldier. So we have put in the things that we consider to be the 
necessary basis of settlement. Now that is on record. Before we are entitled 
to that, we must show that we are entitled to it, and we claim that our aboriginal 
title gives us the right to claim that, because it has been advanced that we 
received these things as a matter of grace, not because we were entitled to them, 
but just because it is the goodwill of the Government and nothing else. 

By Mr. McPherson: 
Q. And you are putting forward a different proposition? A. Yes. 

[Rev. P. R Kelly.] 



160 SPECIAL CO AIM ITT EE 

Q. And is not that the very reason why you have to arrive at what the 
value of the land was? A. Well, give us a negotiating committee, and we will 
meet you, and I think we can arrive at some valuation of what we are claiming. 
You have not been able to do that, or at least you have not been willing to do 
that in the past. We have asked for that, but we have not been -able to receive it. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. As I understand it, Mr. Kelly, you take the position that what you have 
received up to the present time has been given as a matter of grace, and not in 
satisfaction of this aboriginal title? A. Exactly. It has been so stated offi 
cially. 

Q. Therefore, if you were to sit down and negotiate now, all that has been 
given would be wiped out of consideration? The new consideration would be an 
amount over and above all that you have already received? A. Something like 
that. We would not forget what has been received. 

Q. Would you take it into account though? A. That is a matter of negotia 
tion, I would say. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. Would you suggest, Mr. Kelly, that the basis of negotiation should be 
on the values as they were, at the time of occupation, or the present day values? 
A. We have two extreme views on that of course. I might say that the Indian 
department has officially stated that progress means nothing at all to the value 
of the aboriginal title. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Do you dispute that? A. Yes, somewhat, we do. And once again I 
say that is a matter of negotiation, and if it cannot be negotiated, it is because 
of that that we thought the court decision would be a remedy. Then we would 
either gain our point, or we would lose out on it. That was the point, and that 
was the reason why we have pressed for a judicial decision of the matter. We 
realized the complications of it. Just as the Minister of the Interior said in 
Vancouver, it is a tremendously complicated affair; we realize that, and we can 
not say that this matter can be settled by a mere wave of the hand. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Supposing the aboriginal title is not recognized? Suppose recognition is 
refused, what position do you take then? A. Then the position that we would 
have to take would be this: that we are simply dependent people. Then we 
would have to accept from you, just as an act of grace, whatever you saw fit to 
give us Now that is putting it in plain language. The Indians have no voice 
in the affairs of this country. They have not a solitary way of bringing any 
thing before the Parliament of this country, except as we have done last year by 
petition, and it is a mighty hard thing. If we press for that, we are called 
agitators, simply agitators, trouble makers, when we try to get what we consider 
to be our rights. It is a mighty hard thing, and as I have said, it has taken us 
between forty and fifty years to get to where we are to-day. And, perhaps, if 
we are turned down now, if this Committee see fit to turn down what we are 
pressing for, it might be another century before a new generation will rise up and 
begin to press this claim. If this question is not settled, in a proper way on a 
sound basis, it will not be settled properly. Now, that is the point that we want 
to stress. I said to the Hon. Mr. Stevens last year, when he was Acting 
Minister of the Interior, I think these are the words I used: " Why not keep 
unblemished the record of British fair dealing with native races? Why refuse 
to recognize the claim of certain tribes of Indians in one corner of the British 
Dominions, when it has been accorded to others in another part of the same 
Dominion." 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 161 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That, T think, is not quite a fair way of putting it, Mr. 
Kelly. As I have already told you 

WITNESS: At that time, I think you agreed with me. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, that is one thing I never did agree to in the last 
twenty years, or the nineteen years since I heard Mr. O Meara first moot this 
claim for an aboriginal title. I never admitted it, and I never could bring my 
mind to see any solid ground for the aboriginal title. I do say this, that the 
Indians deserve, and we ought to accord them, the most generous treatment that 
we possibly can, and I have always advocated that we should try to bring the 
Indians to the position of independent citizenship as quickly as we can. That is 
my position, and has been throughout my whole life in British Columbia; bui: 
I have never yet been able to see any sound ground for admitting the existence 
of an aboriginal title, and the evidence we have received here up to the moment, 
has only confirmed my views. 

WITNESS: It seems to me that the view taken by the Hon. Mr. Stevens 
confirms our contention that it must necessarily be settled by a judicial decision. 
We can argue on both sides of the table until we are black in the face, and we 
cannot get very far. 

The CHAIRMAN: Just at that point, Mr. Kelly, I would like to read to you 
from page 54, of 1883 Law Reports Appeal Cases, the St. Catherine s Milling 
Company, vs. the Queen. Beginning at the bottom of the page: 

It was suggested in the course of the argument for the Dominion 
that inasnmch as the proclamation recites that the territories thereby 
reserved for Indians had never been ceded to or purchased by the Crown, 
the entire property and the land remained with them. 

That is practically your contention. 

That inference is, however, at variance with the terms of the instru 
ment, which show that the tenure of the Indians was a personal and 
usufructuary right dependent upon the goodwill of the Sovereign. 

There is a good deal more that I could read, but I think that covers the 
point. 

WITNESS: Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, the goodwill of the Sovereign 
has been to recognize whatever the aboriginal title of the Indian was in the past. 
It has always been so, and that has been very forcibly brought out in the report 
of the Minister of Justice in 1875, wherein he points out that very tiling that 
the obligation of that goodwill was denied to the Indians of British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, just before the Chairman read that extract, you said that the 
only way in which that question that you are submitting to this Committee can 
be settled, is by a judicial decision. Is that correct? A. Yes, I said that. 

Q. Do I understand you to take the position that that judicial decision should 
be rendered, not by the courts of Canada, but by the Imperial Privy Council? 
A. We have been advised of that, but it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that 
is a matter of procedure. 

Q. Have you any objection to submitting this question to the courts in 
Canada? A. Not at all. Providing they are proper courts, not at all. 

Q. I mean, the ordinary courts, to which all citizens have recourse. Do you 
object to go there? A. Not at all. We do not object to that at all. The proper 
procedure is what we want. We do not want any unheard of procedure. 

Q. No, you want the ordinary procedure? A. Yes. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 
4232511 



162 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. But, do you want it taken to the Privy Council first? A. That court is 
the final Court of Appeal. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think your counsel has always taken the position that 
you should go direct to the Privy Council. But here is your position as stated, 
and this is one of the things that objection is taken to: 

That immediate steps be taken for facilitating independent pro 
ceedings 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: That is what I have in mind, and that is why I asked 
my question. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

of the Allied Tribes and enabling them by securing reference of the 
Petition now in his Majesty s Privy Council, and such other independent 
judicial action as shall be found necessary to secure judgment of the 
judicial Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council, deciding all issues 
involved. 

That is rather ambiguous language, but the intent of it is there. 

WITNESS: That is a very contentious point, and perhaps we will take quite 
a little time, but I would like to sum it up if I am able to do so. The reason 
that was put that way was that Canada having entered into that McKenna or 
McBride Agreement with the Government of British Columbia, and by the text 
of that agreement, bringing to a final settlement all matters relating to Indian 
affairs in the Province of British Columbia, put itself in a position where it was 
not competent to defend the affairs of the Indians. Now, when we say that, it 
is not just our opinion. In fact, I will go beyond that. It is the opinion of the 
Hon. Mr. Doherty, the Minister of Justice in the Borden Government. That 
was the opinion he expressed. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. You say that is his opinion. Where do you get that? 

Mr. O MEAEA: It all appears clearly in the papers that you have. 

WITNESS: We have that in black and white, so I am not speaking just 
from my memory. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: These things are quoted rather recklessly sometimes. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. Kelly says this is in black and white, it is on 
record. 

WITNESS: Yes, it is a record. 

The CHAIRMAN: It is in Appendix G of No. 1 of the proceedings of this 
Committee. 

WITNESS: I will get Mr. O Meara to bring it out. What we want now is 
Mr. Doherty s opinion. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Is this it on page 61. then continuing on page 62 of the 
proceedings of Wednesday? 

Mr. O MEARA: No, that has nothing to do with it, Mr. Stevens. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: This happens to bear just on the point we are discuss 
ing. On November 14th, 1914: 

As to your remark that it has always been the view of those advis 
ing the Nishgas that the only feasible method of securing a judicial deter 
mination of the rights of the Indians of British Columbia is that of bring 
ing their claims directly before His Majesty s Privy Council. I wish 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 163 

you would realize as an endeavour to convince those whom you describe 
as advising the Nishgas that this Government has no power or authority 
to refer a question directly to His Majesty s Privy Council; that the 
only constitutional method of obtaining the judicial view of His Majesty 
in Council, relating to a question limited to the internal affairs of Can 
ada is by appeal from the local tribunals. 

That bears out what has been said. 

Mr. McPnERSON: You have to begin in the local courts and then if the 
decision is against you, appeal from it. You might skip one or two of the local 
courts of appeal, and get permission to go directly to the Privy Council. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That was clearly impressed upon Mr. O Meara. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I suggest that judgment be reserved in the matter. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: A few lines further down, that letter continues: 

If therefore it be possible for me to make any statement here which 
can, consistently with the amenities of official correspondence, impress 
you with the futility of urging upon this Government a reference direct 
to the judicial committee, I beg of you to consider that statement incor 
porated in this letter. 

WITNESS: Here are the words that we referred to. This is a quotation from 
the opinion of the Minister of Justice issued in month of December, 1913, from 
which the following words are taken. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What are you reading from? A. Relating to the McKenna-McBride 
agreement, already quoted. I am reading from notes which were prepared for 
the Hon. H. H. Stevens, Acting Minister of the Interior, on the 6th of January, 
1926. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Is that a document which has been placed before the Committee? A. No, 
it has not yet been placed before the Committee. I refer to page 3, and the 
date is the 6th of July. 

Q. If you are going to read from that document, it should be placed on 
record? A. We will place it on record. 

Mr. O MEARA: It is a very desirable thing to have on record. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Read it in the meantime? A. The whole document? 

Q. No, just the part you wish to quote? A. This refers to the McKenna- 
McBride agreement. (Reads Extract). 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is an extract sent to a Minister, from an opinion 
of the Minister of Justice. Now, where is that opinion? It is hardly fair to 
put in evidence an extract from a statement alleged to have l>een made by 
the Minister of Justice, read from a document prepared by Mr. O Meara. There 
is not even a reference to what it is from. 

WITNESS: I beg to say it is a direct quotation. It is not simply referring 
to what was offered, but it is a direct quotation. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I say that it is an extract, but I say that it is hardly 
fair to take an extract in that way. 

Mr. O MEARA: The opinion is available. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Is that an extract from a letter written by the then Minister of Justice? 
A. By Mr. Doherty, yes. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 
42325 11J 



164 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Q. To Whom? A. It was an opinion given on the McKenna-McBride 
Agreement, for the benefit of his government. Is that not right, Mr. O Meara? 
Mr. O MEARA: And handed out to us. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. It was not a letter then? A. It was not a letter, no. 
Mr. O MEARA: It was an opinion. A memorandum of an opinion handed 
to us. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Where is the original? 

Mr. O MEARA: It is no doubt on file in the Department. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Have you the original of that opinion, Mr. Kelly? A. We will have 

the original placed on record. Mr. O Meara will get the original, if that will 
satisfy the Committee. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Stevens quoted from an extract or from a subsequent 
statement by Mr. Doherty with respect to going direct to the Privy Council? 
A. That bears simply on the matter of procedure, does it not? It was because 
of that that we stress the matter of independent proceeding to the Privy Council. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: You had previously over the signature of the Minister 
of Justice the assurance of the Government of Canada to this effect: 

I should think it unlikely that the Indians would concern them 
selves with procedure. They have, I imagine, sufficient discernment to 
proceed, if their deliberations be not influenced to the contrary. The 
question of procedure is at present quite irrelevant. No point of pro 
cedure will be permitted to prejudice the decision on the merits of the 
case, and the Government will see to it that the proceedings are brought 
and conducted in such a manner as to provide for the admission of all 
the parties and arguments which are material. 

That is an assurance given over the signature of the Minister of Justice, on 
behalf of the Government of Canada. Now, surely it is a waste of time to be 
discussing procedure twelve years after that letter was written. 

The CHAIRMAN: Before that extract is proved it can hardly be allowed to 
go into the record as evidence. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I would like to draw attention to this extract, which 
Mr. O Meara has put into this memorandum. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: That Mr. Kelly has just read? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. It deals with a somewhat different subject. The 
point then was that this McKenna Commission dealt with and the Minister 
of Justice of the day, according to this, says that this reference to the Royal 
Commission was the lands, and then he goes on to say apropos of what, I do 
not know, because we have not the context that the question of the aboriginal 
title was not relevant, which Mr. O Meara injects into this; and then what I 
objected to the other day is that this 1 is stated as if it was a positive finding of 
the Minister of Justice that there was an aboriginal title. That is what I object 
to, that he is putting this in as evidence when it is not evidence at all. That 
is the type of procedure I object to before the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stevens, then you agree that this should not go into 
the record at all? 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.l 



CLAIMS OP THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C 165 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: This quotation of the Minister of Justice should not go 
into the record at all because we have not got the document it is taken from; 
all we are doing is taking Mr. O Meara s word that he got it from somewhere. 

The WITNESS: Will it be all right to go in if we get the proper documents? 

The CHAIRMAN: You get the proper documents. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: On the other hand, these other documents are before 
us in the proper official manner. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I ask for information? I have a copy of that, but 
it is not available at the moment. 

The CHAIRMAN: It will be on record in the Department of Justice? 

Mr. O MEARA: Certainly. 

The WITNESS: There is no doubt about the existence of this. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I am not questioning it. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: It is a question of how the extract deals with the context. 

The WITNESS: The reason that question has arisen is this; I do not think 
the Committee has heard this side of it; if they have, I do not know it. As 
you know, today is my first presence here, and I did not notice in the record 
of the proceedings this particular phase of it. There was an Order in Council 
brought into existence in June, 1914, which made provision for the reference 
of the case through the proper courts to the Privy Council. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Where is that Order in Council, is that in this record? A. No. We are 
trying to get this Committee to agree to our submitting a connected form of 
our case so that it will go on record. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I will just give you precisely what has happened. The other day, Mr. 
O Meara, presuming to represent you as counsel, would persist in making 
quotations and reading such things as this? A. I beg your pardon, the Order 
in Council is on record at page 55. 

Q. We are not objecting to the production of these things, but we do ask 
that when they are referred to they should be produced? A. The reason th&t 
was objected to the Indians, without exception, objected to that. Just take 
that and come down to the body of it, No. 1. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Reading now from page 55? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: P.C. 751, dated 20th June, 1914. 

The WITNESS: We have the preamble set out, then we come to the body. 
No. 1 reads as follows: 

The Indians of British Columbia shall, by their chiefs or represen 
tatives, in a binding way, agree, if the court, or on appeal, the Privy 
Council, decides that they have a title to lands of the province, to sur 
render such title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for 
extinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in 
satisfying the Indian claim to unsurrendered territory, and to accept the 
findings of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia 
as approved by the Governments of the Dominion and the province as 
a full allotment of Reserve lands to be administered for their benefit as 
part of the compensation. 

Now, that was the heart of the issue, as we took it. The Indians were asked, 
you see, " in a binding way through their Chiefs and representatives," to agree 
to whatever the Government saw fit to submit to us as satisfying our title and 
extinguishing our title. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.) 



1 66 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Part of the covenaney for your surrendering the title was the reserves; 
the reserves were to he considered to be part of the compensation? A. Yes. 

Q. If they had given you $100,000.000, you would have had to surrender 
title and take the lands as part of the compensation? A. That is so. 

Q. That is the way it reads? A. It does not read that way. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. A moment ago you took the stand that what you claimed was that you 
had a right to settle this question as it had been settled in other parts of Can 
ada; that the British Columbia Indians had been treated differently. That 
says: " benefits to be granted for extinguishment of title in accordance with 
past usage of the Crown." Now, that is throughout the whole of Canada? A. 
Exactly. Just a while ago I pointed out the fact that in the other parts of the 
Dominion Commissioners were sent out and they met the Indians in a formal 
way in council and negotiations took place. I said that perhaps it was just a 
formal procedure; it might be true that treaties were drawn up beforehand 
and the Indians could not make any advance in reference to them, but the fact 
is they had negotiations and the Indians were met and terms discussed and 
agreed to. This says that we shall accept whatever the Government sees fit to 
give to us. 

Q. It says, " receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for ex 
tinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying 
the Indian claim to unsurrendered territory?" A. There would have been no 
objection, I assure this Committee, to this particular paragraph if there was 
any reference made to negotiations, if the Indians were to be represented there 
and after talking about the matter we would agree to some sort of settlement. 

Dr. SCOTT: The whole thing is provided for in the clause. Negotiations 
would have to take place, but the benefits would be in accordance with past 
usage of the Crown in these matters. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Not merely past usage in relation to the Indians of 
British Columbia, but the Indians of the whole Dominion? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes. In the memorandum which accompanied it I explained 
what these usages were, and in my report I analyzed some of these things, but 
there was to be an agreement according to the past usage of the Crown. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Were the Indians made aware of that? 

Dr. SCOTT: This was never brought before them in a formal way. This 
Order in Council was printed and they knew what it was. Of course, the real 
objection, was that they did not wish to accept the findings of the Royal Com 
mission. 

The WITNESS: I think the Doctor will agree with this; that forms were 

sent out to the different agencies in the province of British Columbia and it was 

demanded that the Indian Chiefs or representatives sign their names signing 

away their rights, even before they knew the contents of the report of the Royal 

Commission. 

Dr. SCOTT: That is quite wrong; that is not the fact at all. I gave my 
agents certain copies but they were not authorized or directed to submit them 
to the Indians or discuss them with the Indians. It was only for their own 
information, but Mr. Kelly got a copy. 

The WITNESS: If my understanding of that is wrong I am quite willing to 
be corrected; I do not wish to stretch anything beyond its proper meaning and 
intention. Since the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs has brought this before 
the Committee and given that explanation, I accept his explanation. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 167 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, this P.C. 751 not only provides for what Dr. Scott said, but 
it goes on to say that in the event of submission to the Courts the Government 
of British Columbia shall be represented by counsel and the Indians shall be 
represented by counsel nominated and paid by the Dominion? A. Yes. 

Q. So that there was every provision made in this Order in Council for 
safeguarding the rights of the Indians, and for submitting them properly to the 
court? A. If the Indians were taken into confidence a little more I think a 
great deal of misunderstanding and trouble would have been eliminated. I say 
that in all seriousness. 

Q. You mean that if the terms of this Order in Council had been first sub 
mitted to a conference or meeting, such as you describe, and all the matters 
thrashed out and fully understood, the whole thing would have been probably 
agreed to then? A. I think so. I firmly believe that if that sort of thing had 
been done a great deal of trouble would have been eliminated. It has not been 
done. I hope that the Committee is prepared to admit this; that we are not 
quite as illiterate as we used to be; we are not quite as ignorant as we used to 
be in British Coium bia sixty or seventy-five years ago. We have made a little 
progress since that day. My friend, Mr. Paull, the Secretary of our Alliance, 
is a very competent man, and I think seemed to impress the Committee. They 
are not all just like him but we have 

Q. He is a fair sample? A. He is a fair sample of a good many. We have 
young men who are capable of doing their own thinking and who are capable 
of seeing things just as any ordinary man. There has not been a frank under 
standing about that particular matter. I would like to give- a great deal of 
credit to the present Minister of the Interior, not because he is here, but I think 
he was the first Minister of the Crown who made a trip to British Columbia to 
find out the facts of the case as far as he was able to, and who met us in con 
ference and discussed matters frankly. Now, we did not go the whole way, but 
I think it was the beginning of a progress. It was the sort of thing that should 
have been done in days gone by, but it was not done, and because of that there 
has been a great deal of misunderstanding and perhaps a great deal of expendi 
ture of money needlessly. I say that in all frankness. We have taken our 
interpretation of this Order in Council, whether rightly or wrongly, and the 
report of the Royal Commission was not acceptable to the Indians. We had to 
agree to that, as you see in the reading of this, to accept that which was objec 
tionable. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. You were asked to accept before the Royal Commission made their 
findings; this was when the Royal Commission were really doing their work? 
A. (No audible answer.) 

Mr. PAULL: They were right in the field. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. They were in the field? A. Yes. 

Q. They were asking you to accept a finding that was repugnant to you? 
They were asking that you would accept, as the two governments had, the fird- 
ing of this Commission, and abide by it, as to lands and lands alone. Surely that 
is not unreasonable? A. I think Mr. Stevens knows that the Indians strongly 
objected to great areas being cut off, which was part of the report of that Royal 
Commission; 30,000 acres in Penticton. 

Q. You did not know that at the time you turned this down? 

Mr. PAULL: That is why the Indians would not agree to the contents :>f 
this Order in Council, before they knew what the report of the Commission would 
be. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly. 1 



168 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That may be the reason, but I am pointing out that 
they could not have objected to the McKenna Report because they did not know 
what it was. 

Mr. PAULL: That is the very reason. We were asked to accept something 
in the report which we did not know anything of. Another condition was that 
this report would be accepted by the two governments. Th^ actual facts of the 
case are these; that the Dominion Government did not accept this report until 
ten years from the time this Order in Council was passed. Were the Indians to 
accept a report which they knew nothing of? Supposing, in 1914, the Indians 
had agreed to the provisions of the Royal Commission. Some of them would 
have been very sorry now, because great portions of the best parts of their reserve 
are cut out by that Commission. 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: You were not being asked to do that, Mr. Paull. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is what I am trying to impress on the minds of 
the Committee. Both Mr. Kelly and Mr. Paull are arguing this thing wrong. 
This is a voluntary act on the part of the Government to try and assist this 
thing to a settlement. 

The WITNESS: I beg to correct that. I do not think the Hon. Mr. Stevens 
is just correct when he says that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Not correct in what? 

The WITNESS: In this respect: that the Commission had power, not only 
to make additions to the Indian lands, but to cut off, and the Indians objected 
to that word cut-off". They did not know what was going to be cut off 
and that was one of the objections. If they agreed to that they did not know 
where they were going to get off at. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: At that time the cut-off was only to be made with the 
consent of the Indians; you will remember that. 

The WITNESS: Perhaps it was with the consent of the Indians. Well, that 
was one of the objections. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It could not be an objection if it did not exist at 
that time. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: There was no objection, then, because of the cut-off. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Because, as Mr. Ditchburn says, the cut-off was subse 
quent to the agreement by the Indians. 

The WITNESS: I am just a little bit at a loss; my memory does not carry 
me back that far. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: There is no doubt, as far as I can discover, that the 
Indians were never prepared to agree; the body of Indians I came in contact 
with, known as the representatives of the Allied Tribes, were never prepared 
to agree to the full text of the land settlement, for two reasons. One that there 
were cut-offs which they thought were too extravagant, and the other was that 
they did not thdnk they had land enough in the whole area provided for the 
InxUans. 

By Hon. Mr. Steivart: 

Q. Those were the two reasons you gave me when we were discussing 
this? A. That is quite right. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I do not know that we will get very far in discussing 
what might have happened or what might have been done. The fact remains 
that you never signed the agreement to that effect, and it is still unsigned. 
What I would like to get from you is this: you have put in a petition of rights 
to Parliament, and subsequently you have filed a petition asking that you be 
permitted to go to the Privy Council; that is the text of the latest petition, 
the one that we are discussing now? 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 169 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Are you still satisfied that that petition will satisfy the people you 
represent? That is, you ask for certain things; the latest addition to which I 
took exception was $2,000.000; the other was mostly for education and all that 
sort of thing. You are still in the same position as when you filed that peti 
tion? A. Yes; we have had no occasion to change our minds; we are exactly 
in the same position we were in then. 

Q. That has extinguished the claim you might have to aboriginal title? 
A. Yes. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. And you want the Privy Council to fix the terms of the extinguishing? 
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Mr. Kelly and I have discussed that, and I do not know 
whether or not that should come up here. That is the one thing which caused 
me to hesitate to suggest to our government, or even later to discuss it in 
Parliament a reference to the Courts. In discussing it it developed that Mr. 
Kelly and others held the view that in all probability, even if it reached the 
Privy Council Perhaps I had better preface that by saying this to them; law 
is usually, when it is obscure, a matter of precedent; a precedent exists all 
over Canada; the government has dealt with the Indian tribes largely by 
Treaty, sometimes otherwise; but throughout this, the fact was very apparent 
that the Crown, whether by conquest or otherwise, claimed the land, and they 
were dealing with the Indians on the basis of providing them adequately with 
land to carry on as Indian people, and later, by education, medical attention, 
and otherwise. That discussion, in my opinion, would be settled by precedent, 
even if it reached that stage, and then we would be left in a very unsatisfa/c- 
tory position, by the Courts or the Privy Council deciding what the terms 
were to be; that would still have to be settled. I think that was agreed to very 
largely by you, Mr. Kelly. 
The WITNESS: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: If that is the case, that is why I hesitated at once 
to recommend procedure by law. The reason this has not been settled is that 
there has been a hope that some grounds of settlement could be arrived at, 
but as yet it has not been reached, and the British Columbia government, no 
matter of what political stripe, maintains the position and we may as well 
be frank that all they would do was to provide adequate reserves for the 
Indians, and the rest of the problem was for the Federal government, leav 
ing the thing in a very obscure position so that we would still have to settle 
all these things in detail. 

The WITNESS: I want to read a couple of paragraphs from the record 
No. 1 of March 30th, appearing on page 31, appendix A, "Statement of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia for the government of British Colum 
bia; General Introductory Remarks: 

The statement prepared by the committee appointed by the confer 
ence held at Vancouver in June, 1916, and sent to the government of 
Canada, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, contained the 
following: 

The committee concludes this statement by asserting that while it is 
believed that all of the Indian tribes of the province will press on to the 
judicial committee, refusing to consider any so-called settlement made up 
under the McKenna agreement, the committee also feels certain that the 
tribes allied for that purpose will always be ready to consider any really 
equitable method of settlement, out of Court, which might be proposed by 
the governments. 

We still maintain that position to-day, and we think it is a fair position to take. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



170 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

A resolution passed by the Interior Tribes at a meeting at- Spencer s 
Bridge on the 6th December, 1917, contained the following: 

We are sure that the government and a considerable number of 
white men have for many years had in their minds a quite wrong idea of 
the claims which we make, and the settlement which we desire. We do 
not want anything extravagant, and we do not want anything hurtful to 
the real interests of the white people. We want that our actual rights be 
determined and recognized; we want a settlement based upon justice. We 
want a full opportunity of making a future for ourselves. We want all 
this done in such a way that in the future we shall be able to live and 
work with the white people as our brothers and fellow-citizens. 

I think that brings before this committee the real mind of the Indians of 
British Columbia. After all, I think we are not so very far apart, if we are willing 
to admit that the Indians have a right. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Are you through, Mr. Kelly? A. I do not think that there is any more 
that I can add to it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this; it seems to me 
that this high court of this Parliament of Canada at least, some of the mem 
bers of it- have not come to any decision. There is the question, have we any 
right? If we have no right, why have we no right? The right has never been 
taken away from us, as has been conceded time and again. The government 
takes that view; then why not deal with our right, as we have been asking for? 
That is putting the thing in a nutshell. 

Q. I do not know how you establish that. A. We say our aboriginal title 
has never been extinguished. Can you show us when it has been extinguished; 
if it has been, it was done while we were asleep. 

Dr. SCOTT: It has been extinguished from 104,000 acres, more or less, by 
Treaty Number 8. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think it was extinguished in the lower part of Van 
couver Island by Treaty. 

The WITNESS: Yes, we admit that. We have admitted where it has been 
done. The Hudson s Bay Company has done that. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Then there would appear to be an extinguishment of it I cannot say 
there is any document or instrument available by common consent over a very, 
very long period of years, by acquiesence on the part of the Indians, and there 
has not been a single citation that I can recall of early negotiations, which did 
not rest upon merely a discussion of the area to be set aside. The fact that the 
Queen or other authority was setting aside an area seems to permeate every 
negotiation. A. I think that is the very point on which we differ. One member 
says that it has died a natural death, if one may put it that way, because many 
years have elapsed since the matter was discussed, or at least acknowledged, or 
recognized by the government, and it has not yet been dealt with. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: You want to go further back than that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Prior to Confederation. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: When the British people came to British Columbia, 
they exercised without contest the right to sovereignty. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: They took possession of the land in the name of the 
Queen, or of the King, as the case might be. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Yes. And occupation continued from that time. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 171 

WITNESS: Well, once again, I maintain, if you say that we have not estab 
lished our position, then just in the same measure the Government cannot 
show either this Government or the Provincial cannot show by what instru 
ment the Indian title has ever been extinguished. 

Mr. McPiiERSON: In a great number of the provinces, titles have been 
extinguished in thirty years. That is, title to land has been lost by right of 
occupation, by an adverse occupant. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Squatters rights. 

WITNESS: Then white men who came to British Columbia were squatters? 

Mr. McPnEKSON: We might say that, 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: There are lots of squatters in British Columbia now. 
There are some right in the heart of Vancouver. 

WITNESS: If you take that position, then may I say this? 

Mr. McPHERSON: I am not taking that position, I am suggesting that the 
extinguishment of title by occupation is not an unheard of statement. 

WITNESS: Then the land that has not been squatted upon is the land of 
the Indians. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: No, the King took possession of the whole territory. 

Mr. PAULL: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for the moment? 

The CHAIRMAN: No, wait until Mr. Kelly finishes. 

WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, I began with a plea for tolerance on behalf of 
our counsel to present his argument, just to meet such questions as are now being 
brought to the surface; to present a constitutional argument so that, whether 
it be strong or weak, the constitutional side of our stand may be presented in 
a full way. Then, gentlemen, I would take it that you would be in a position 
to decide in a very fair, unbiased way, whatever you wish to decide upon this 
very important question. 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will take that into consideration. 

By Hon. Mr.. .Steivart: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, supposing Dr. Scott has made an estimate based upon a 
settlement by treaty of a certain portion of Vancouver Island; if he has taken 
the amount of that settlement and has calculated it on that basis, that if the 
rest of the title had been settled at that time by treaty, and the amount had 
been claimed that has not been discussed this afternoon, but what would your 
opinion be? Have you seen that statement? A. No, I have not. 

Q. It would be unfair then to ask you the question? A. I have not studied 
that at all. 

Mr. PATJLL: May I ask which statement that is? 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: It is a statement in Dr. Scott s memorandum, indicat 
ing what your title would have been worth at that particular time on the- 
basis of the other. 

Mr. PAULL: He estimated that in twenty years, it would have been worth, 
$2,472,000. 

Dr. SCOTT: No, that is not what the Minister referred to at all. He refers 
to the comparative statement that I made when I was addressing the Committee, 
and which appears on page 15. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: This is on the Treaty for Vancouver Island. 

Dr. SCOTT: It appears on page 15 of the proceedings of March 30, and the 
following pages 16 and 17. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: I do not want to delay the Committee to ask Mr. 
Kelly that question. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



172 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. PAULL: Vancouver Island happens to be my constituency, so to speak, 
and that is why I am anxious to speak about it. Mr. Kelly deals with the other 
parts of the province. I am entrusted with the work of discussing the matter 
of the treaties that were entered into with the Hudson Bay Company. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: As they affect Vancouver Island? 

Mr. PAULL: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Are you bringing them into the question? 

Mr. PAULL: No, I am not introducing that. I thought that was what we 
were being asked about. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Here is a calculation based on what was paid when 
that title was extinguished. 

Mr. McPnERSON: It was based on one dollar a square mile. I thought 
Mr. Stewart was asking you whether you would be satisfied with one dollar a 
square mile. 

Mr. PAULL: Then I understand you. The Indians in the immediate vicinity 
of where these treaties were made contended that they only sold a certain area 
of the land, and that they did not sell their aboriginal title. 

Mr. McPnERSON: I think what Mr. Paull means is that while they sold 
a definite location, they still claimed an interest in the balance of the Province. 

Mr. PAULL: Shall I read the Treaty? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What he said was that they still held an interest in 
what they sold. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: That is that they maintained their sovereign rights. 

WITNESS: Mr. Chairman, let us be fair. I submit that the Committee is 
not quite fair to us in this. Because the Hudson Bay Company gave a blanket 
here and- there to the Indians, and thereby claimed a certain area of land, it 
cannot be said that that was a fair dealing at all. Surely that can be conceded. 
Surely no hon. gentlemen would suggest that on the basis of what the Hudson 
Bay Company has done in a certain portion of Vancouver Island, now in this 
way any Government would begin to treat with non-Treaty Indians. The idea 
of one dollar per square mile is impossible. 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. For the Indian title? A. Yes. I think it is an insult to intelligence for 
any title, whether Indian or any other. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Mr. Kelly, before you get warmed up, let us come to the complaint that 
the Indians of British Columbia have not an opportunity of negotiating treaties 
on the same basis and in the same manner as others have. That was one of your 
complaints? A. Quite so. 

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, two sections of British Columbia were dealt 
with by treaty in precisely that manner? A. By the Hudson Bay Company. 

Q. By the authorities of that time? 

By Hon. Mr. Barnard: 

Q. They were not both by the Hudson Bay Company? A. Vancouver 
Island was by the Hudson Bay Company. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. One was by the Crown? A. That is the one that is brought in as a 
suggested basis, Vancouver Island, which was done by the Hudson Bay Com 
pany; not Treaty No. 28. 

Q. I have not given utterance to the thought that that should be the basis 
of settlement, but supposing the question of the aboriginal title is admitted, 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 173 

what would you want? That is what we have been trying to get from every 
witness who has been before us, but we have never been able to get it? A. l 
do not think that is a fair statement. Dr. Scott has filed as part of the evidence 
submitted by him, our claim; what we consider to be an equitable basis of 
settlement, and I cannot see why it is asserted again and again that we have not 
made any specific claim, but have merely made a sort of general claim. That 
is not a fair thing to say. 

Q. I am talking about the aboriginal title? A. Exactly. The aboriginal 
title is what I am discussing. It is what we ask for in extinguishment of the 
aboriginal title. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: Mr. Kelly, in a portion of Vancouver Island, they sold 
not only the aboriginal title but they sold the whole of the land, retaining only 
certain areas for their reserves. They not only ceded the aboriginal title, but 
they sold the whole of that land to the Hudson Bay Company, and that was 
always recognized by the Victoria Government afterwards. 

WITNESS: I am not disputing that. I do not intend to repudiate what was 
done, however unjust it was. I am not for one moment repudiating that. It 
was done. Whatever area was described by those treaties, of course we are 
bound by to-day. We do not question that for one moment. But what we do 
say is, why pick out that as being the basis for dealing with the other parts of 
the province? 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. It is for you to bring forward evidence controverting it. This was a 
thing which actually took place at a certain time? A. Yes, it was done by a 
trading company. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: What the Department of the Interior says is not 
law to the Committee. It is simply something to enlighten us, and we are 
anxious to hear from you anything that will enlighten us on the other side. 

WITNESS: On page 36 of No. 1 this appears: 

Conditions proposed as basis of settlement. 

Now, is not this what you want, Mr. Chairman? I take it this is what he 
asked for. I am reading from page 36 of No. 1 of the proceedings of this Com 
mittee, on Wednesday, March 30. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Are they all set forth on these three pages signed by yourself and Mr. 
Teit? A. Yes. 

Mr. PATJLL: Those are the conditions on which we are agreed to relinquish 
any title we may have. 

WITNESS: To carry this out, I presume this Committee would have to 
labour for a year, to get through all the details of it. You can only recommend 
in a general way. If you wish me to read it, I will read it? 

The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not necessary to read it. 

WITNESS: Well, there it is then; these are the conditions we have put for 
ward, and this was amplified when we met the Deputy Superintendent General 
of Indian Affairs in Victoria, in the summer of 1923, appendix "H" I believe 
it is. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think they want the grant of the existence of abori 
ginal title, and, secondly, those are the conditions under which they are pre 
pared to surrender that aboriginal title; that is really what it amounts to. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: That is the contention, yes. With respect to fishing, 
there are not many complaints. 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



174 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. The complaints with respect to fishing rights have been greatly reduced 
since 1922? A. Yes, they have been wonderfully adjusted; discriminations 
against the Indians have been done away with, I am glad to say, since that 
Commission on fisheries made its recommendations. But this is a sore point; 
when an Indian needs fish for food it has been made harder for him to get it; 
for commercial fishing he has been put on equal footing with the white man. 

Q. Fishing for food, what is the difficulty about that? A. I will give you 
a case in point. Just a year ago last summer a young man went up the Nan,aimo 
river and speared a salmon, and he was hauled up by the guardian and the fish 
taken from him. 

Q. The Provincial Guardian? A. No, the Dominion Guardian. 

Q. One of our own fisheries men? A. Under the Fisheries Act. He was 
taken to court and fined. That is only one instance of many similar cases. The 
point, of course, made out was this; that he had to get a special permit before 
he could catch fish for himself. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What permit is this ; is it a very difficult thing to get A. It is a written 
permit on which is specified the time limits in which he is privileged to catch 
fish for food, and the manner in which he shall catch the fish is specified also. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. He killed this fish out of season? A. No, it was not out of season; he 
did not have a permit. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Would the white man have been subjected to the same thing if he had 
taken out fish without a permit? A. I suppose so. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What explanation do you give, Mr. Ditchburn, from 
your acting as a sort of guardian of the Indians rights, of that instance; what 
is your view? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: Of the fishing? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Of an instance such as Mr. Kelly mentions? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: W T ell, this Indian was pulled up for non-compliance with 
the regulations set up by the Department of Fisheries, whereby he must not 
take fish for food purposes without a license. They were not allowed to take fish 
by means of a spear or gaff hook; they are now, in some instances, but they 
specify the method of taking these fish in different streams. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: From your knowledge of the situation do you consider 
there was a grievance because of this regulation? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: I think so; I felt that they had a right to get at these 
fish. I think it is a matter of not interpreting the spirit of the regulation 
properly. If the local authorities would use a little more common judgment 
and have a proper appreciation of things, I do not think there would be half 
the trouble with the Indians that there is. 

The CHAIRMAN: When you say that, does that apply to the other? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: As far as I know, in British Columbia all the fisheries 
are held by the Dominion Department; I do not think that the Provincial Game 
Branch does anything about fisheries at all. 

The CHAIRMAN: What I mean is, have you had complaints from up- 
country of the same nature as Mr. Kelly mentions here as occurring down on 
the coast? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: Well, they occur at different positions; it depends on 
where the Indians are taking their fish. Sometimes they allow them to take 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 175 

them on spears; sometimes with a dip net; sometimes by a gaff, and sometimes 
by little pens. There would not be half the trouble with these Indians if the 
officials would go out and find out just what practical methods could be put 
into effect at the different points. That does not seem to have been done so far. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Is there any difficulty in applying for a permit? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: Not for food purposes. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: As far as I can learn, with few exceptions we have 
pretty well met the petition. We will have the Fishery Commissioner, Mr. 
Found, here. Mr. Ditchburn does think that the Indians are entitled to more 
consideration that they have got. 

The WITNESS: I am very glad the Commissioner of Indian Affairs has 
made the explanation. He knows exactly what he is talking about. We had a 
discussion with Mr. Found in Ottawa two or three years ago on that very thing. 
He said that the Capilano river was for the sportsmen of British Columbia and 
the Indians needs were not to be considered ; that the sportsmen, fishing with a 
fly, rod and line, had the right of way and the Indian wanting to get fish for 
food, and getting, it with a gaff, was not to be considered; he was to be punished 
for doing so. Those are the words, and if the gentleman was here I think he 
would confirm them. Mr. Paull said to him, " Where will we go for our fish? " 
" Oh, go to Vancouver Island, the Cowichan river, or some other river on 
Vancouver Island, and get your fish. That particular thing is too valuable; 
it is for the interests of sportsmen, and not for the needs of Indians." That 
sort of spirit has aggravated things. There is too much of that. 

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, it is six o clock, and we have had a long 
sitting this afternoon. When shall w r e meet again? 

The witness retired. 

The committee adjourned until Tuesday, April 5, 1927, at 10 a.m. 

EXHIBIT NO. 4 

From Andrew Paull 
ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 

We represent nominally all the Indians of British Columbia with the excep 
tion of those Indians coming under Treaty No. 8, and the Songhees and the 
Sooke Indians on Vancouver Island. 

At the conference in June 1916, the following tribes were allied. 

The Interior: The Okanagon, Lake or Senjextee, Tompson River at Cour- 
teau, Shuswap, Lilooet, Kutenai, Chilcotin, Carrier, Tahlton, Kasha; and on 

The Coast and North: The Nishga, Tsimpshian tribes, Kitikshian, Haida, 
Bellacoola, Cowichan and Lower Fraser or Stalo. 

A larger alliance was formed in the year 1922 when the following tribes 
were represented: 

"The Reverend Chairman informed the meeting that this was not anj 
allied tribe meeting but a general meeting of all B.C. Indians, and for the 
assembly to express their views. 

Those present were as follows: Rev. P. R. Kelly, representing Haida 
tribe; Charlie Saylaykultin, representing Musquean; Chief Paul White, repre 
senting Naimo ; Chief Billy Yaklum, representing Naniamo ; Sam Smith, repre 
senting Naniamo; Chief Charlie, representing Naniamo; Chief George, repre 
senting Cowichan; Chief Modiste, representing Cowichan; John Elliott, repre 
senting Cowichan; Chief David, representing Saanich Tribe; Tommy Paul, 
representing Saanich Tribe; Chris Paul, representing Saanich Tribe; Chief Billy 
Asser, representing Cape Mudge Tribe; James Howell, representing Cape 
Mudge Tribe; Johnny Dick, representing Cape Mudge Tribe; Chas. Nowell, 
representing Albert Bay Tribe; Johnny Drable, representing Albert Bay Tribe; 



1 76 SPECIAL 

Harry Mountain, representing Fort Rupert Tribe; Chief Smith, representing 
Fort Rupert Tribe; Bob Harris, representing Fort Rupert Tribe; Jim Humchet, 
representing Kingcome Inlet; Harry Johnson, representing Kingcome Inlet; Albert 
King, representing Bella Coola; Rueben Schooner, representing Bella Coola; 
Chief Harry Stewart, representing Lower Fraser Tribes ; George Matheson, repre 
senting Lower Fraser Tribes; Chief Harry Joe, representing Lower Fraser Tribes; 
Dennis Peters, representing Lower Fraser Tribes; Chief Stephen Retasket, repre 
senting Lilloett Tribes ; Johnny Antoine, representing Lilloett Tribes ; Chief Harry 
Peters, representing Fort Douglas Tribes; Chief A. J. Stager, representing 
Pemberton Tribes; Paul Dick, representing Pem berton Tribes; Willie Pascal, 
representing Pemberton Tribes; Aleck Leonard, representing Kamloops Tribes; 
Johnny Galokuum, representing Campbell River Tribes; Chief Bazil David, 
representing Smilkamien Tribes; Wm. Turpaskitt, representing Smilkamien 
Tribes; Narcisse Batiste, representing Nakamip Tribes; Chief Michael Jack, 
representing Penticton Tribes; Jimmy Antoine, representing Okanagon Tribes; 
Francoise Guguere, representing Okanagon Tribes; Joseph George, representing 
Fairview Tribes; Chief Johnny Chillikitza, representing Nicola Valley Tribes; 
Chief Jonoh, representing Merritt Nicola Valley; Ambrose Reid, representing 
Tsimptian Tribes; Andrew Paull, representing Squamish Tribes; Chief Mathias, 
representing Squamish Tribes; Chief George, representing Squamish Tribes; 
Chief Moses Joseph, representing Squamish Tribes. 

At the above mentioned meeting, the following resolution was passed. 

Whereas it is apparent that there are two factions of organization at this 
meeting, namely the Allied Tribes and independent party. To try and bring 
these two parties together, therefore, be it resolved that the Indians of B.C. 
join an organization of Indians to fight Bills 13 and 14 and adopt for its policy 
the statement of the Allied Indian Tribes of B.C. for the Government of B.C., 
said organization to have standing executive committee which will consist of 
Indians and others deemed acceptable by Interiors." 

Since the above meeting all Indians on the coast of the main land and on 
the east and west coast of Vancouver Island have joined that organization. 

Certified Correct, 

ANDREW PAULL, 

Secretary. 
EXHIBIT NO. 5 

From A. D. Maclntyre 
A JOINT COMMITTEE ox INDIAN AFFAIRS OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS 

Names of Indian Chiefs and their Reserves of the Interior of British Colum 
bia represented by Chief Johnny Chillitza, hereditary Chief of the Okanagan 
tribes. 

Chief Basil David of the Bonaparte of the Cariboo tribes; Chief William 
Pierrish of the Shuswap Reserve for the Shuswap tribes, and Chief Etienne 
Adrian of Squilax, also a Shuswap; Chief Eli Larue, Kamloops Reserve; Chief 
Jimmy Gabriel, Clinton Reserve; Chief Joe Moses, High Bar Reserve; Chief Wm. 
Tilliam, Williams Lake Reserve; Chief Sampson, Alkali Lake Reserve; Chief 
Louie Timmaskin, Canoe Creek Reserve; Chief Christopher, Canim Lake 
Reserve; Chief Joe Machel, Silver Creek Reserve; Chief Jimmy Antoine, Dead 
Man s Creek Reserve; Chief Major Checkslish, Leon s Creek Reserve; Chief 
Duncan, Prince George Reserve; Chief Michel, Masco Reserve; Chief Morris 
Gray Tlooskis Lake Reserve; Chief Tommy Sannish, Anahame Lake Reserve; 
Chief Edian Chilhouwskin, Chase Reserve; Chief Charlie Francois, Squilax 
Reserve; Chief Johnny Isaac, Okanagan Reserve; Chief Louie Paul, Athlmer 
Reserve; Chief David Cassimer, Chuchua Reserve; Chief Scottie, Askcroft 
Reserve; Chief Michel Jack, Penticton Reserve; Chief Alexis Sceanse, Smiika- 
meen Reserve; Chief Louie Abel, Windermere Reserve; Chief Joe Hanna, Cha- 
louse Reserve; Chief Charlie Squakam, Spences Bridge Reserve; Chief Francois 
Silpahan, Tappen Reserve. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 177 



COMMITTEE ROOM 368, 

TUESDAY, April 5th, 1927. 

The Joint Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition sub 
mitted to Parliament in June, 1926, met at 10.00 o clock, Hon. Mr. Bostock, 
presiding. 

The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, what further evidence do you wish to hear 
this morning? Mr. Ditch burn is here, and I understand Mr. Found will be here 
shortly. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: There is one point, Mr. Chairman, I was not clear 
about in Mr. Kelly s evidence. As I understood it, he claimed that a purchase, 
such as that made by James Douglas at Victoria of a certain area of land, did 
not extinguish the title, the aboriginal title to that laud. Was I correct in 
that? 

The CHAIRMAN: Senator (Hon. Mr. McLennan) would you like to put 
Mr. Kelly back on the stand? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Yes, I would. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly, will you take your place at the end of the 
table again? 

Rev. P. R. KELLY recalled. 

The CHAIRMAN: You have already been sworn. 
The WITNESS: Yes. I do not think I said that. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. I wanted to be clear on that point, Mr. Kelly. A. It was the secretary 
who made that remark. A treaty is a treaty; it does not matter what the 
grounds are; nevertheless it is binding on both parties, and I think the treaty 
should speak for itself. We have the text of the treaty here, and it should be 
put before the committee. That will clear the matter up. Shall I read the 
treaty? 

Q. Read the essential point of it. A. It is not long; just a paragraph. This 
is a conveyan.ee of land to Hudson s Bay Company 

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand from what you are reading. 

The WITNESS: A conveyance of land to the Hudson s Bay Company. 

The CHAIRMAN: That has not as yet been put in the record; it will have 
to be filed. 

The WITNESS: Yes, we will put it in. the record. This is the Saanich 
tribe south Saanich. (Reading) : 

Know all men that we, the chiefs and people of the Saan,ich Tribe, 
who have signed our names and made our marks to this deed on the 
sixth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, do 
consent to surrender, entirely and for ever, to James Douglas, the agent 

[Rev. P. R. Kelly.] 
4232512 



178 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

of the Hudson s Bay Company in Vancouver Island, that is to say, for 
the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Committee of the same, the whole 
of the lands situate and lying between Mount Douglas and Cowichan 
Head, on the Canal de Haro, and extending thence to the line running 
through the centre of Vancouver Island, north and south. 

The condition of or understanding of this sale is this, that our 
village sites and enclosed fields, are to be kept for our own use, for the 
use of our children, and for those who may follow after us; and the land 
shall be properly surveyed hereafter. It is understood, however, that the 
land itself, with these small exceptions, becomes the entire property 
of the white people for ever; it is also understood that we are at liberty 
to hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry on our fisheries as 
formerly. 

We have received, as payment, forty-one pounds thirteen shillings 
and four pence. 

In token whereof, we have signed our names and made our marks, 
at Fort Victoria, on the 7th day of February, one thousand eight hundred 
and fifty-two. 

And then follows the signatures. I might say there are several other 
treaties, but they are all similar, except in the definition of the areas concerned. 

The CHAIRMAN: Does the committee wish to have all the treaties put in 
the records? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think all the treaties should be in the record. What 
others have you there, Mr. Kelly? 

The WITNESS: They are all there. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You have these, Doctor Scott, have you not? 

Dr. SCOTT: Yes; they are in the printed record. 

The CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions to ask of Mr. Kelly? 

The witness retired. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paull, you undertook to produce a" letter the other 
day when you were giving your evidence. The clerk tells me it has not been 
produced. 

Mr. PAULL: Unfortunately it has not arrived. The first day I was on 
the train I discovered the document was missing, and I wrote to my wife, but 
she, not being acquainted with my filing system, did not find it until Saturday. 
I got a telegram saying she had mailed it on Saturday; I will have it here on 
Thursday or Friday. 

The CHAIRMAN: Does the committee wish to examine Mr. Ditchburn? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think we should hear Mr. Ditchburn, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ditchburn, will you please take the stand? 

WILLIAM ERNEST DITCHBURN called and sworn. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Ditchburn? A. I am the Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs for British Columbia. 

Q. You may be seated, Mr. Ditchburn. Is there any statement you wish 
to make to the Committee, or would you prefer to be questioned? A. I think, 
Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to answer any questions that the Committee 
might wish to put to me, and I will try to answer them. 

Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 179 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Ditchburn a few questions. 
First, Mr. Ditchburn, would you mind giving the Committee a very brief 
statement regarding the evidence given in regard to fishing. The Indians 
complain of being deprived of their alleged rights in fishing. I do not ask for 
a long story, but just a brief statement from your experience and knowledge 
of the case? A. Do you mean fishing commercially, or fishing for food? 

Q. Both. There is a line of demarcation which is a little indistinct, there? 
A. Well, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, so far as fishing for commercial 
purposes is concerned, I do not think the Indians have any complaint in that 
regard. They are in a much better condition to-day than they were some two 
or three years ago, in view of the fact that very many Japanese have been 
eliminated from the fishing business. 

Q. As a result of the Royal Commission of 1922? A. I would assume so r 
yes. The Indians can fish now under what is known as independent licenses, 
just the same as the white man, and for a reduced license fee. 

Q. That is commercial fishing? A. Yes, that is for commercial fishing. 

Q. And you say there is really no complaint about that? A. No. 

Q. I do not notice that there is very much made. Take the other, the 
real complaint they are making, that their ancient right of fishing to use the 
fish for food has been taken away, or unreasonably interfered with. Will you 
state your views on that? A. Their right has not been taken away, but it 
has been restricted under the Fisheries Act. The Indians are permitted to take 
fish for food purposes under the supervision and according to the regulations 
of the chief inspector of Fisheries. In some instances, it is found that the 
Indians are not able to get their fish, owing to the kind of regulations put into 
effect. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 
Q. Do you mean unable to get fish for food? A. Yes, for food purposes. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. That is, you mean that these regulations are unreasonable and too 
restrictive? A. In some cases, yes. 

Q. Will you point out in what particular they are such, in your opinion? 
A. For instance, the Indians on the Capilano reserve at North Vancouver have 
recently had considerable trouble in view of the fact that one of their members 
was prosecuted for taking fish with a gaff. He was taking what is known as 
the chump or dog fish. 

Q. And they objected to that? A. Yes. The regulations on the Seymour 
Creek are that you can only take fish by means of angling. 

By Mr. Hay: 
Q. Are these regulations Federal or Provincial? A. Federal regulations. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Do you mean to say that the Indians are not permitted to take the dog 
fish by gaffing? A. Yes, there are only two classes of salmon that you can 
take by angling. You cannot take the dog salmon nor can you take the 
sock-eye with hook and line. 

Q. Capilano Creek runs through the reserve? A. Right through the 
reserve. 

Q. There is a reserve at Seymour too? A. Yes. 

Q. And the river runs through that? A. Yes, it runs through that. 

42325 12J I Mr - w - E - Ditchburn.] 



180 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Q. In your experience, have you had complaints of the Indians exceeding 
this right when it was reasonably administered, of fishing for commercial 
purposes, when they are ostensively fishing for food A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Is there any way that you can suggest that the Indian can be kept 
within bounds, providing this right is given to him with less restriction? A. 1 
have always looked upon it that if the Indian is given what he considers, or 
what may be considered reasonable regulations, providing for him taking his 
fish for food purposes, he is not so liable to violate those regulations which are 
put into effect. 

Q. Generally speaking, the Indian will observe the regulations, except when 
he thinks they are unfair? A. That is my opinion. 

Q. And it is the injustice of the regulations that prompts him to violate 
them? A. Yes, it is the sense of injustice. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: You are speaking to the whole of the Committee, Mr. 
Ditchburn. You are not addressing Mr. Stevens alone. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Speak a little louder, Mr. Ditchburn. Do you find any considerable 
amount of violation of the law by the Indians, taking it all over British 
Columbia? A. Not a great deal, no. 

. Q. Not very much complaint? A. No. There may be -complaints that have 
not reached my attention. Possibly Mr. Found, when he comes here later on, 
may be able to give you some evidence about that. 

Q. So far as you are concerned, you have not had very much complaint? 
A. No. 

Q. Can you recall any instances which would illustrate to the Committee 
the extent to which the Indians turn their right of private fishing into com 
mercial fishing? I mean do they amount to anything? A. They really do not 
amount to anything, no. 

Q. Just trivial cases? A. Yes, there are cases where an Indian will take a 
salmon, ostensibly for food purposes, and then go and turn it into a store for 
some provisions of some kind, and then he will be arrested and prosecuted. 

Q. Rather petty stuff? A. Yes. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Do others offend in that way as well as the Indians? A. Well, of 
course I am only talking about the Indians. 

Q. But I am asking you? A. I cannot say that, sir. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Perhaps just about the same as the Indians. That is an odd one, but it 
is not very general, I do not think. It is just petty? A. Yes, by Indians. 
Hon. Mr. GREEN: I do not think there is very much of that. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. You were in the room yesterday, Mr. Ditchburn, and heard the witnesses 
who addressed the Committee, or gave evidence? A. Yes. 

Q. You heard one witness state that the Indians took objection to the 
manner in which Indian agents were selected, and also that those selected were 
not good men, did you not? A. Yes. 

Q. What have you to say about that? A. I do not think their statement 
has any virtue in it at all. There would be no use of the Government appealing 
to the Indians to appoint representatives over them. 

Q. But the witnesses who made those statements also stated, or he, for it 
was one of them, stated that in his opinion the Indians should be consulted in 

[Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 181 

the selection. What is your opinion in that regard? A. It would not be 
practical. 

Q. Why? A. Because you would never get the Indians to agree. I think it 
was Chillihitza who said that, and possibly chief Johnny Chillihitza may have his 
own reasons for making a statement of that kind. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Do you not think that that refers to the man who was appointed Indian 
agent at Kamloops on one occasion who was a negro? A. It is very likely in 
that particular instance it did. 

Q. I think that is what he was referring to? A. I will not say that, but it- 
may have been that which he had in his mind. There was unfortunately a 
negro appointed Indian agent over the Indians in the Kamloops agency. 

By Hon. Mr. Green: 

Q. He did not make a bad agent? A. A very good agent; a very respect 
able man. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. He is a West Indian? A. Yes, he is a West Indian, but the Indians did 
not like it. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Is it not a fact that they prefer a white man as an agent, and not a man 
of colour, or foreign nationality? A. Yes, there is not the slightest doubt about 
that. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. No doubt an agent who is persona grata with the Indians gets on a 
great deal better than a man who is not. A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Certainly better than someone whom they do not like? A. Oh, yes. 
Of course it is the duty of any man who is appointed to supervise Indians, to 
become persona grata with them, as far as is consistently possible. He should 
not become too familiar with them or he would loss the dignity of his office. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennt.n: 

Q. There was another suggestion made by the old Chief, that dt did not 
make for smoothness, or for good relations, to send in the police to arrest an 
Indian; he thought he should be brought out by the Indians, by their own 
policemen, and given over to the white policemen rather than that the policemen 
should go in on their reserve. Now. is that a point in which, without any 
difficulty, their feelings could be considered? A. I do not think there is any 
thing in that. You cannot subject the carrying out of law and order to the 
Indian chiefs. That must be left with the police department. 

Q. That is the King s writ must run everywhere? A. Absolutely, yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. You heard these witnesses also speak about the division of water, for 
irrigation purposes? A. I did. 

Q. Are you in a position to express any opinion on that subject? A. I am. 

Q. I mean, from the standpoint of the Indian, as to whether he has been 
unjustly dealt with, or whether the prevailing conditions in that regard could 

IMr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



182 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

be improyed? A. I may explain, gentlemen, that under the old regime, that 
is by the Colonial Government, it is quite evident that the Indians were con 
sidered to have water rights with their land. That is proved in the case of the 
Kamlpops Reserve where in 1869, two gentlemen named Todd and Thompson 
applied for water licenses for property known as lots 1 and 2 on the top of 
Paul Mountain, almost inside of the Kamloops Indian reserve. 

Q. Applied to whom? A. .Applied to the stipendiary magistrate of that 
day, who was Mr. Peter O Reilly. They applied for a water license, and the 
water record was given to them, with this provision: 

Subject to the prior right of the Indians. 

Acting on that assumed prior right of the Indians, the Government of 
British Columbia issued a water license to the Kamloops Indians, giving them 
one day of priority over and above Messrs. Todd and Thompson, which is now 
known as the Harper Ranch. That carried on for some time, but the British 
Columbia Cattle Company, who are also now interested in that Harper Ranch, 
took exception to the ruling of the Board of Adjudication under the British 
Columbia Water Act, and they appealed against the ruling to the Court of 
Appeal of British Columbia, contending that the record issued to Todd and 
Thompson did not constitute a record for the Indians as provided for under 
the British Columbia Water Act. 

Q. You mean, did not constitute a basis of right? A. Yes, did not con 
stitute a record. The Department of Indian Affairs, of course, opposed the 
appeal, but we lost out. The date of priority was then reversed, putting the 
Todd and Thompson record ahead of the Indian record. 

Q. That is, the one day priority given to the Indians was cancelled? 
A. Yes, we lost it. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Was the basis of that ruling because the Todd and Thompson right was 
issued by the Government? A. Issued by the Government. 

Q. That is the Todd and Thompson right issued according to the Act and 
not according to the reservation? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 
Q. Are you sure of that? A. (No answer.) 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. I think it would probably be this: the Court did not recognize that the 
Indians had filed an application, while Todd and Thompson did? A. That is 
it exactly. 

Q. Although the Colonial Government said that the Indians had a prior 
right, the Indians not having applied formally did not have it, which seems to 
me pretty narrow reasoning. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: Under the British Columbia law, the right must be main 
tained by filing the application. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. At that time I doubt if there was such a regula 
tion, but subsequently, there was. 

WITNESS: Under the British Columbia Water Act, the interpretation of the 
word " record " is given, and it means some document filed with the Government 
of British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 
Q. What is the date of that Act? A. This is the Act of 1924. 

[Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] J 



. CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 183 

Q. But what was the original date of it? A. It is a consolidation. The first 
Water Act was in 1897. 

Q. That was long subsequent to this Kamloops incident? A. Yes. 
Q. That was before Confederation? A. Yes, prior to Confederation. 
Mr. McPHERSON: It was in 1869. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It strikes me that in that case the Indians have a very 
just complaint. 

Hon. Mr. STEWART: Mr. Ditchburn, in your opinion the Indians are correct 
in the statement that they have priority rights in these waters for irrigation 
purposes? I know the courts say they have not, but I am asking you if their 
contention that they have priority rights is correct? -A. The contention of the 
Indians is that they have always used the water with the land, and they could 
not use the land without having the water, in the dry belt. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Take the Okanagan district, in the bench land. The land is worthless 
without the water. They had the water on their land, and they used the two 
together, and the fact that they had not filed some formal application, I think, 
should not extinguish any right which they had by use. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Was there any question about their not having the use of the water, in 
the trial? A. I have not the evidence of the trial before me, and I do not 
think that was brought up. The Indians were using it, there is no doubt about 
that. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. I wish that point made clear. I understand that the case was decided 
against the Indians, not because they had not an inherent right, but because 
they had not taken the statutory method of recording their claim? A. There 
was no way of recording it. 

Q. No matter about that, that was the way the decision went? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, has the department seen to it that claims are filed on all the 
reserves where there are water rights? A. Undoubtedly, since then. 

Q. So it cannot happen again? A. No, you will remember that this was 
in the old colonial days, when there was no water right. 

Q. There is no chance of the Indians losing another lawsuit through the 
same oversight? A. No. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. How much territory is affected by this one claim that has been lost, 
that one water right? 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. To what degree in that Kamloops reserve that is what Mr. Hay means 
to what degree are they affected? Have they lost all their water? A. No, 
they haven t lost it all. By a subsequent record we got the right between the 
British Columbia Cattle Company and the Department of Indian Affairs so 
that we go fifty-fifty on the water in Fall Lake. That was arrived at recently. 

Q. Does that give them ample water for the cultivation of that reserve? 
A. No, neither party has got enough. Neither the British Columbia Cattle 
Company nor the Indians have enough. 

[Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



184 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Green: 

Q. Are the Indians using it up to their full capacity on that reserve? 
A. Yes, 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What would it cost to put in a pumping plant, and pump the water for 
irrigation out of the North or South Thompson? A. We figure it about $12,000 
to irrigate about 75 or 80 acres. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 
Q. The plant would cost that? A. Yes. 

By the Chairman: . 

Q. This water question is a very complicated matter. When you say the 
Indians get fifty-fifty with the ranching company, does it mean that they get 
enough water to raise a crop, or merely enough water to induce them to start 
a crop, and then not have enough to finish it? A. It is not enough to raise crops 
in the manner in which they are cultivating at the present, time. If they would 
cultivate more on the community system, not in separate little holdings, they 
would get much bertter results and their water would carry them along much 
farther than it does at the present time. We have been trying to induce the 
Indians to plot all their potatoes together, and their alfalfa together, each man 
having his holding in this community division, and then their water would go 
much farther than where they have their crops scattered. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Are there other cases at all similar to this Kamloops one? A. The loss 
of priority in the Okanagan has affected the Indians considerably. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Which one is that? A. That is the Okanagan Indians; that is the 
Indians from Spallumcheen to Osoyoos. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Is that the district that we heard of yesterday where the Indians were 
not properly using their orchards? A. Yes. I would like to just refer to that. 
Mr. Stevens mentioned the fact yesterday that the Pentieton Indians were not 
cultivating their land up to the extent which it was possible to cultivate it. I 
have to say that I cannot agree with Mr. Stevens in that regard. I believe every 
acre of the Pentieton reserve is under cultivation that is possible to be irrigated. 

By Hon. Air. Stevens: 

Q. How long since? A. Has been for the last ten years. 

Q. Is that the reason they are not cultivating the rest of it? A. That is 
the reason they are not cultivating the rest of it. 

Q. There is a lot of it not cultivated? A. There is undoubtedly a lot of 
it not cultivated, but there is no water there to cultivate it with. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Could water be brought there? A. Possibly Mr. Stevens is referring 
to that large tract of land that is on that side hill just opposite Pentieton? 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Yes. That takes in the reserve? A. It is impossible to put water on 
there economically. The Government of British Columbia took that into con- 

[Mr. W. E. Ditrhburn.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 185 

sideration when I was endeavouring to try to arrange an exchange of that cut 
off in that reserve. The Royal Commission on Indian Affairs recommended the 
cutting off of over 14,000 acres. Included in that 14,000 acres there are about 
2,600 acres of that large flat that you see from Penticton. The Penticton Board 
of Trade made a suggestion four years ago that the cut-off should be amended 
by running the line further south to a stream called Shingle Creek, and taking 
in the whole of that flat up there, leaving the rest of the cut-off to the Indians 
for pasturage and range for their cattle. The matter was takeA up with the 
Minister of Lands, the Hon. Mr. Pattullo, and he put his engineers on that land 
to see if it was possible to bring water in there from Trout Creek, the same as is 
done at the Dominion Experimental Farm, which is somewhat further north. 
So far as the exchange was concerned, I was perfectly willing! to have that 
exchange made instead of the original 14,000 acres cut-off first recommended 
by the Commission. Mr. Cleveland, who has control of water rights, reported 
that it was not economically feasible to put water on that land for irrigation 
purposes, and consequently it was dropped. 

Q. That is the bench land? A. That is the bench land. A great many 
people see that up there and they seem to think it is lying there and the Indians 
are not doing anything with it. 

Q. What about down in the flat, along the river? Have they any orchards 
in there the same as the rest of the district? A. Oh, yes, if you walk right down 
to the village you will see that the Indians have some very good, orchards down 
there right back of Penticton. Down along the river bottom it is grass land 
for their cattle. I can truthfully say that so far as the Penticton Indians are 
concerned they are utilizing their land to the fullest extent possible. 

Q. In the flat? A. In the fiat. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Where they can get water they are utilizing, it? A. Yes; they must 
have the water. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. What about their orchards being a menace to the adjoining orchards; 
that was mentioned yesterday? A. I do not think there is very much in that. 
This Department has an officer known as the Inspector of Indian Orchards, 
whose duty it is to go around to all 

Q. You mean your Department has? A. In our Department. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Is that Wilson? A. No, Wilson is dead; his name is Anderson. 

Q. Wilson was for a while? A. Yes, he was our officer. He goes around 
and he teaches the Indians how to spray their trees. We supply them with 
spray pumps, show them how to prune trees, and to keep their orchards generally 
in much better condition. 

Q. But there has been a great deal of complaint on that ground for many 
years back? A. Yes. 

Q. I presume you are getting it into much better shape now, but there was 
complaint years ago? A. We have (had that policy in existence for the last 
twenty years. 

Q. I know you have, but without very much success? A. And it is bring 
ing out good results. 

By Hon. Mr. Green: 

Q. Were not the complaints largely from isolated fruit trees, and not so 
much from orchards from which they expected to make money? A. Individual 

j"Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.) 



186 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Indians grow some scrubby trees around villages and the fruit is not worth 
very much. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Is the matter of water legislation the subject solely of provincial jurisdic 
tion, or jointly provincial and Dominion jurisdiction? A. It is wholly 
provincial. 

Q. At the present time it is wholly provincial? A. Yes. You will see 
that in dealing with any of these old water records, or in making an appeal to 
the Courts, we must deal under the British Columbia water rights. 

Q. In conjunction with the British Columbia Government? A. Yes. 

Q. You heard the witness yesterday urge that there should be more 
intensive education, I think he called it, of the Indians with regard to agricul 
ture, fruit growing, and so on. Have you anything to say to the Committee 
on that point? A. I think it is a very good suggestion. It is the policy of 
the Department at the present time. The great difficulty is that the Indians 
do not seem to appreciate the efforts that are put forth in their direction to 
benefit by this education. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Could you give the Committee an idea of some of those efforts in the 
direction of intensive education? A. Well, as I explained a little while ago, 
we have a special man going around the province, throughout the agricultural 
districts, teaching the Indians how to grow fruit. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 
Q. One man? A. One man, yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Over the whole province? A. Yes. Of course, through certain sections 
of the province there is no use in teaching at all; on the coast district, for 
instance, which is not an agricultural district. 

Q. Has anything been done in the way of congregating the Indians at special 
points and giving them what is generally understood as a course of education in 
agriculture, or anything of that kind? A. At the schools? 

Q. Yes. A. At our residential schools in the interior we teach the children 
the rudimentary principles of agriculture. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Is there any institution similar to the agricultural college in the prairie 
provinces, where they can attend and learn fruit culture? A. There is a 
provincial college. There is one man that we almost put through with a special 
course, a man named Harris. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 
Q. He was an Indian? A. Yes. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Can the Indians go there after they have obtained high school or 
ordinary school education? A. I do not think the Department has ever turned 
down a worthy case where we thought we would get results. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. That is, a promising man would get a chance? A. Yes. 
Q. Has the Department done anything in the way of providing demonstra 
tion plots which we have elsewhere? A. Like experimental farms, as it were? 

[Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 187 

Q. No; a farmer is picked out in a district in Cape Breton there are four 
places fertilizer is given, and this man grows a rotation of crops close to the 
road so that everybody can see the advantage of it? A. Nothing very much in 
British Columbia along that line, not so far. 

Dr. SCOTT: I would like to direct Mr. Ddtchburn s attention to the fact, 
so that he might get the evidence on the point, that instruction takes place at 
our residential schools. Take the Kamloops school, which is in the dry belt- 
all the Indian pupils being recruited from the dry belt, we have an elaborate 
system of irrigation where the boys become acquainted with methods of 
cultivation under irrigation. We endeavour to carry out that system at -all our 
industrial schools; have the tuition follow the line of the after life of the pupil. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. With regard to this question of aboriginal title, have you anything to 
say as to what you have heard expressed by the Indians? A. Well, as to the 
merits of the question, of course I am not prepared to argue, but I do know 
that it is a canker dn the minds of the Indians to-day. If it were removed, 
either by proving that there was a claim, that they had an interest in the lands 
of the province, or proving to them that they had not, it would go very far 
towards more satisfactory working out of the administration of affairs by this 
Department. 

Q. That applies to the whole province, does it? A. All over the province. 

Q. With the tribes all over? A. Generally, yes. There are some tribes 
that are not so much interested in it as are others. The tribes in the northern 
interior, up through the Cassian country, and over to the east of the Rocky 
Mountains, or up through the Fort St. James district, do not bother about 
it at all; we never hear a peep out of them. 

Q. Then you heard Chief Chillihitza s evidence yesterday about that water 
on the Nicola River? He was complaining that the provincial Government 
had allowed people in the Okanagan to take water that he thought ought to 
come down to the Nicola Reserve. Have you heard anything about that? 
A. I could not understand just what he was alluding to. I thought he was 
alluding to the Guichon Creek trouble. At the Guichon Creek, which empties 
into the Nicola River, the Government Water Board have allowed a diversion 
by Tunket Lake. 

Q. Into another watershed? A. At the top of the watershed, the water 
which would otherwise be running down to the west into Nicola River, they 
allow this water to be diverted; known as the Laighton diversion. If that is 
what he had reference to, I cannot see that it is doing the Indians any harm, 
provided a proper date is set for closing off that diversion. 

Q. Well, of course, Colonel Pragnell would know a great deal more than 
you do about that? A. He would not know any more. Just what Johnnie 
Chillihitza had reference to, I could not say. Water going over the divide 
into the Okanagan, of course that is another divide altogether. 

The CHAIRMAN : I know that Mr. Frank Ward has told me that he thinks 
the Department in British Columbia treated him very badly over that, and 
I thought it was the same thing with the Indians. 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Do the young people still harbour the thought that the land ownership 
will ultimately be vested in them? A. Do you mean the land on the reserves, 
or the aboriginal title? 

Q. The aboriginal title. A. They read as they run of course, and their 
idea of the aboriginal title is much more exaggerated than that of the old 

[Mr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



188 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Q. Much more exaggerated? A. Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. How long have you been in charge of the Department? A. Close on to 
seventeen years. 

By Mr. Hay: - 

Q. What would be, in their mind, the commercial value of the ownership? 
A. Well, of course, they know that the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains 
are treated differently to the Indians in British Columbia. 

By Dr. Scott: 

Q. You do not mean that they are treated differently ; you mean they were 
treated differently with respect to the treaty? A. Yes, that is it. So far as 
any benefits are concerned, the Indians of British Columbia are getting just 
the same as the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains. 

Q. With the exception of annuities? A. They are not getting annuities, 
or what is called " treaty moneys." 

By Mr. Hay: 

Q. Are they thrifty, or is the money usually spent? A. As a rule they 
spend it before they get it. 

Dr. SCOTT: There is great thrift among the tribes. A man with five in 
a family gets $25 a year. He usually spends it immediately to buy something 
for his family, or he has debts at the store and goes and pays them. Sometimes 
it is hypothecated, but it is of no practical benefit financially. The annuities 
were a means of compensating for the individual rights; that was the only way 
in which they could be compensated, by a money payment. 

By Mr. Kelly: 

Q. I think I heard you say that the Indians did not appreciate all the 
educational advantages put at their disposal? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you aware that there are long waiting lists at the schools? A. I 
know that, but, I think, Mr. Kelly, if you will make a visit to our schools you 
will find that we cannot keep a boy or girl at the school after they are fifteen 
years of age. 

Q. You are referring to what grade of school? A. I mean the residential 
school, where it is possible for the children to get a splendid education. Their 
parents do not desire to keep them in long enough in order that they may 
complete that education. 

Q. Is it not a fact, though, that for instance in the Chilliwack, we have a 
long waiting list? A. Yes, I am aware of that. 

Q. And the same thing applies at Port Alberni on Vancouver Island? 
A. Yes. 

Q. And the school at Ahousat on the west coast is filled? A. Our schools 
are all filled, but unfortunately they do not stay long enough to get their 
education completed. 

Q. But there is a regulation that every Indian boy and girl stays there 
until ^their eighteenth birthday? A. The law says we can only compel them 
to go" to school until they are fifteen. 

Q. But the Indian regulations demand their attendance up to eighteen 
years; is that not a fact? A. Yes. 

Q. And it has been lived up to almost to the letter of the law, all the way 
through? A. No, it has not; not since the law was changed. 

IMr. W. E. Ditchburn.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 189 

Q. Are you prepared to say that in the majority of cases they leave before 
they are eighteen? A. Yes, I do. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. The provincial law calls for fifteen years? A. Yes; that is compulsory 
education. 

Q. And they only stay there until they have complied with the law? 
A. Yes. These are residential schools, and we clothe and feed and educate 
them, and we consider that if a child will stay there, he will receive a very 
fair education all the education we can give them. 

Q. Would you blame the parents or the children for leaving? A. I would 
blame the parents; it is on the parents side. 

By Air. Kelly: 

Q. You said some of the tribes were not interested in this question of the 
aboriginal title? A. Not to any great extent. 

Q. The point I want to ask is this; is it not true only where they are far 
away from the centres of civilization? A. That is right. 

Q. Where they are not in contact with civilization and do not bother about 
it at all? A. That is right. 

The witness retired. 

WILLIAM A. FOUND called and sworn. 

The CHAIRMAN: Have you given your name to the reporter, and your 
occupation? 

The WITNESS: Yes. I am the Director of Fisheries. 

The CHAIRMAN: Do the committee wish to ask Mr. Found any questions 
about the fishing? 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. You were not here and did not hear the evidence about fishing, did you, 
Mr. Found? A. No, sir. 

Q. Briefly, a complaint is made that the rather rigorous enforcement of 
the regulations by the Fishery Officers of the Dominion deprived the Indians of 
the right to fish for food. That is what they complain of, and they cite several 
cases. For instance, they cite a case on the Capilano, where a man was arrested 
and fined for fishing dog salmon, which is rather inconceivable to me. In 
another case an Indian was arrested near Nanaimo somewhere, for spearing 
fish for food, and three old people this was rather a queer case on the west 
coast of Vancouver island where a stream was running in (I have forgotten just 
where it was) but three old men, one of whom was blind, had put out a little 
net, nothing like the regular size, and were catching a few fish. They were 
arrested and fined, and their canoe destroyed, and the net confiscated and 
burned . I do not know whether they were fined, but anyway their apparatus 
was taken from them and destroyed. Then there were some other minor cases. 
A. Mr. Chairman, I sometimes wonder if the Indians themselves, and the 
people generally, have a conception of the importance the protection of the 
fisheries of British Columbia is to the Indians of British Columbia. I happened 
to be here at the opening sessions, and I noted with interest that there are some 
where about 26,000 Indians in British Columbia 

Q. Twenty-three thousand. A. and I think it may be safely said that 
4,000 of these secure the major portion of their learnings from the fishing indus- 

[Mr. W. A. Found.l 



1 90 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

try. Last year there were 3,352 Indians who received fishing licenses out of a 
total of 11,750 licenses. 

Q. That is, male fishermen? A. Yes, fishermen. In addition to that 
number, all of those familiar with the conditions in British Columbia know 
there are a large number of Indian women who find employment in the canner 
ies. Now, notwithstanding the need for adequate fishery protection, it has been 
the policy, and is the policy of our Department, to co-operate as fully as we 
feasibly can, with the Department of Indian Affairs, to make it easier for the 
Indians in the more remote sections, where it is necessary a.nd compatible from 
a fishery standpoint to obtain fish for food purposes. That is not only our 
policy, but I have not the slightest doubt that Doctor Scott will bear me out 
when I say that the two Departments seek cordially to carry out that policy 
and make it effective. To that end, in. the more remote sections of the country, 
a very considerable number of permits are issued to the Indians, to enable them 
to take fish by means which no one else is allowed to use in any season of the 
year. When it came to Capilano; it seems atrocious that a man is gone after 
for spearing dog salmon, but that does not tell the story, and those who are 
familiar with the Capilano know it is the most noted spearing stream of British 
Columbia, and know it is a stream that abounds with steel-heads, the only fish 
which will rise to a fly. It is a little stream which you can almost walk across 
anywhere. The whole interest in the way of angling clubs in British Columbia 
is well-known and they are crying out to have that river afforded adequate 
protection. It is not known only in British Columbia, but all over Canada, all 
over the continent, and all over other continents as well. 

Q. The complaint was the spearing of dog salmon. A. I was coming to 
that. The people desire to have that river protected. Now, if you are going 
to allow spearing for salmon in a river in which there are these other varieties 
of fish, and where there are not too many chump salmon, and where these other 
lines abound and I need not press this it can be readily seen that all the other 
fish are in jeopardy. There are other fisheries around Capilano a.nd the sur 
rounding places, where fishing is accessible, and there is no particular need for 
the Indians fishing in the Capilano. The Indians are placed on the same basis 
there as the white men. 

Q. The Indian Reserve is there? A. Yes. 

Q. It is one of the old reserves, and there are quite a number of Indians 
living there all the time? A. Yes. 

Q. Can you see any objection to allowing an Indian to spear for chump 
and dog salmon in the reserve section of the river? A. Not in any section, if 
you have somebody else beside the Indian there to see that none but the chumps 
are hurt, but when the public know the danger which is there, you have another 
situation, and to meet the public interest it was felt, and I still feel, that the 
public sympathy of those who know the situation is behind the principle that it 
is not a desirable thing to allow spearing in a river of that kind. 

Q. There is no objection to an Indian fishing freely any time of the year 
by troll or otherwise, in the harbour ?^-A. Not at all. There is no interference 
with the reserves; I mean, so far as that is concerned; no one else can go on 
their reserves without their permission. It is simply a matter of placing the 
Indians on the Capilano on the same plane as everybody else. With regard to 
the Cowichan; there has been difficulty with that stream. I think we have over 
come it to a considerable extent. We have been seeking to come to the point, 
that no commercial fishing is permitted on the Cowichan, but the Indians are 
allowed to net salmon for their own food purposes. 

Q. Is it possible to make an arrangement with the Indians on the Capilano 
so that they can take only dog salmon, or hump-backs, and not taka the sporting 
fish out of season? A. In the light of experience, I do not think the thing is 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 191 

feasible, Mr. Chairman; that is, the other fish are always in jeopardy, and are 
likely to be taken. If there was any considerable run such as there is at 
Cowichan, it would be a different matter. 

By Hon. Mr. Green: 

Q. In other words, it is hardly possible for an Indian or anybody else to 
know when he is striking a fish whether it is a dog salmon or what it is? A. It 
depends somewhat on weather conditions to know, but the Indians are not 
different from most people who are given permission to do certain things, and 
if permission of a certain kind is given, there usually is but one result. More 
over, the amount of chump salmon which would be taken is not an important 
factor, I submit, to the Indians there, while the protection of that river is an 
important factor for British Columbia. It is a river that is drawing people to 
British Columbia from long reaches. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Your argument is that the Indians, even if deprived of that right on 
that river, will not suffer as a result? A. Within easy reach roundabout he can 
readily procure the amount of fish he needs for food purposes. 

Q. And your further argument is that you think it would be hopeless to 
make an arrangement with the Indians which they would observe, whereby they 
would take only A. Chump salmon. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. So far vou have only directed vour attention to this very precious river? 
A. Yes. 

Q. What about other rivers elsewhere in the province? A. In the various 
parts of the province, permits are issued to the Indians to take fish for their own 
food purposes at any time of the year, by spears or by other methods. We try 
to keep them down from doing that, as much as we can, but after looking into 
all the instances where these are regarded as being desirable, it will be quite 
readily realized what it means to take salmon which have run long distances 
to their spawning ground, and are on the point of spawning, 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. The old chief complained about the upper country; I suppose he had 
reference to the streams emptying into the Shuswap Lake. Years ago they used 
to be thick with salmon, but his argument is that the salmon never returned 
A. Quite so. 

Q. And his argument is that there is no injury to the fisheries if the Indian 
took these salmon for food. A. Unfortunately, so far as the Indians are con 
cerned, and so far as everybody else is concerned, since 1913 there have been 
very few salmon above Hell s Gate. 

By the Chairman: 
Q. Yes, and you know the reason for that? A. Quite so. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Chief Johnny complained that if that were stopped A. For some years 

there was no fishing allowed by the Indians in the upper Fraser. That was 
during negotiations for the treaty with the United States which contemplated 
such, but for some years past, permits have been issued on the upper Fraser to 
take fish for food purposes. Considerably over 200 permits have been issued in 
that upper country during the past year. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



192 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Is it your contention that no Indians should be allowed to take fish 
without a permit in the south Thompson, the Bonaparte, or the Nicola rivers 
A. Yes, but they are issued permits free. 

Q. By whom? A. By the Fishery Officer. If such were not done, it would 
be difficult to safeguard the situation. Metal tags are issued which are attached 
to the nets, and if this were not done, others would set nets there, and it would 
be impossible to control the situation. 

Q. It is not only a question o f nets, but also a question of spears. A. They 
are given permits for spearing purposes as well. It is desirable to do that, I 
think, and is a good thing, not only from the standpoint of control, but for the 
records. 

Q. Is it not a fact that, in the upper reaches of the Fraser, fishing is increas 
ing now since the river has recovered from the obstruction which was placed 
there by the Canadian National Railway, when it was being built? A. Fish go 
back to the spawning beds in which they were bred. That has been very well 
demonstrated, and we are succeeding in getting some runs into the upper Fraser 
by consistent stocking of certain fish in the upper Fraser, in certain areas. 
During the past year we have had bigger runs of fish to the upper Fraser than 
since 1913, which is one of the most encouraging things we have had, and shows 
what can be done if we can get an international cooperative effort. Last year, 
the Fraser river produced and I speak subject to correction about 101,000 
cases of salmon, possibly 120,000; I think it was 81,000 on our side, and about 
40,000 on the United States side; that is, sock-eye salmon. In 1913, the pack 
of sock-eye salmon was two and a quarter million. That shows the capabilities 
of the Fraser river. 

Q. Two million cases? A. Over two million cases of sock-eye alone. The 
river is as good as it ever was if we can build it up. What it would mean to 
the Indians to have the river built up is fairly obvious. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. You have not addressed yourself to the cases mentioned by Mr. Stevens. 
Perhap you have no information about them. A. I do not recall them. I would 
be inclined to think that in Nanaimo it was another instance where spearing was 
carried on where it was not permitted. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Can you explain. Mr. Found, why an officer of your Department would 
administer the law in the way stated? A. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to 
think this is an extremely ex parte statement, and I would like an opportunity 
to look into it. 

Q. You do not know anything about it at all? A. I do not recall the case. 
If a man is found breaking the law, he would be dealt with as any law-breaker 
would be dealt with, by a fishery officer but we are not without experience of 
Indians breaking the law. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Would this case not be the result of carrying out the letter of the law 
by the fishery officer? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The complaint really is that his action was too 
drastic. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Yes, admitting that the law had been broken, the complaint really is 
that the circumstances should have been considered and discretion should have 

[Mr. W. A. Four.^. 1 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 193 

been used. .The complaint is that the officer used no discretion? A. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, I do not think I can let that go. 

Q. I do not think that is an improper way to state it, that the fishery 
officer has no discretion if the law is broken? A. When I said I could not let 
that go, I used perhaps the wrong words. I meant, I could not let the impression 
go that the fishery officers act without any discretion in dealing with violations. 
They are instructed to exercise discretion. But of course, the man who is 
penalized usually thinks no discretion is exercised. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Have you got written instructions to give out? A. To our officers, yes. 

Q. It might be a good thing if you would file a copy of those instructions, 
with the Committee? A. These are not the only instructions the officers receive. 
We have what we call our book of instructions that has been carefully prepared 
in the light of ; a good deal of experience, and officers are also being instructed 
from time to time in the light of incidents that arise. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Speaking from your own experience, what satisfaction do your officers 
out there give? A. I think, on the whole, it can safely be said that our officers 
show discretion and intelligence in dealing with matters. We sometimes have 
to employ people for a short time who are called fishery guardians they are 
not the regular fishery officers who may not always exercise as much judgment 
as a regular fishery overseer would exercise, but he reports to the fishery overseer, 
and as I said a little while .ago, we try to have the officers of our own department 
and the officers of the Indian Affairs Department keep together as much as 
they can, in dealing with all difficult situations. That is our general course. 

Q. Is there any difference in fishing conditions in the Fraser or Thompson 
Rivers as compared with the rivers in New Brunswick? A. Not very much. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Let me read one or two of the claims of the Indians, and then, if you 
will, give us briefly your answers, Mr. Found. This is their statement of claim, 
appearing on page 67 of the record of Wednesday, No. 1. 

The Indians wish to claim the right to catch fish in all rivers, lakes, 
and tidal waters of the province without permit and without any limit, 
with the explicit understanding that the fish will be used by the Indians 
for food only. 

That is the first one. What have you to say to that? A. Our Department 
could not concur in that unqualified claim. 

Q. From your experience what would be the result if that were granted? 
A. We would be unable in many instances to afford the fisheries the protec 
tion they need, and it would mean that the commercial industry would have 
to be curtailed or the whole industry would suffer. 
Q. Then they go on: 

They wish to be allowed to fish or troll for salmon without license 
in all tidal waters of the province, and to be allowed seining licenses, 
both drag seine and purse seine, at half the prevailing fees. 

A. When an Indian engages in competition with the white man in ordinary 

commerce I see no very good reason why he should not be on the same basis. 
He is given the same license as they are for all kinds of fishing, if he applies 
for it. 

Hon. Mr. MUKPHY: You make no distinction. 

42325 13 [Mr. W. A. Found.] 



194 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: * 

Q. You would not consider it fair or wise to give them a lower rate of 
license fee than the white man? A. In the commercial fishery, I see no reason 
for it. As a matter of fact, our fees are all nominal. It is not a matter of 
very great revenue. 

Q. What is the drag seine license now? A. $20 a year. 

Q. Then they say next: " They desire that the Indians only should be 
granted seining licenses to catch fish at the mouths of streams or rivers which 
flow through Indian reserves." Now, that is not quite clear, whether the mouth 
of the stream is in the reserve, but presuming it is, what would you say to 
that? A. There is no ownership in tidal waters. In every instance where drag 
seining is carried on adjacent to an Indian reserve, the Department makes 
it a condition that only Indians shall be employed no matter who has the 
license in the operation of the seining. 

Q. You make that condition now? A. We make that, and have made that 
condition for years. 

Q. And that is carried out? A. That is carried out. 

Q. The next one is: 

They desire that in all fishing districts certain waters be reserved 
for the exclusive use of Indian bands or tribes in those localities. 

A. That, I assume again, is for commiercial purposes? 

Q. Yes, I presume so. That is where there is an area and the right is 
given over that area? A. There is a public right of fishery in the tidal waters, 
and the Federal Government is not in a position to grant exclusive rights to 
anybody. 1 1! 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Mr. Found, would there be any serious harm, or any serious objection 
to giving the Indians preference under the fishing laws? If they did not wish 
to take it, then the license could go to others? A. Well, I am not quite sure 
what preference could he given. 

Q. The preference of taking out the license in those particular areas; that 
is, that they should be given the right to take them if they desired to do so? A. 
They are given the right, but the same right applies to everybody. 

Q. But only so far as application is made. The Indian comes on a territory 
with the white man, and if he does not happen to be the first applicant, he 
does not get that consideration? A. Oh, I see what you mean. This will be 
a drag seine license now that you are dealing with. That is for a fixed location. 

Q. It is for a certain location within the vicinity of these Indian reserves, in 
tidal waters? A. The only kind of fishing for which there can be a permanent 
location is a drag seine. Assuming that this table is the sea, and this is the 
shore where I am, one end of the seine is attached to the shore, and they go 
away around with the other end, and drag the net in on the shore. That is a 
fixed location. All other fishing is afloat. Now then, what I said a moment ago 
is that while licenses are issued to applicants who apply for them, in all instances 
where the fishing is carried on, opposite Indian reserves, we make it a condition 
that the licensee shall employ Indians to operate the seine. 

Q. What I mean is, that you do not give the Indians priority? A. We have 
not got the authority to do so. 

Q. I quite understand that, but I want an answer to this question; the Indian 
may be an applicant for that license, to use that net, but if he does not happen 
to be the first applicant, some one else gets ahead of him? A. There may be ten, 
sir, operating there at different times. A man cannot stay there day and night, 
for instance. Take a place that is known possibly to the representatives of the 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 195 

Indians that are here: the Nimpkish well now, that is not a good illustration, 
because it is nearly ail purse seining there. There are some ten seines operated 
about the mouth of that stream. Unless we are to get legislation whereby we can 
take away a public right supposing we did grant a license to an Indian, if a white 
man comes along, and applies for a license there too, he is logically entitled to it. 
All we do is to issue a man a license which authorizes him to operate a certain kind 
of net at a certain place. If it is a drag seine, or if it is a purse seine, he gets a 
license to operate in the coastal waters of British Columbia. 

By Hon. Mr. Stewart: 

Q. Where it is fishing from a boat, your license is not limited? A. It is 
usually issued for a general district, if they want it transferable without a fee. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. It is this point which I think Mr. Stewart has made. Could the Indians 
up to a certain time, get the priority in applying for and receiving the licenses, 
such as they take out? A. Let me try to make the situation clear. Supposing 
there is an area here in which drag seining will be carried on. Drag seining may 
be carried on between certain dates. Now, there may be several people who 
want to carry on drag seining there. If they do, licenses are given, but we will 
have to, keeping in view the amount of fishing that is carried on, determine the 
conditions under which that fishing may go on. For instance, he may have a 
limitation, a weekly closed time, and we may have to lengthen that closed time 
very considerably. If there is one seine operating there, we might have a close 
time of 24 hours ; if there are 20 seines operating there, we might have to have a 
close time of 72 hours, and so on. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. That is a time during which they must come out? A. During which 
time all fishing must be forbidden. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 
Q. This is the contention that prompted Mr. Stewart s question: 

They, the Indians, desire that in all fishing districts, certain waters 
be reserved for the exclusive use of Indian bands or tribes in those 
localities. 

Would you see any objection to that? A. Yes, sir. It cannot be done. There 
is a public right of fishing in the tidal waters these people want us to reserve 
to them specially, certain waters in which they, and no one else, will be per 
mitted to fish for commercial purposes. 

Q. Now, Mr. Found, some years ago I think it is not followed now you 
used to allocate to a cannery, a large area, miles of territory, or a whole inlet, 
or a portion of an inlet. You do not do that now? A. No. 

Q. You used to? A. Yes, it used to be done. 

Q. That is what the Indians I presume are asking for here? A. That is 
what they apparently want to have done. That is, certain places located which 
will be given to them. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. But the draw net involves the use of the shore? A. It does, and should 
be allowed no where if there was any other method of fishing. It is an 
innocuous method of fishing, if there is any other method that is feasible. You 
can run a net out across the mouth of the river, and close the whole mouth of the 

42325 13i Mr - W - A - Found -l 



195 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

river up, unless we are watching there, and so we are restricting it as much as 
we can. 

Q. You are not allowed to close the whole mouth of the river? A. No, sir. 
I mean that as a possibility in exercising that kind of fishing, and it is therefore 
a kind of fishing that everywhere where there are salmon fisheries that is sought 
to be done away with. We are restricting it to areas where no other method of 
fishing would be feasible. 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: I think, Mr. Found, what the Indians have in mind is the 
fact that the Government of the United States has set aside a certain area 
absolutely for the Indians for fishing purposes, off Annette Island, near Alaska? 

The WITNESS: Yes, that is a condition of the United States law. 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: They have the absolute right for half a mile from the shore 
for all fishing. 

Mr. KELLY: Three miles. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: Three miles is it? Well, they have that right. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: In a given area? 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: Yes. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Why could we not do this, Mr. Found, in British Columbia, and I ask 
the question so that you can state the precise reasons why it is not feasible? 
Why could we not give the Indians an area precisely the same as we used to give 
to a cannery, or to one of the big fishing concerns. I am not suggesting that we 
go back to that generally, because that was abandoned, I understand; but why 
should we not make an exception of the Indians and give them say, a certain 
area, like certain inlets or stretches of the coast? A. It could not possibly be 
done, as a matter of Government policy if it were considered a wise policy. 
Under the Fisheries Act, wherever an exclusive right of fishing does not already 
exist by law, the Governor in Council may grant leases. 

Q. What exclusive rights exist now? A. There are no exclusive rights in 
tidal waters. 

Q. None at all? Are they all done away with? A. They are all done 
away with. 

Q. But they did exist for many years? A. They used to be granted 
exclusive privileges. 

Q. That is what I mean. And none are granted now? A. No. 

Q. But there is no reason, other than the general reason you have given, 
why the Indians should not be given such an area? There would be no physical 
difficulties about supervising it, and so on? A. No, none greater than the 
existing difficulty. In fact, it would make it easier if we could give an exclusive 
privilege of fishing in any area to any individuals. These individuals then, 
would only have to be watched; they would watch all others. 

Q. Yes. There does not seem to be any other difficulty in my view, to 
prevent granting it. Here is another point they make: 

That salmon and herring seining licenses similar to those which in 
the past have been issued to resident whites will in the future be avail 
able to Canadian Indians, in their own names. 

Is that the case now? A. Yes, they are available now. 

Q. That is in practice now? A. Yes. 

Q. That is about all there is on fisheries in this claim. Have you the fishing 
regulations re Indians there? A. I have the fishing regulations for British 
Columbia. May I confirm a statement I made a little while ago on the license 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 197 

fee, if you will permit me a moment. I was right when I said $20, for that 
license. 

Q. You might give us a brief summary of the fishing regulations as they 
relate to Indians? A. You want the gist of them. 

Q. Yes, do not read every word of the regulations, but an outline of them. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. First of all. are there special regulations affecting Indians only? A. No, 
but there are conditions in the regulations that affect Indians only; for instance, 
the regulations provide that there shall be no fishing otherwise than by angling, 
above tidal waters. But an Indian may at any time, with the permission of 
the chief inspector, catch fish to use as food for himself and his family, but for 
no other purpose. The chief inspector shall have the power, in such permit, 
to limit or fix the area of the waters in which such fish may be caught; to 
limit or fix the means by which, or the manner in which, such fish may be 
caught; and to limit or fix the time in which such permission shall be operative. 
An Indian shall not fish for or catch fish pursuant to the said permit, except 
in the waters, by the means, or in the manner and within the time limit 
expressed in the said permit, and any fish caught pursuant to any such permit 
shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of, and a violation of the provisions 
of the said permit shall be deemed to be a violation of these regulations. 

Q. How do you allow Indians to catch fish above tidal waters? A. He i? 
allowed to catch them by a spear, and by different methods, depending on the 
local condition. 

Q. Are you aware of the prosecution of this Indian in Capilano, last year? 
A. Quite. 

Q. Was it not a fact that the Indian Department took action to defend this 
Indian which the Fisheries Department was prosecuting? A. That does not 
change the situation. 

Q. That fact existed. These two Departments were conflicting in this case 
A. (No audible answer) . 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That would not make any difference; they were both 
doing their duty. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. What other regulations apply to the Indians? A. No one shall fish with 
nets, only for commercial purposes in I need not name the places except with 
a permit provided free. The Chief Inspector may grant a free permit to Indians 
resident In the Indian Reserve adjacent to the Guichon River, etc., which will 
authorize them to use salmon gill nets during the time the chump salmon are 
running, for the capture of chump salmon for food for themselves and family. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Those permits are only issued by the Chief Inspector? A. They are 
issued by all our fisheries officers, all over the country. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. It would not be onerous for an Indian to get that permit? A. Oh, no, 
sir; they are issued by the people on the spot. 

By Mr. Paull: 

Q. I wish you would tell just what happened when Mr. Perry, an Indian 
Agent, applied to Inspector Marlborough for fishing permits for all the Indians 
in his agency; were those granted? A. No. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



198 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Q. Why? A. Because it was not considered that it would be in the public 
interests to do so. 

Q. Was it not a fact that the Inspector contended that only indigent Indians 
should receive those permits? A. The area to which reference is made is the 
agency more or less in the vicinity of Vancouver, that lower section of the 
province where the rivers are small, and if the runs of fish are not afforded pro 
tection they can be readily killed out. It has been our policy for years, and I 
am quite satisfied it is a reasonable and fair policy, that the number of permits 
that should be granted there should be limited as much as is reasonably feasible 
to meet the requirements. There are no Indians there that are really in need 
of any permits. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think that our friend, Mr. Paull, has chosen a rather 
unhappy site in Capilano. This privilege of fishing for food would really be 
more applicable to places a little more remote. I think that preventing an 
Indian from spearing a dog salmon in the Capillano, or anywhere else, seems 
extreme, except, as Mr. Found pointed out, that it might lead to other abuses. 
The Indians at Capilano are not dependent upon fish for their food. It is so 
easy to demonstrate, being so close to the city, whether they need relief in that 
way. It is a rather unhappy location as a test for the soundness of the regula 
tion. I would like to see more reference made, if possible, to interior points, 
or to the northern section away from the city altogether, and then we can better 
judge of what change there should be in the fishing regulations, if any. 

Mr. DITCHBTJRN: The application Mr. Paull has reference to, put in by 
the Indian Agent, referred more particularly to the Indians who were living 
in the northern part of what is known as the Vancouver Agency, which runs 
up as far as the head of Bute inlet. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is different. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: They were the Indians known as the Homalho, the 
Sechejlt and the Sahoo.se, more particularly, and the Squamish, which are 
immediately in the city of Vancouver. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. What have you got to say to that, Mr. Found? A. I think I fairly 
answered that. I would like to ask Mr. Ditchburn if he urges that all the 
Indians in that section should have permits? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: I think I have already told your Chief Inspector, that 
for the purpose of keeping down any Indian complaint it would be desirable 
that your department should issue permits to each family. 

The WITNESS: That is quite another thing. 

Mr. DITCHBURN: To the head of every family, not to every Indian. It 
was never understood that every Indian should get it, but it is to the head of 
each family. 

The WITNESS: What we were trying to arrange was that the Indian Agents 
should select the people who required permits, and the permits w r ould be issued 
to these peoplle. The agent knows these people better than our officer. The 
Indian agents put in the names of the heads of families to whom he thought 
permits should be issued, and to any others. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: And they were refused? 

Mr. DITCHBURN: They have not been issued yet. 

The WITNESS: That has not come before me. Mr. Paull s question to me 
was that the agent put in a request for every Indian on these reserves. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I thought Mr. Paull said every Indian in the Capilano 
Reserve. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 

The WITNESS: In the Vancouver Agency. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Did you put in an application for every Indian? 

Mr. PAULJ, : Every male Indian over the age of twenty-one. Even after the 
Indian agent had made application for the Indians of Bute, because they did 
not have a permit they were prosecuted, after application had been made by 
the Indian agent. 

The WITNESS: I wish we had a map here, and then you could see our 
point. These streams flowing into these inlets are short streams, but it means 
in the aggregate a good many salmon. They are nearly all fall salmon. The 
Indians of British Columbia, to the extent of over 30 per cent, are dependent 
on fisheries for a (livelihood. Now then, is it good business to allow a prac 
tically unrestricted amount of fishing in these small streams? 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. You mean fishing for a livelihood, not for food? A. For such earnings 
as they make. 

Q. That is, it is the fishing industry they are engaged in? A. Quite so, 
very largely. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. The Indian has to be kept alive to earn that money, and if he requires 
fish for food why should he not get a permit? A. It is not difficult at all for 
the Indian to get food fish. It is not a long distance on any of these rivers to 
come down to the tidal water and get fish. These salmon play around the 
mouths of the streams and wait there until nature bids them go up to spawn. 
What the Indian wants to do is to wait until they go up to spawn and take them 
there when they are on the spawning bed. 

. By Mr. Paull: 

Q. Will you name the species of salmon that the Indian takes for his food? 
A. It depends entirely on the portion of the country in which he is. If he 
is in the portion of the country where he can get sockeye salmon, which are the 
most valuable, he will take them in preference to any other, and he is quite 
right in doing so. When conditions are different, he takes other salmon. In 
that area he has got to take what comes through, mostly chumps. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. The quantity of fish that an Indian family of four would require must 
be limited? A. Mr. Chairman, the amount of destruction of salmon that has 
taken place in British Columbia in earlier days by the Indian s methods of 
fishing is something deplorable. The cutting up of barricades right across the 
streams and leaving them there was one of the things which we had a lot of 
work to do in stopping. When they catch their fish they just leave the barri 
cades there. 

By Mr. Kelly: 

Q. I would like to ask if Mr. Found is aware of this fact; that according 
to the report of Mr. Babcock, who was the fisheries expert in British Columbia, 
less than one per cent of all the fish caught were caught by the Indians for 
food purposes? A. Oh, yes, quite so. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. The way it appeals to me is this, the Indians ought to have the inherent 
right to catch fish for food. Then comes the question of how we can harmonize 

[Mr. W. A. Found.1 



200 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

that inherent right with the safeguarding of the interests of fishing. Our effort 
has been to find out just where the rub comes in, where the difficulty and the 
dispute between the Fisheries Department and the Indians arises. 
The WITNESS: I think they are being rubbed out year by year. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. There are many of these streams which you say are short. How far are 
the spawning beds up? A. Some of them a few miles, some of them not a mile. 
There are some of them up which the fish cannot get until the fall rains come 
and the waters rise. We are as anxious as any department of the Government 
service could be that there should be satisfaction on the part of the Indians. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Supposing we set aside certain districts, as we used to do for commercial 
purposes, where the Indians could have the exclusive right of fishing, then super 
vise the fishing out of season on these areas reasonably close, but at least give 
the Indian an opportunity to catch food fish in these areas? A. There is no 
trouble about that at all. We will give the Indians all the privileges they want 
down on the commercial areas to get fish, and give them permits without any 
price whatever. What they want, as I understand it, is the exclusive privilege 
in large areas to catch fish for commercial purposes. 

Q. I mean, why could we not do that for commercial purposes, and then in 
these areas permit them to take food fish up these little streams out of season. 
The difficulty undoubtedly is the supervision and controlling of a huge territory. 
Assuming that we gave them these areas in the fishing district for exclusive com 
mercial fishing, give the Indians permits to take whatever fish they wanted in 
there for food purposes. It would be in their own interests to preserve the life 
of the fish in these areas because they are exclusive for commercial purposes, 
and if they depleted the fish there they would be cutting their own throats, as it 
were. 

Hon. Mr. GREEN: In other words, you think they would keep off the spawn 
ing bed? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Not only that, but with the restricted areas you could 
give more rigorous supervision than you can with the large areas. 
The CHAIRMAN: Are you dealing with tidal waters? 
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes, and streams going into tidal waters. 
The CHAIRMAN: Then you are infringing on the public right. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, because for years, 
up until about ten years ago, we gave exclusive rights. 
The WITNESS: 1922. 
The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you had no right to do it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Was that ever challenged, the matter of constitutional 
rights? 

The CHAIRMAN: I think you will find that that is the position. 

The WITNESS: I am extremely doubtful if the Government has got power 
to give exclusive rights in tidal waters. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. But we did it. A. We did, but there is an inherent public right of fish 
ing in tidal waters; that has been determined by the Privy Council. 

The CHAIRMAN: Any British subject in Canada has the right to go and fish 
in these tidal waters. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: For twenty years to my knowledge, and back of that, 
they gave these exclusive areas. 

IMr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 201 

The CHAIRMAN: But they had no right to do so. 

The WITNESS: And in the only instance where the matter came up before 
Parliament, Parliament advised against it. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: If the agent permits the Indian to have exclusive rights 
over tidal waters he is maintaining the aboriginal title. 

The WITNESS: That has already been determined by the Privy Council, 
that there is a public right of fishing in tidal waters, which is controllable by 
the Parliament of Canada only. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. When you say " controllable/ does that not give you the right of deter 
mining who shall or shall not fish in there? A. Yes, who shall or shall not, but 
it does not give the right to take away from a citizen of this country a right 
which he has in common with another citizen. 

Q. You will not permit me to go and fish anywhere unless I come to you 
and get a certain permit or license? A. No. 

Q. Why could we not set aside certain districts and say, " In these districts 
we will give a license only to Indians," and dedicate it to them, as it were? A. 
I do not think that you could deny me, if I went there and applied for a license, 
the granting of the license. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Let me put it in this way, Mr. Found, although it may seem ridiculous. 
If you issue a license to fish in British Columbia tidal waters, would that 
restrict a man from fishing in the Nova Scotian waters? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. Then, are you not locating him within a certain area under the law? 
A. Yes, but let me follow your question, sir. If I want a license for Nova 
Scotian waters also, I must get it, if I apply for it. 

Q. I mean this, Mr. Found; your law is under the control of the Dominion 
Parliament, and is administered by your Department, and if you issue a license 
to fish in British Columbia tidal waters, that license you say is confined to 
fishing in British Columbia. But if you cannot restrict him from any coastal 
waters there, is it not just as good in Nova Scotia waters, which are also under 
the Dominion authority? I admit that that would be ridiculous, so far as loca 
tion is concerned, but the fact remains the same, does it not? A. We can say 
to everybody, that they may fish under certain conditions. Now then, every 
body has got the same right to fish under those conditions, and that is not 
limited to any particular person. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. If you issue me a license in district No. 1, can I fish in district No. 2? 
A. At present, you may, yes. 

Q. You say I may? A. Yes, at the present time the regulation provides 
that the licenses are transferable from one district to another. 

Q. No, that is not the point. 
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: If he just holds it for No. 1. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Yes, can you restrict me then to No. 1? A. Yes, but I cannot restrict 
you from taking out a license for No. 2. 

Q. That is another thing? A. Then, I do not see the point. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



202 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. In other words, Mr. Found, supposing you issue a license under the 
inherent rights and restrict it to certain times and to certain areas? A. But we 
are not restricting the rights of anybody to fish in compliance with these require 
ments. 

Q. No, leave the compliance out. I am not quarrelling with that? A. Here 
is the, Privy Council decision, and I think it is clear enough. 

Q. You say there is an inherent right to any national, any British subject, 
to fish in British tidal waters? A. Yes, since Magna Charta that has been the 
case. 

Q. Yes, but that is regulated and controlled and limited by the fact that 
to fish in those waters, the fisherman must get a license, and that license as I 
understand it, is restricted to certain areas or to certain districts. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: District No. 1, for instance. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. Is your trouble this, Mr. Found, you have the right to issue licenses, 
but you have no right to refuse a license to anyone? A. That is my point. I 
must issue them to every British subject who applies. 

Q. And, if I ask you for a license for Nos. 1 and 2, you have no power to 
refuse me? A. Yes, not to fish in accordance with the regulations. 

Q. And is there any reason why the regulations should not be changed so 
that the fisherman s rights could be granted to the Indians on these points? A. I 
do not think that there is any power. There is the power of Parliament, but 
short of that power of Parliament, I do not think there is any power that we 
have now that will enable us to give the exclusive rights in any area to any 
individual. 

Q. At the present time, you think it would need legislation? A. Yes, I 
do not think there is -any doubt about that. 

Q. The departmental right would not be strong enough? A. Yes, I do not 
think there is any doubt about that either. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Here is the law, is it not? A. Yes, those are the regulations under the 
Act. 

Q. This says: "No license shall be transferred except by special written 
permission of the chief inspector or fishery officer." A. Quite so. 

Q. That means that you locate a license? A. In a broad way, yes. 

Q. Then why can we not locate a license for the Indians? A. So you can, 
Mr. Stevens, but you cannot refuse any one else who wants to go in there. You 
cannot give the Indian an exclusive franchise. 

Q. You say here that no one shall transfer a license. You can give the 
others licenses except in that area? A. But there is nothing there to prevent a 
man getting a transfer. 

Q. He cannot get a transfer without written permission, and you can refuse 
him permission. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: I think Mr. Stevens; the difficulty is, that they have 
power to control the license but not to limit the number. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The power has always been exercised. 

The WITNESS: Not always. By the Privy Council decision in 1920, the 
situation has been made pretty clear. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. From the feeling of the Committee as revealed in the questions, you 
have been asked, Mr. Found, can you make any suggestions as to how the appli- 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 203 

cation of the present regulations could be altered in any way, so as to make 
them more acceptable to the Indians? A. I have a very strong feeling that if 
we can get the Indians to come down to the tidal waters and fish there for their 
food purposes, their difficulties, and the difficulties of fisheries protection will 
be very largely eliminated. That is not practicable in long streams like the 
Fraser and the Skeena where the people are very remote. 

Q. The distances they would have to go are too great? A. Yes, too great; 
but in all these shorter streams, it is iniquitous, the fishing in the spawning 
grounds. If we can get away from it, it ought to be restricted as much as it can 
be in the permanent interests of every one, in the permanent interests of the 
Indians themselves. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is very desirable that the spawning grounds should 
be protected. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: In the small rivers, that is practicable. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Have you any suggestion in that regard? A. My suggestion has been, 
and I think it has been more or less considered, the one I have just indicated; 
that we will give the Indians any reasonable privilege they desire to come down 
and catch salmon in the tidal waters. We will be glad to lend equipment. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. How far would they have to travel to do that? A. In these rivers they 
are speaking of, as these gentlemen know, it is comparatively a few miles. 

By Hon. Mr. McLennan: 

Q. Ten or five miles? A. I am not familiar with the location where the 
Indians mainly live. 

By Hon. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. There are a lot of rivers flowing into these inlets, where the spawning 
grounds would extend ten, fifteen or twenty miles up-stream, or in some cases, 
much further. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: And where do the Indians live? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: There are some living up there. Then take rivers like 
the Naas and the Skeena, rivers of that character are very long. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: That can be cleared up in this way, that those are 
reserves that they are asking as special privileges on the ocean, of fishing in 
tidal waters. They do that because they are near enough to use those waters, 
and if they can use them, then they can abandon the fishing in the streams a 
little further up. They must be near enough in order to give them the fishing 
grounds and privileges on the shore, and that would eliminate the necessity of 
giving them privileges on the rivers, the spawning grounds. 

WITNESS: I don t think you would find that to be the case. I think Mr. 
Kelly will tell you that there are a number of Indians who do not come down, 
arid these people are the difficulty. 

Mr. KELLY: There is another side to it which perhaps ought to be 
explained. 

The CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Found finish his statement, and then you may 
explain. 

Mr. KELLY: Yes, but I thought I might suggest certain things, if you 
will allow me, that he would answer. 

The CHAIRMAN: Very well. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



204 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. KELLY: Mr. Found no doubt is aware of this fact, that to bring the 
Indians down to the tidal waters to fish for food would be a new departure 
in this way, that the Indian would be under the necessity of getting a net, 
which is a very expensive affair; it runs into hundreds of dollars to get a net. 

By Hon. Mr. Murphy: 

Q. Could the department supply that? A. The Department of Indian 
Affairs in several instances is supplying nets, such as would enable them to 
catch enough fish for their own food purposes, down on the coast. 

Mr. KELLY What part of the coast? 

WITNESS: All around, anywhere where we allow commercial fishing. We 
would be most happy, and have suggested it many times. 

Mr. KELLY: A net 150 fathoms long, at the present time, is quite an 
expensive net. Would you supply the material? 

Mr. FOUND: Yes, but there is no need for such a net. An Indian has no 
need to use more than a few fathoms. 

Mr. KELLY: I would like to draw Mr. Pound s attention to this fact. 
Immediately you go out there, you are brought into competition with commer 
cial men who are using not only drag seines, but large purse seines, and a 
gill net is simply out of the question, under such conditions. That is the diffi 
culty, and Mr. Found is no doubt aware of this fact too, that the fish caught 
for food by the Indians at the present day, do not begin to compare with what 
he used to catch in days gone by. 

WITNESS: True. 

Mr. KELLY: It is only the older, and the more indigent, Indians who are 
doing that. Those who are working have not the time to go to the trouble 
of catching fish, and curing them as they used to do. A very small fraction of 
Indians who used to do that are now doing that sort of thing. The others are 
engaged in something else. Therefore, we contend that even if they were 
permitted to catch fish for food, without licenses, that privilege would not be 
abused, and it would be provided that anyone who abuses the privilege would 
be dispossessed of it at once for that season. I think it would be fair to do that. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: How would you dispossess them when they are with 
out a license? 

Mr. KELLY: We have Dominion constables in the employment of the Indian 
Department, who are pretty much on the scene most of the time. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: But, the Indian would not have any license you 
have said; then how would you dispossess them of the right to fish. If they 
had a license I understand you could cancel it. 

Mr. KELLY: If he was caught selling fish for commercial purposes, when 
he was supposed to be catching, them for food purposes, he could be brought 
into court like any one else. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Then that is what you have reference to? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. 

By PI on. Mr. Stevens: 

Q. Coming back to what I said a moment ago. here is the Act. I presume 
this is the consolidated Act? A. The Act is attached to the regulations there. 

Q. It provides that the minister may, wherever the exclusive right of fishing 
does not already exist by law, issue, or order to be issued, fishery leases or 
licenses for fishing, wheresoever situated or carried on, but leases or licenses for 
any term exceeding nine years shall be issued only under the authority of the 
Governor in Council. That would indicate that you have the right to issue leases 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 

or licenses for exclusive areas. Then it provides that the Governor in Council 
will make regulations, among other things, prescribing the time and the manner 
in which fish may be fished for and caught. Now, under those two powers given 
in the Act the other is the regulation that we have over here it looks to me as 
if we had a perfect right to set aside areas for the Indians, and I believe, myself, 
that the solution of this main difficulty is to set aside main areas for these Indians. 

Mr. McPnERSON: Mr. Chairman, may I make this suggestion? I think 
perhaps the Committee feels that the right of the Indians to fish for food is para 
mount, and it is very desirable that it should be secured. If that is the opinion 
of the Committee, should we not at some stage settle the matter by recommend 
ing that the Department of Fisheries and the Department of the Interior get 
together and make such necessary changes in the regulations regarding the loca 
tion of the reserves, to allow them to take fish for food. It is a matter of detail, 
apparently depending on the individual location of each reserve. A regulation 
at one point in British Columbia might be absolutely faulty in another. 

WITNESS: Yes, conditions are very different in different places. 

Mr. MCPHERSON : We might discuss these details here for the rest of the 
session without making any progress. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I do not think there is any question about the right or 
the power of the minister to make the regulations. I agree with Mr. McPherson 
that we should let this go now. 

WITNESS: The regulations already exist, Mr. Chairman. They are right 
here. 

The CHAIRMAN : You mean, that if the members think there should be some 
thing done 

WITNESS: It is a matter of working it out. 

By Mr. McPherson: 

Q. It is a matter of taking the different reserves, and then reporting to the 
department as to the conditions of those reserves, is it not? A. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions the members of the Com 
mittee want to ask Mr. Found? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think Mr. Found has been very frank, and very infor 
mative to us. I have nothing more to ask him. 

WITNESS: I think the Indians will bear me out that it is our desire not to 
be arbitrary. We may have different views, but that is our desire. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: I think it would save the face of the Department of the 
Interior and it would save the Indians if a conference were held, as I have sug 
gested. 

WITNESS: We may have differences of opinion, but we have no difference 
in desire. 

The CHAIRMAN: Is there any one else the Committee wants to examine? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think not. Not for me, Mr. Chairman. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: I think we had better carry on in private, if I may 
make that suggestion. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. As Mr. O Meara is not here, can you tell me, Mr. 
Kelly, if he wishes to make a further statement to the Committee? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, he wishes just what I asked for yester 
day. 

The CHAIRMAN: That can be done by a written statement. 

Mr. KELLY: If that is the ruling of the Committee, we will have to bow to 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



206 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

it. If you will not allow him to present an argument except by a written state 
ment, I am inclined to think it is unusual. 

The CHAIRMAN: You were not here the other day, Mr. Kelly, but Mr. 
O Meara started to make statements, and he was rambling about all over the 
case, to such an extent that we had to stop him because we wanted to get on 
with the work of the Committee. 

Mr. KELLY: I would like to remind you of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that 
this is very important to us. I have known Mr. O Meara for long years, have 
had close and intimate connection with him, and I will guarantee that if he 
were accorded that privilege that, at a certain time to be set, while it is a very 
heavy matter, if he proceeded with the argument without many interruptions, 
I think he would get through in two or three hours. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: We had a fairly long session with Mr. O Meara. 

Mr. McPnERSON: We will be adjourning shortly now, Mr. Chairman, and 
the Committee might meet this afternoon in camera and discuss the matter and 
at the same time discuss the question of whether we will hear Mr. O Meara or 
not. 

Mr. KELLY: May I suggest this as an alternative? While the hon. gentle 
men are well aware that I have no ability at all to presume to treat on the con 
stitutional side of this very important question, yet if it is thought fit, I might 
read the material part, the papers on which we are depending for our argument, 
and place them on record, if there is no desire to hear Mr. O Meara. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. One of our troubles, 
Mr. Kelly, with Mr. O Meara is that he will cite some document; he does not 
present it; he quotes an obscure extract from it, and offers that tojthe Commit 
tee as tihe opinion of some man in authority. For instance, he quoted some 
thing that a Senator had said, and something that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said, 
and so on. That is not evidence, and we cannot go through the library looking 
for the documents referred to. My suggestion is and I think it will shorten 
this very materially if Mr. Kelly and Mr. Paull and Mr. O Meara will sit 
down and assemble the documents they wish to cite, and lay them on the table 
before this Committee, that would be of assistance. Personally, I would rather 
have Mr. O Meara file a written argument, supporting the documents, than 
hear him, because I think he is hopeless. However, I am prepared to hear him 
in a limited time on those documents, but let him file the documents, so that 
we may have them before us, and judge ourselves as to the merits of the little 
extracts that he takes from them. That is my position, and I certainly must 
object to having Mr. O Meara or anyone else merely cite a paragraph here or 
there out of a document, without filing the document. 

Mr. KELLY: That is agreeable to us, and I think we will do that. We do 
not want to injure our case by insisting upon any method that is not acceptable 
to the Committee. We are anxious to expedite matters as much as possible, and 
under as agreeable conditions as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kelly, you referred yesterday to a decision or a letter 
of the Minister of Justice? 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN: Well, of course all that evidence of yours was practically 
struck out of the record, because you had not put in the document. If you want 
to bring that in, you will have to produce that document. 

Mr. KELLY: You will realize, Mr. Chairman, that it was then about six- 
o clock, and we could not procure the document at that hour. We met again at 
ten o clock this morning, and it was impossible to get the document at that time. 
But let me say that Mr. O Meara is engaged now in doing that very thing; he is 
procuring that document, and we will file it. 

[Mr. W. A. Found.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 207 

Mr. MCPHERSON: I do not want to frighten the Committee, but I have been 
looking at that file of books Mr. O Meara has there, and I suggest that it con 
tains a large number. 

Mr. KELLY: Yes, but, gentlemen, I do not think there is nothing here to be 
afraid of. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: We will not be frightened by the books, if you produce 
the documents. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. Kelly has undertaken to do that. He says that 
he is agreeable that that should be done, that the documents shall be produced 
and filed, and the argument limited to the documents so produced. 

Mr. KELLY: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: When can you be ready? This afternoon or to-morrow 
morning? 

Mr. KELLY: To-morrow morning would be preferable, I think. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Will that be agreeable, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN: If that will suit the members of the Committee. 

Mr. KELLY: In view of what has been said, we will get busy and we will 
undertake to be prepared. 

Mr. HAY: Mr. Chairman, we had several witnesses yesterday, who would 
not come under the order for payment of witnesses. They are Mrs. Williams, 
Chief Basil David and William Pierrish. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, 
I move that we recommend the payment of these witnesses. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Certainly. I will second that. Put through the usual 
motion. 

Witness retired. 

The Committee adjourned until Wednesday, April 6, at 10 o clock a.m. 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED IXDIAX TRIBES, B.C. 209 



COMMITTEE ROOM 368, 

WEDNESDAY, April 6, 1927. 

The Joint Special Committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the 
Allied Indian Tribes of Britsh Columbia, as set forth in their petition submitted 
to Parliament in June, 1926, met at 11 o clock, a.m., Hon. Mr. Bostock presid- 



The CHAIRMAN: Now, I understand that Mr. O Meara wants to make a 
statement. Is it the pleasure of the committee that Mr. O Meara be heard? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Does the understanding of yesterday still hold 
good? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The understanding at the close of yesterday s pro 
ceedings was, I think, that Mr. O Meara would make his presentation, and we 
adjourned until this morning so that he could have his documents supporting his 
statement well in order, which we now presume he has, and thereby cut down 
his statement to reasonable bounds. I think the committee are quite willing to 
hear Mr. O Meara in that manner, as long as the documents from which he is 
going to quote are presented as 

The CHAIRMAN: A matter of record. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Are "proven" I believe that is the legal term. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. O Meara, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN: Before you commence, Mr. O Meara, you have heard 
what Mr. Stevens said. We want you to make your statement as short as you 
possibly can, and where you have to refer to the decisions of the Court, or any 
thing of that kind, we want you to give the reference, so as to save the time of 
the committee as much as possible. 

Mr. O MEARA: I assure you, hon. gentlemen, that is my desire exactly, 
and it will be carried out to the fullest possible extent. 

I first will put in some necessary documents proving the petition. The first 
is the letter addressed by myself to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cormaught 
on the 29th May, 1916. The second is the original letter of His Royal Highness 
the Duke of Connaught addressed to myself on the 25th September, 1916. The 
next is a statement issued by the British Columbia Indian Conference which 
was held at Vancouver in the month of June, 1916, and proves the unwillingness 
of the tribes of British Columbia to accept the terms of the government of Can 
ada. The next is the text of the Order in Council passed by the government of 
the province of British Columbia in the month of August, 1923. The next is 
the full stenographic report of the interview had by the Minister of the Interior 
with the executive committee of the Allied Tribes and myself at Vancouver, in 
the month of July, 1923, and in that I refer especially to these parts to be found, 
first, on page 38, commencing at line three, and including all to the words "a 
reference of that character"; the second extract commences on page 39, at line 
fourteen, and includes all to the end of the page, and the third extract is found 
at page 43, beginning at line eleven, and includes the words down to "there can 
be no question, about the moral sense." 

The CHAIRMAN: That is the official report of that conference? 

[Mr. O Meara.] 
4232514 



210 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEARA: The official stenographic report of that interview, hon. 
Chairman. The next is the text of memorandum issued and published by the 
Department of Indian Affairs on the 9th day of August, in the year 1,924. I 
have it here in the shape of a clipping; no doubt there is easily available an 
official record of that. 

The CHAIRMAN: We had better hear from Dr. Scott on that. 

Dr. SCOTT: I object to that. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: That can be verified by comparison with the official 
records. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Does it give the date? 

Mr. O MEARA: Ninth August, 1924. 

The CHAIRMAN: But you cannot put in a newspaper clipping like that; 
you must put in either the original or a certified copy, and if you want that, you 
must ask the Department to produce the document. 

Mr. O MEARA: I concede the point, Mr. Chairman; I shall be pleased to 
do that. The text is there. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is, frankly, Mr. O Meara, an article in the Ottawa 
Citizen? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Purporting to be from the Department. 

Dr. SCOTT: I object to that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is pretty far-fetched; I do not think Mr. O Meara 
should press that. 

Mr. O MEARA: It is an official memorandum. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, it is a newspaper clipping. 

Dr. SCOTT: I do not think anything in the Ottawa Citizen is an official 
memorandum. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Does it refer to the report? 

Mr. O MEARA: It gives the text of an official memorandum issued by the 
Indian Department. I admit at once I should give proof of that. 

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot accept that. You can ask Doctor Scott to 
produce that. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will. The next is the full text of a letter addressed by 
myself to the Minister of Justice on the 17th of August, 1925. 

The only remaining item, hon. gentlemen, is the text of the resolution of 
the Executive Council of the Allied Tribes, passed in the month of January, 1925. 
This is mentioned in the petition. If any evidence is asked as to that, Mr. 
Paull will be in a position to furnish it. 

The CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee say if they wish all these documents 
that Mr. O Meara has handed in to be printed in full in the records of the 
proceedings. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: We had better leave that to your discretion, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. HAY: Would it not do to just say that he made reference to these things, 
and then they could be supplemented later on and have a separate production, if 
necessary? 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The printing would take a long time. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: We are asking Mr. O Meara to cut down his address by 
filing documents and it would only be fair, where other documents have been 
filed up to date, that the documents should be printed. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: It is a question of whether we want to take the time 
and expense of voluminous printing. 

[Mr. O Meara,] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 21 1 

The CHAIRMAN: It is for the Committee to decide if they want them printed. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think before they are printed they ought to be 
examined to see the necessity of printing. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: We could have a round table conference and talk about 
it. 

Mr. O MEAEA: Hon. gentlemen, I consider it a great honour to address you, 
and I will condense absolutely everything that can be condensed. 

The first remark I wish to make is with regard to the telegram that came 
from the Government of British Columbia, in which the province relies upon 
section 109 of the British North America Act. I point out that that is the out 
standing ground upon which the Allied Indian Tribes are relying to-day. They 
rely very strongly upon Section 109 of the British North America Act. 

The next matter is the statement put before the Committee by the Minister 
of the Interior, regarding the subject of conquest. Reference was made to some 
stated facts which seemed to show that the Indian Tribes of British Columbia 
are in the position of a conquered people. 

The first reply to that question is that, as a matter of fact, the Tribes of 
British Columbia have not been conquered. 

The second reply will be found in a very recent judgment of the Judicial 
Committee of His Majesty s Privy Council. That is a case known as the 
Southern Nigeria case, in which that matter is distinctly dealt with. I refer 
especially to page 410, at which it will appear that conquests alone will not 
destroy the native land rights. In that case the colony of Lagos had been 
conquered. There had been a cession of the territory to the British Crown and 
their lordships held that neither the conquest nor the cession made to the 
British Crown destroyed the native land rights. I rely upon that as distinctly 
distinguishing the point as to conquest. 

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. O Meara, would you give the name of the case and 
the reference? 

Mr." O MEARA: It is the case of Amodu Tijani vs. The Secretary of South 
ern Nigeria, reported in Law Reports, Appeal Cases 1921, Volume 2, at page 
399. 

I wish to speak further on that case in a few minutes, but at the present 
time I am only speaking on the point of conquest. 

The additional reply that I wish to make is to be found in a few words 
quoted from the official report of an interview had by the Minister of the 
Interior, and others representing the Government of Canada, with the members 
of the Executive Council of the Allied Indian Tribes, in the month of July, 1922.. 
The Minister addressing the Indians said, "I do not want to go into details, but 
to say that you are the aboriginal owners of this province as no treaty was ever 
made with the Indians of British Columbia." 

I wish to briefly reply to some outstanding points contained in the memo 
randum of Dr. Scott, a memorandum upon which I must sincerely congratulate 
Dr. Scott, as I think it is constructed with very great skill and states in an 
admirable manner the point of view of the Department of Indian Affairs. But, 
hon. gentlemen, it will be my duty to place before you the fact that there 
cannot be shown to be any sound constitutional difference between the position 
of the Department of Indian Affairs, as thus so ably set forth, and the position 
taken by the province of British Columbia. 

First of all I refer to a few words to be found on Page 3, " No Cession 
of the aboriginal title claimed by the Indians over the lands of the Province 
of British Columbia has ever been sought or obtained." I desire to take very 
strong ground on this, that there is an admission of the first order as to the 
actual facts upon which the allied tribes stand to-day. 

The next is to be found in these words at the bottom of that page, where 
Dr. Scott says: " The Proclamation of 1763, which is referred to by the advisers 

42325144 Mr - O Meara.] 



212 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

of the British Columbia Indians as a basis of their aboriginal title to the lands 
of the Province, was issued after the conquest of Canada, to establish His 
Majesty s Government in the newly conquered territory. By subsequent Acts 
of the imperial Parliament, the Proclamation was repealed, the courts were set 
up, and a system of government was gradually developed." 

Now, honourable gentlemen, I am inclined to think that there we find 
the ground upon which the Minister of the Interior based his remark about 
the conquered position of the tribes. I wish to point out some facts with regard 
to that. The first fact is that there was no conquest of the native Indian 
tribes of this country at all. The conquest there referred to was the conquest 
of the British over the French. And the second fact was that when there was 
a treaty of peace and Cession from France to Great Britain, all the rights 
of the aboriginal tribes of Canada were explicitly preserved by the very language 
of that document. 

Then I refer very specially to a few words to be found in the opinion of the 
Minister of Justice given in the year 1875. Pardon me a moment, Mr. Chair 
man, wiiere is that? 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: In Appendix B. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I ask Dr. Scott which Appendix contains the opinion 
of the Minister of Justice? 

Dr. SCOTT: In 1875, it is in Appendix B, I think. 

Mr. MORIN: At Page 39. 

Mr. O MEARA: These words are of importance. I shall read from the 
language of this report: " It is not necessary now to enquire whether the lands 
to the west of the Rocky Mountains and bordering on the Pacific Ocean, form 
part of the lands claimed by France, and which, if such claims were correct, 
would have passed by Cession to England, under the Treaty of 1763, or whether 
the title of England rests on any other ground, nor is it necessary to consider 
whether that Proclamation covered the land now known as British Columbia. 

It is sufficient, for the present purposes, to ascertain the policy of England 
in respect to the acquisition of the Indian Territorial Rights, and how entirely 
that policy has been followed to the present time, except in the instance of 
British Columbia. 

It is true, also, that the Proclamation 1763. to which allusion has been 
made, was repealed by the Imperial Statute 14 George III, Chapter 83, known 
as The Quebec Act; but that Statute merely, so far as regards the present case, 
annuls the Proclamation, " so far as the same relates to the Province of Quebec, 
and the commission and the authority thereof, under the authority whereof, 
the Government of the said Province is at present .administered, and the Act was 
passed for the purpose of effecting a change in the mode of the Civil Govern 
ment of the administration of justice in the Province of Quebec." 

So that two outstanding poinits are shown there, honourable gentlemen. 
One is that the Minister of Justice did not think it necessary to rely upon the 
Proclamation of 1763, and the second podnt is that he says it was only repealed 
to that extent. 

The next is to be found on Page 5, and I read these few words: "By the 
Dominion Parliament and the Government of British Columbia this was con 
sidered" that is. Article 13 a satisfactory division of responsibility for the 
Indians and the Imperial Government acquiesced. The terms of the union were 
approved by Order of Her Majesty in Council on the 16th May, 1871." 

May I point out that that proposition simply assumes that all responsibili 
ties were dealt with._ And it is submitted that that is not an exact proposition; 
only certain responsibilities were dealt with in Article 13, whether on the side 
of the Government of Canada or on the side of the Government of British 
Columbia. 

[Mr. O Me:ir:i.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 213 

I next ask attention to these words: "The Indian? have, in fact, been held 
to be the special wards of the Crown." Those words are quoted from Mr. 
Trutch s memorandum. Now I do not wish to enter upon any full discussion 
about that, but I wish just to place my clients, these tribes, upon record that 
they do not admit that the relation of the Government of Canada towards the 
tribes of British Columbia is that of a guardian. This submission is and will 
be that that relation is one of trustee-ship. I do not think it necessary to go 
further into that matter. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The relationship with the Government of Canada? 

Mr. O MEARA: Ye&, that it is not that of guardian but of trustee-ship. That 
is the distinction which I draw, which I humbly submit is a very important 
and fundamental distinction; because a ward has no power to do anything for 
himself; no power to make an agreement ; no power to do anything; but his 
guardian must do everything for him. The relationship of trustee-ship is 
radically different; and I submit respectfully that the relationship of the Govern 
ment of Canada to the Indians of British Columbia is that of trustee-ship. 

I next refer to <a few words to be found on Page 7. Dr. Scott is narrating 
the opinion of the Minister of Justice and the disallowance of the Land Act 
of British Columbia, and he uses these words: "The main reason" for the 
disallowance "being the fact that no cession of the Indian title had been obtained 
and the Act was disallowed by Order in Council of 16th March, 1875." There 
again, Mr. Chairman and honourable gentlemen, in the briefest possible way, 
I rely and very strongly rely upon the proposition that the absence of a cession 
of title in British Columbia was the ground upon which that Act of the 
Province was disallowed. 

May I add a few words to that, in answer to a question which arose, which 
was to what happened afterwards. What happened in the next year was that 
Mr. Edward Blake had become Minister of Justice, and he made another report. 
In the meantime, the Provincial Legislature had again enacted the Land Act, 
and it came before Mr. Blake. His opinion was given and it is all set out in 
the paper and is available in this appendix. His opinion absolutely agreed, as 
I submit, with that of his predecessor, who had become Judge Fournier, of the 
Supreme Court of Canada; but he said that he was not prepared to go the 
length of advising that again the Act should be disallowed. 

The next will be found in a few words on Page 8. These are the words 
used with reference to the opinion of the Minister of Justice given in the month 
of January, 1875: " It would hardly be possible to draft a stronger document 
in support of the claim for an aboriginal title than this memorandum." 

Again, Mr. Chairman and honourable gentlemen. I simply submit to you 
that that weighty sentence is enough in itself to prove the title of the Indian 
tribes of British Columbia. 

Mr. McPHERSON: Mr. O Meara, do you seriously contend that the opinion 
of the Superintendent of the Indian Department is evidence of title? That 
is only his opinion. 

Mr. O MEARA: I am sorry if I conveyed that meaning. I mean that what 
he is referring to there, the opinion of the Minister of Justice, which, honourable 
gentlemen, was adopted by Order in Council and the Governor General at that 
time. That is what I mean is conclusive. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: What you read was Mr. Scott s opinion on that. 

Mr. O MEARA: I apologize. What I meant to convey is that in that 
sentence Dr. Scott puts before this Committee the proposition that it would not 
be possible to find a stronger document in support of the claim for an aboriginal 
title than the document by the Minister of Justice on which I rely. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: And after that, Mr. Scott may go on to point out an 
opinion different from that. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: And he does in the next line. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



214 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think you will note that Dr. Scott says on the one 
hand so and so and on the other hand so and so. I do not think it is right to 
infer that that opinion given there is supporting your argument. 

Mr. O MEARA: The opinion upon which I rely is the opinion of the 
Minister of Justice itself. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Oh, well, go on. 

Mr. O MEARA: There is just one other point to which I wish to refer in 
the memorandum by Dr. Scott, and that is to be found on Page 57. I refer 
specially to what appears on Page 57, the memorandum that was issued by 
Dr. Scott on the llth March, 1914. I ask attention to the exact view expressed 
in that memorandum. Honourable gentlemen will find that Dr. Scott says 
here that his purpose in putting that memorandum before the Government was 
to slaow the real nature of the Indian title. I submit for your consideration that 
when you examine that memorandum you will find that the real nature of the 
Indian title as there set out is simply this. He says: "It follows that the 
Indian title, when acknowledged by the Crown, cannot be separated from what 
the Crown elects to grant." 

That is the heart of the whole memorandum; and what I submit, honourable 
gentlemen, is that whether the view is right or whether it is wrong, the position 
taken is that the tribes of British Columbia have no actual title, and I specially 
refer to that because I will be able to put before you, honourable gentlemen, 
that the recent case, the Southern Nigerian Case, takes an absolutely different 
view of the native title. 

I wish next to place before you, honourable gentlemen, the memorandum 
that was presented by the late Doctor McKenna to Premier McBride on the 
27th July, 1912. I have it in my hand, but no doubt the official copy is avail 
able. This is a copy furnished by the Department of Indian Affairs, and I ask 
attention to two facts; one is that this memorandum contains a very strong 
argument for the proposition that the Province of British Columbia has no 
revertionary title in the reserves; and the other prominent feature of this is, as 
will be found towards the close of the memorandum, it shows that Dr. McKenna 
fully realized the actual title of the Indian tribes as being an interest in all the 
lands of British Columbia. I ask special consideration of that memorandum. 

I go on from that, Mr. Chairman and honourable gentlemen, to put before 
you some very positive grounds supporting the aboriginal title claimed by the 
tribes of British Columbia. It is contained in the memorandum which was 
placed in the hands of the Government of Canada on the 29th February, 1924, 
by three delegates of the allied tribes together with myself as general counsel; 
and the parts specially relied upon will be found on the first four pages. With 
regard to reading this or any part of it, I am completely in the hands of the 
Committee. I put the document in because it contains that matter. 

The next definite proof, as I submit, of the Indian title claimed by the tribes 
is to be found in the decisions of their lordships of the Judicial Committee of 
the Privy Council extending over a number of years. There are quite a 
number of those decisions and I am fortunate in being able to present the result 
of it all as stated by Mr. Newcombe in his book, which was published in the 
year 1908, instead of attempting to present them in detail. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What is the title of the book? 

Mr. O MEARA: The title is " The British North America Acts "; and it was 
published in the year 1908. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: At what page Mr. O Meara? 

Mr. O MEARA: At page 89 I read one paragraph. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Will you give us the subject of the chapter which you 
are quoting from, so that we will know what he is talking about? 

Mr. O MEARA: The heading is " Indians and Lands Reserved for the 
Indians." I will read what Mr. Newcombe says: 

[Mr. O Meara,] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 215 

It therefore appears that lands reserved for Indians and subject to 
a title such as existed in the St. Catherines Milling case are vested in the 
Crown in the right of the province subject to the Indian title or interest, 
which though a mere burden is an interest other than that of the province 
in the same within the meaning of Section 109 and therefore apparently 
an interest independent of and capable of being vindicated in competition 
with the beneficial interest of the province. The title is in the Crown, 
burdened with the Indian interest and subject to this beneficial interest 
is in the province within which the lands lie."- 

Mr. MOEIN: Is he referring to the Reserved Lands? 

Mr. O MEAEA: No, the whole of the territory. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, the language which you have read refers entirely 
to Reserves. 

Mr. O MEARA: I was just going on to explain that point. He uses the 
expression "It therefore appears that lands reserved for Indians, subject to a 
title such as existed in the St. Catherines Milling Case" he uses the word 
"reserved" but the explanation is simple, honourable gentlemen; the Proclama 
tion of 1673 uses the word "reserved." 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: He is dealing there with lands reserved and with 
nothing else. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The facts will speak for themselves. 

Hon. Mr. McPHEESON: Personally, I want to go on record that the opinions 
quoted, whether expressed by Departmental officials. Ministers of Justice of 
the past or by anybody else, much as I may respect them, are not evidence of 
the facts in the case but merely of their opinions. This is an opinion of Dr. 
Newcombe? 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, but it sums up a number of judgments of their lord 
ships. 

Hon. Mr. MCPHERSON: It sums up his opinion of their judgments. The 
only reason I mention it now is because no doubt there will be a lot of these 
and I do not want to be bound by them as evidence of fact. 

Mr. O MEARA: Honourable gentlemen, I am prepared to prove absolutely, 
by bringing the evidence here, to point out what proves it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The point I object to is this, that you quote that and 
you say that it applies to all the lands of British Columbia. The text itself 
clearly shows that it applies to lands reserved. There is no use in kidding 
ourselves about this; we have to face the facts. You cannot hypnotize yourself 
or your clients. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I read that sentence again, where he says that the 
title is in the Crown burdened with the Indian interest, and subject to this the 
beneficial interest is in the Province within which the lands lie. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Certainly. 

Mr. O MEARA: I submit it would be impossible to apply that language 
to an Indian Reserve in the sense to which Mr. Stevens refers. 

Hon. Mr. MCPHERSON: Did not he apply that to a case which was of 
that kind? 

Mr. O MEARA: The St. Catherines Milling Case has reference to the terri 
tory of a tribe and not to a reserve. We have the text of it here. Undoubtedly 
that case deals with the general question of Indian title. I have the St. 
Catherines Milling Case, to which Mr. Newflombe specially referred, which is 
to be found in 14 Appeal Cases 46; and beyond any doubt it shows that. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Read the text of the report. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will read the headlines. 

The CHAIRMAN: I did not catch the name of the case. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



216 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEARA: The St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Company vs. The 
Queen, which is to be found in 14 A. C. 46. I was just wondering what I could 
find that is brief enough to read here. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: That is what we are wondering too. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will read the Head Note. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
this is a long judgment, and I will read the Head Note: " Section 109 of the 
British North America Act, 1867, gives to each Province the entire beneficial in 
terest of the Crown in all lands within the boundaries which at the time of the 
Union were vested in the Crown, subject to such rights as the Dominion can 
maintain under sections 108 and 107. By Royal Proclamation of 1763, pos 
session was granted to certain Indian tribes of such lands parts of our dominions 
and territories as not having been ceded to or purchased by the Crown were 
reserved for the present to them as their hunting ground. The Proclamation 
further indicated that all purchases from Indians of lands reserved to them must 
be made on behalf of the Crown by the Governor of the Colony in which the lands 
lie and not by any private person." 

In 1873 the lands in suit situated in Ontario, which had been an Indian 
occupation until that date, under the said Proclamation, were to the extent of 
the whole right and title of the Indian tribes therein, surrendered to the Gov 
ernment of the Dominion for the Crown, subject to a certain qualified privilege 
of hunting and fishing. 

Held: That by force of the Proclamation, the tenure of the Indians 
was a personal and usufructuary right dependent upon the goodwill of 
the Crown; that the lands were thereby and at the time of the Union, 
vested in the Crown, subject to the Indian title, which was an interest 
other than that of the Province in the same within the meaning of Section 
129. 

Mr. McPHERSON: And which had been reserved to them under that Pro 
clamation. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: A defined usufruct. 

Mr. O MEARA: A beneficial title. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Their title means, not fee or anything of that kind; 
it is a usufruct; a usufructuary interest. 

Mr. O MEARA: Indian title does not mean fee, under any circumstances. 
It is a beneficial title. Now, Mr. Chairman and hon. gentlemen, the explan 
ation of the point that is giving difficulty is simple. It is to be found in this: 
That the Royal Proclamation dealing with all lands occupied by the tribes all 
through the country uses the expression " Reserve." It reserves all that great 
territory for the Indians. That is the explanation, and that is the reason why 
that term " Reserve " is used. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No one can be surprised that your clients have been 
misled by your advice. 

Mr. O MEARA: On what point, Mr. Stevens? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: On all points. 

Mr. O MEARA: Well, if my advice is as sound on other points as it is on 
this, I think it is all right; because every one who has studied this case knows 
absolutely that what was dealt with was the large territoiy that has been occu 
pied by the tribes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: They know nothing of the kind. 

Hon,. Mr. BELCOURT: Will you tell us Mr. O Meara what is the definition 
of the word "usufructuary"? 

Mr. O MEARA: Beneficial. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: No, it does not mean anything of the kind. It means 
an entirely different thing. 

Mr. O MEARA: Well, I submit that the word is the same. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 217 

Hon. Mr. BELCOXJET: No, it has a meaning in law. 

Air. O MEARA: Usufructuary? I think it will be found in the decisions, 
and in the judgments that it is used in that sense, Mr. Chairman, but this point 
that has arisen is more a question of fact than of constitutional law, and once 
the Committee is satisfied that the facts are according to what I have said, I am 
quite satisfied. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You will be a long time persuading some of the Com 
mittee. 

Mr. O MEARA: I will hand this in to the chairman and ask him to look at 
it himself. I have tried and I will try again to point out that the St. Catherine s 
Milling case did n,ot deal with reserved lands, in the sense of reserves, such as 
are ordinarily called reserves. It does deal with the large lands, the lands that 
have been occupied for a long time under the Proclamation, by the tribes. I 
will be pleased to have this confirmed before I pass on, because I would not 
like any hon. member to think for a moment that there is anything misleading 
about it. The case speaks for itself. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is not misleading. That is your opinion, so I sug 
gest that you go on. 

The CHAIRMAN: What we are listening to, is your statement of your case, 
Mr. O Meara, on behalf of your clients. We do not deny, nor do we. accept, 
your statement of the case. That is the position of the Committee. We think 
you should finish as soon as you can. 

Mr. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, may I make this explanation? According to 
the well-defined statement here, it does not refer to lands reserved in the sense 
of a "Reserve" that we have now; such as for instance "Squamish Reserve", 
which is a reserve in the ordinary sense of those words; but, the reserved lands 
referred to in this decision were not set apart as the reserved lands on which 
Indian, villages are situated now. They were rather "Common" lands. 

Hon. Mr. BELCOURT: Is it not this: that the "Reserve" reserved the whole 
territory, and subsequently, this territory was carved up into special reserves, 
to which a special name was given, but there is no change in title or in interest 
by that at all. They were subdivided and given, certain names, but the title 
remaining exactly what it was before. Is not that the case? 

Mr. O MEARA: That might be done, but that is not the St. Catherine s 
Milling case. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: The report of that decision speaks for itself. Let us 
go on. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That case is well understood. 

Mr. MCPHERSON: May I occupy my time by looking over the report of 
that case, if I may have the book? 

Mr. O MEARA: Certainly. The next matter to be placed before the Com 
mittee, Mr. Chairman, is the judgment delivered by their lordships in the 
Southern Nigeria case. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: We had that before, had we not? 

Mr. O MEARA: The reference has already been given, but I refer to the 
same case for another matter. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That case, Mr. Chairman, is well known to the Com 
mittee. Mr. Bennett, who unfortunately is ill just now and unable to be present, 
referred to it the other day, I think, and merely to state that they claim this 
case as supporting their argument would be sufficient. I do not think it is 
necessary to go over it. It is a well established case, and the Committee will 
know just what value to place upon it. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. O Meara has already stated it, 

Mr. O MEARA: Not on this point. I cited it with regard to conquest. 
Now, I refer to it and ask attention to the full dealing with the whole subject 
of native title to be found in that case. As the judgment is quite long, I will 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



^18 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

simply refer to the outstanding points of it. First of all let me remind the 
Committee that in the St. Catherine s Milling case, their lordships were urged 
to decide what was the exact nature of Indian title, and they declined to do so. 
It is important to note, that they declined to do so. That which the St. 
Catherine s milling case did not do is done by the judgment of their lordships 
in the Southern Nigeria case. They say that it is necessary to define what is 
the nature of the native title, and they proceeded to do so. The hon. gentlemen 
will also find that they, in so many words, refer to title in British Dominions, 
and not merely in Southern Nigeria, and they make special reference to the 
matter of Indian title in Canada as included within the scope of the principles 
which they lay down in this judgment. And, the remaining point is that 
clearly and explicitly, as I submit, they lay down the principle that in British 
Dominions, native title to land is of the nature of communal ownership. Their 
lordships do not use the term "tribal", but use the term "communal." And, they 
lay down the principle that native title to land in all British Dominions is of 
the nature of communal ownership. I submit that there is no difference in 
principle between the word "communal" and the word "tribal." I just leave it 
at that, Mr. Chairman, but asking that most serious and very special attention 
be given to the judgment of their lordships in this Southern Nigeria case. 

What remains is that I should present some matters connected with the 
issues existing between the Indian tribes of British Columbia, and the two 
governments, and I will state just what those issues are, putting each in a 
very few words. 

The first issue is: 

(1) Did the Indian tribes of British Columbia have the title that they 
are claiming before British Columbia entered Confederation. 

(2) Whether Article 13 of the terms of Union had the effect of destroying 
the native title. 

(3) Whether the McKenna-McBride Agreement had the effect of destroying 
the title of the Indian tribes 

(4) Whether the Indian tribes of British Columbia have ownership of the 
fore-shores in front of the reserves held for their use and benefit. And in that 
issue there are two sections: One relates to the fore-shores in front of Indian 
reserves, situated upon public harbours, as to which the issue is between the 
Indian tribes and the Government of the Dominion of Canada. And, the second 
section consists of a large number of fore-shores in front of Indian reserves all 
along the coast, as to which the issue is between the Indian tribes and the Province 
of British Columbia. 

(5) Have the Indian tribes of British Columbia aboriginal fishing rights 
in respect of their territories. 

(6) Have the Indian tribes of the Province aboriginal hunting rights in 
respect of their territories, 

(7) Whether the Indian tribes have aboriginal water rights in respect of 
their territories. 

(8) Whether the Parliament of Canada has authority for putting an end 
to the rights of the Indian tribes of British Columbia by means of the enact 
ment that was passed in the year 1920. 

(9) Whether, if the power be granted, the Parliament o ! f Canada intended 
to take away these rights by the passing of that Bill, the enacting of that law. 

And another issue, which is connected with what I have just spoken of, 
relates to the validity of the Orders in Council which have been passed under 
the Statute or Act of the Dominion of Canada passed in the year 1920, and the 
similar statute passed by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Is that all. 

Mr. O MEARA: No, not quite all. I have a few remarks to make with 
regard to some of the issues. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 219 

With regard to the first, the question of aboriginal title before Confedera 
tion, I simply say that in view of the Southern Nigeria case, it is not open to 
serious doubt. That is my submission. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: May I ask you this question: In regard to that area 
which formerly was attached to British Columbia before Confederation, now 
included in the States of Washington and Oregon, down to the Columbia River, 
do the Indians south of the Boundary some of whom belong to tribes I think 
on either side? 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, that is right. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Do they claim as against the United States Govern 
ment the title to that property? 

Mr. O MEARA: I know nothing of the details, but my general understand 
ing is that they make the same claim, and also that treaties have been made 
with them. That is my understanding, that treaties have been made with 
them. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What treaties, and when? 

Mr. O MEARA: I do not profess to have the particulars. I just give my 
understanding. I know the fact to be, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Stevens says. 
that they belong to the same tribe; but I cannot say from personal knowledge 
whether treaties have actually been made with them, but our understanding 
has been that they have been made. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I have never heard of it, and I would like to know 
where they are. 

Mr. O MEARA: I base my understanding principally upon this, that pretty 
well throughout the United States treaties have been made with the Indian tribes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: But the ownership of that area I think it is rather 
important was settled as between the United States Government and the British 
Government. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: I should think that if this claim was well founded, that 
tribe would have a claim against the British Government for giving up that 
territory. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I have never heard of that question being brought up. 
It would be interesting to know how it was dealt with. That area was claimed 
by the British Crown and was ceded to the United States as a result of the 
award of 1846. Then there was the San Juan claim; taking San Juan Island. 
That is within the purview of yoxir investigation, Mr. O Meara, and if your in 
vestigations have been as thorough as they appear, you must know this: do the 
Indians claim the aboriginal title to San Juan Island? 

Mr. KELLY: I do not think there are any Indians living on it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Oh, yes. That is a very fine Island. That Island was 
ceded by the arbitration award of the Emperor of Germany in 1872. Do you 
know of any claim there? 

Mr. O MEARA: No, I do not. I have no knowledge of that matter at all. 
In fact, I do not know where the place is. 

Mr. KELLY: It is South of Victoria. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It was a famous question at one time. But apparently 
your studies have been directed to bolster up your own opinions with extracts 
selected here and there from the documents. 

Mr. O MEARA: May I remark that my duty has been on the constitutional 
side, and I have relied upon others on the practical side. May I proceed, Mr. 
Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. 

Mr. O MEARA: As to the second question: Whether Article 13 had the effect 
of destroying the title of the Indian tribes, I submit to the hon. gentlemen that 
that Article requires to be examined with very great care, and that it will be 
found that it does not carry the Province of British Columbia as far as the 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



220 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Province is claiming that it is carried. First of all. as to the effect of the British 
North America Act, my submission is that not Article 13, but the provisions of 
the whole British North America Act govern the situation, and if the hon. gentle 
men will look at the provisions of that Act, they will find Section 109, which 
expressly, as we submit, preserves the title of the Indian tribes. It was under 
Section 146 that British Columbia entered Confederation. Article 13 was a 
term of the Agreement between British Columbia and Canada, and approved as 
one of the terms of the Union, but under the exclusive language of Section 146 
that Article is subject to Section 109. That possibly, is the outstanding point 
to bring before the Committee with regard to Article 13; but if we look at the 
Article itself, even if it should be regarded as an out and out enactment and not 
subject in any way to the provisions of Section 109, I submit that it does not sup 
port the position that has been taken by the Province of British Columbia. 
The charge of the Indians is given to the Government of Canada. As I submit, 
that means the administration of Indian Affairs in British Columbia. Then, 
the trusteeship of lands for the use and benefit of Indians is given to Canada, 
and that is a very important fact. Then the Article proceeds to provide for 
the setting aside of lands which shall be conveyed by the Province to the 
Dominion for the benefit of the Indians. Now, what I submit there is that there 
is nothing going beyond machinery set up for dealing with this matter of lands; 
machinery set up to be used by the two governments. I submit that there is not 
from beginning to end of that Article one word which purports to take away the 
rights of the Indian tribes. 

Then in addition, I have to bring before the Commiittee a matter of some 
what statutory importance. Before I refer to a case decided by the House 
of Lords on the point involved, I point out what has been done by that article. 
The Dominion of Canada becomes a trustee, hon. gentlemen, and I suppose no 
one will dispute that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: A trustee of what? 

Mr. O MEARA: Trustee for the Indian tribes. The trusteeship of the 
lands reserved for their use and benefit. 

The CHAIRMAN: What are you reading from, Mr. O Meara? 

Mr. O MEARA: I read from Article 13 of the terms of the Union at page 
5 on "Trusteeship." 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Please read correctly what you do read? 

Mr. O MEARA: I will read it. 

The charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management of 
the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed by the 
Dominion Government. 

Then I point out that the Article goes on to provide for the conveying of lands 
to be held by Canada in trust to the Indian tribes. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Do you contend that that extends to lands other than 
reserves? 

Mr. O MEARA: No, my submission is, sir, that Canada becomes a trustee 
in respect of lands. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: All lands? 

Mr. O MEARA: All lands that are to be held for the Indians; that Canada 
takes the position of trustee. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Let us be clear on that. Let us read it again, and then 
let us once for all accept the reading of the words: 

The charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management of 
the lands reserved for their use and benefit. 

It is so clear that I cannot see the sense it is annoying to me to hear you 
go on arguing that that extends to aid of the lands. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 221 

Mr. O MKARA: Pardon me. I humbly submit simply this: that Canada 
took there a position of trusteeship toward the Indian tribes. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: There is no dispute about that. 

Mr. O MEAEA: I did not suppose that any one would dispute that. Now, 
then, the second point is that by that article there was given to the Dominion 
of Canada a power, and that power was to demand land from the Province of 
British Columbia. 

And my third point is that the result of that Article is also to give to the 
Secretary of State for the Colonies a power, and that is a power to decide on 
the lands to be reserved, and the extent of them, in face of the Act, the power 
to set aside lands, or rather, Canada had the power to demand lands from 
British Columbia. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Let us get that right according to the Article, and 
not according to your interpretation. " A policy as liberal as that hitherto 
pursued by the British Columbia Government." 

Mr. O MEAHA: Yes, exactly. 

Mr. PATJLL: Mr. O Meara s contention, Hon. Mr. Stevens, is this: that 
article 13 only deals with lands to be reserved as reserves for Indians. It does 
not touch upon the prior or aboriginal title. It does not touch on that at all. 

Mr. O MEARA: The fact is, there is really nothing between Mr. Stevens and 
myself at all. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Except that I would like you to read quotations cor 
rectly. 

Mr. O MEARA: I think I have stated my point sufficiently. There is a power 
conferred upon Canada, and a power conferred upon the Secretary of State for 
the Colonies. Now, hon. gentlemen, may I ask somewhat special attention to 
this; and to what has been done under that. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What power do you claim is placed in the Secretary of 
State for the Colonies? 

Mr. O MEARA: The power to finally decide the matter. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Decide what? 

Mr. O MEARA: Decide what lands shall be set aside for the Indian tribes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Or reserved? 

Mr. O MEARA: Reserved, set aside and conveyed. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: According to the policy hitherto carried on by the 
British Columbia Government? 

Mr. O MEARA: According to the policy, hitherto, yes. Now, before referring 
to the authorities upon that, I have two matters that relate to the facts of the 
case, to bring before the Committee. The first is that I submit to the Com 
mittee some brief historical evidence answering the contentions that there were 
certain limited lands to be set aside because at a certain time, British Columbia 
set aside 20 acres per man and so on. I propose to give historical evidence to 
show that up to the year 1864, in which year Sir James Douglas seems to be 
Governor of the two Colonies up to that time, the Colonial policy was radically 
different. That is my first point that I wish to bring before the Committee. I 
have here some brief extracts from historical evidence establishing that, and 
I will hand in this paper. It all consists of historical evidence, but I will read 
certain parts of it that are the most material. Here is a despatch from the 
Secretary of State to the Colonies to Governor Douglas, dated the 31st July, 
1858. 

The CHAIRMAN: Where is that despatch to be found? 

Mr. O MEARA: I have taken this from the records in the Parliamentary 
library. They are there in big volumes, and I have taken this very brief extract 
from it. 

The CHAIRMAN: Can you give the number of the volume and the page? 

[Mr. O Meora.] 



222 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEAKA: I have the date here: The 31st July, 1858. It is easily avail 
able. They are in the form of books of considerable size. I will take the 
burden of producing anything of that sort if the Committee desire it produced. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What is that, Lord Lytton s instructions? 

Mr. O MEAKA: It is a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 
I do not know whether he was Lord Lytton at that time. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think so. 

Mr. O MEAKA: Possibly. 

The CHAIRMAN: How are we to know that your quotation is correctly 
extracted? 

Mr. O MEARA: I will undertake to produce the original. My quotation 
has been taken from the actual historical record that is in the Parliamentary 
library, and perhaps for my immediate purpose, the Committee will allow me 
to undertake to bring that" book here if necessary. The records are sessional 
papers, and all that sort of record. This is in the year 1858. I appreciate the 
point, Mr. Chairman and hon. gentlemen, and I am willing to take the burden 
of producing right here all these actual records. Perhaps the Committee, with 
that undertaking, will permit me to read these few words from them. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Our experience hitherto has not been very satisfactory 
about that sort of thing, Mr. O Meara. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Let us hear it and get on. 

Mr. O MEARA: This is rather important historical evidence, Mr. Chairman. 
May I read it? It is very short. This is what he said to Governor Douglas: 

Let me not omit to observe that it should be an invariable condition 
in all bargains or treaties with the natives for the cession of lands 
possessed by them, that subsistence should be supplied to them in some 
other shape. 

Now, hon. gentlemen, it has been advanced and advanced over and over 
again as an outstanding proposition in connection with this Indian land ques 
tion, that while on Vancouver Island certain things were done by way of 
conceding that there was an Indian title, nothing whatever of that sort was 
done in respect of the mainland. That is a contention that has been very 
strongly made. Now will honourable gentlemen notice that the date on which 
this despatch was conveyed from London to Governor Douglas was the very 
day on which the Royal assent was given to the bill by which as an enactment 
the Colony of British Columbia, the mainland colony, came into existence. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: When was that? 

Mr. O MEARA: The 21st July, 1858, on the day on which the Royal assent 
was given to the Act which created the mainland colony of British Columbia, 
the Secretary of State for the Colonies sent this despatch to Governor Douglas. 
And allow me to go on to point out that that despatch, in so many plain words, 
recognizes the necessity of making a treaty with the natives for the concession 
of lands possessed by them. And let me also point out 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Of course that is an assertion of yours. 

Mr. O MEARA: It is this language. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, let us make that clear. I object, Mr. Chairman, 
to this claim that these things are proved. 

Mr. O MEARA: I submit the language used to the Committee to judge. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I have another part of it before me, which indicates 
something altogether different. If we had the whole of the dispatch here it 
would be quite different from an isolated quotation. The whole of the dispatch 
from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor Douglas, of 1858, 
indicates that the British authorities had been up to that time in full possession 
of British Columbia, administering it as a colony. In this dispatch, Sir James 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 223 

Douglas is made Governor, and he is asked to inaugurate institutions for the 
good government of the country. They sent out a royal survey party to survey 
the very lands which he is talking about, which was done. Two or three years 
later, the lands that were so surveyed were put up to public auction, to whom 
soever wanted to buy them, and were so sold with a Crown title. That is 
altogether different from what Mr. O Meara is trying to show is the effect of 
that dispatch. 

Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think that must be a 
different dispatch. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No. I canot help but object, Mr. O Meara, for what is 
a common practice of yours of taking a simply sentence and erecting upon it a 
claim for your clients, a claim which is so serious that it will affect every particle 
of land in British Columbia if your claim is sustained, and which is not sustained 
by the very document from which you presume to quote. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: To how much land in British Columbia does your claim 
of title apply? 

Mr. O MEARA: To all the lands in the territory comprised by the claims of 
the aboriginal claimants. The claim is only a tribal claim and not a claim for 
absolute title. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: What area is affected? 

Mr. O MEARA: Mainly, the whole of the area that has been stated in the 
formal documents. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I want you to state it here now. 

Mr. O MEARA: I would ask Mr. Kelly to state that. 

Mr. KELLY: According to the paper filed, or the memorandum, some 251,- 
000 square miles have not been surrendered. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: I want to know what is the claim of the Indians? 
What territory does the claim of the aboriginal Indians cover? 

Mr. KELLY: 251,000 square miles. 

Mr MURPHY : And that is Mr. O Meara s claim on behalf of the Indians 
still. 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Which includes all the lands, including Prince Rupert, 
Vancouver, and all these. areas which according to the records were settled, long 
before Confederation, by the whites, and the surveyed Crown title given to the 
properties. I want this Committee to appreciate really what this means. 
Once that claim is admitted. I object, Mr. Chairman, to the frivolous manner 

and I use that word advisedly in which Mr. O Meara quotes excerpts from 

the documents to support that Serious claim, without supplying all the docu 
ments or the context from which his quotations are taken. 

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee wishes Mr. O Meara to finish his state 
ment, 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: He has undertaken to produce those documents 

The CHAIRMAN: And if he does not produce them? 

Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Then the application, should not be considered. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Mr. O Meara says, "Here is a document which was 
presented to Parliament," and he produces it as proof of the claim of the Indians 
and as having been accepted by this Committee. I will not allow that to go 
out without my protest. 

Mr. O MEARA: I appreciate the remarks of Mr. Stevens. May I suggest 
to him that he exercise a judicial mind. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Oh, I have had twenty years of your nonsense, and I 

am tired of it. 

The CHAIRMAN: We want the original document, and do not want your 
notes of what the document contains. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



224 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Mr. O MEARA: I will undertake to get them. 

The CHAIRMAN : We do not want the undertaking, but we want the original 
document here now. 

Mr. KELLY: That is the order of the Committee. 

Mr. O MEARA: It will take more than ten minutes to get it, I am afraid. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: While Mr. O Meara is getting the document, Mr. 
Kelly, I would like to hear for my own information something on the question, 
apart from the question of aboriginal title altogether conceding for the sake 
of argument that it exists how the position of the Indians, their course of con 
duct during all these years in accepting the benefits of The Indian Act, benefits 
which were not given to any other subjects in this country, and their occupation,, 
and so on, is consistent with their now making a claim with regard to the 
aboriginal title? Surely they cannot have it both ways. 

Mr. KELLY: Quite so. I think the point raised here is this, if a thing that 
has been going on, and accepted did not do away with what had existed before, 
that is the point you are making? 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Yes, I would like to know what your suggestion is 
with regard to it. 

Mr. KELLY: It is quite true that that is a matter of fact, a.n,d we do not 
question it for a moment, tha.t the Indians of British Columbia have been 
treated as generously as other Indian tribes throughout the rest of the Domin 
ion. But within recent years, shall I say during the past twenty-five to thirty 
years, Indian tribes have become curtailed in their activities. You know as 
well as I do, Senator Barnard, that they were a law un,to themselves and roamed 
the forests and went wherever they wanted to go ; they were the lords of all they 
surveyed. With the settling up of the country these rights were curtailed, 
naturally; and as they became curtailed more and more and as the fishing rights 
were interfered with and their hunting rights began to be interfered with, and 
regulations restricting their activities became more apparent, their thoughts 
naturally went back to the days when they were the lords of the land; and 
upon consulting advisers here and there, even as white men do, it came to the 
surface that their title had not been ceded. 

If it had not been ceded, then, in view of the facts that their ancient rights 
were taken away, why should not a formal recognition be made and a con 
sideration equivalent to that conceded to other tribes of Indians in other parts 
of the Dominion be granted to the Indians of British Columbia? That was at 
the back of all this trouble. I hope I have answered you. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: Your answer appears to make it clear in this way, 
that the Indians accepted the situation as it was, accepted the benefits, and 
then, when they found out that the thing was not working out to their satis 
faction, they want to go back on the deal, have all the expenditures and get the 
lands. It seems to me that this is what your argument amounts to, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY: Not exactly. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: You know what estoppel is in law? 

Mr. KELLY: I must confess I do not. 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: If two men act as if a contract were in existence, act 
mutually upon it, they cannot afterwards deny that it did exist. 

Mr. KELLY: Provided a bargain has been struck? 

Hon. Mr. BARNARD: No. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is a principle of law which is very important 
which Mr. Barnard has suggested. Independent of written law or law courts, 
where two men, who may be wholly ignorant of the law, by mutual assent, go 
on on a certain line, share certain benefits, and so on, that becomes in the eyes 
of the courts a law or has the effect of a contract. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 225 

Mr. HAY: That is, you cannot take the benefits of another man s action 
and deny that that party has a part in the contract. Your action estops you 
from raising that objection. 

Mr. KELLY: I understand you now. With the exception that the Indian, 
as quoted by the Chief the other day, had been told, " If you are not justly 
dealt with, if you are not satisfied, the King or the Queen will set this matter 
right." As pioneers, I suppose, all over the country know, the Indian had a great 
deal of faith, especially in the Queen, because she reigned the longest and they 
heard of the Queen so often. The Queen would set the thing right. Even if 
there had been wrong done by Government officials, the matter would ultimately 
be set right, and believing in that, they went on acquiescing in the matter all 
the way through until the pinch began to hurt a little more, and they woke up 
to the fact that perhaps after all the Queen was not very much concerned with 
them if they did not make a noise and draw attention to their grievances. 
That was the situation. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I think most of us who are well acquainted with British 
Columbia know that there have been many instances where the Indians have 
justifiable grievances; but I think all the evidence submitted by Paull and your 
self and others here on behalf of the Indians indicate that from time to time 
the Governments, Provincial and Dominion, but chiefly Dominion, have recog 
nized this and have sought to adjust these grievances. I think the Committee 
would be prepared to admit that there are some grievances still existing which 
we would like to smooth out or iron out, but I would like to ask you this, has 
it not been in the last fifteen or twenty years that there has been an actual 
claim for aboriginal title arising? 

Mr. KELLY: Quite so; something about that length of time, since it has 
taken a definite form of a legal claim. Before that time it was a sort of a 
general claim. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I recall very well the first meeting that Mr. O Meara 
had in British Columbia, at which he formed the society for the protection of 
the Indians; and that claim was not even set forth then. It was the other 
claims set forth in your petition; that is, that the Indians were deprived of some 
of their rights in regard to hunting, fishing, and so on; and also that they were 
too much restricted. That was the basis of his claim then. But later, if 1 
recall rightly, around 1913 or 1914, there arose this claim about aboriginal 
title. 

Mr. KELLY: About that; I think it started in 1911, to be exact. Of 
course, you must admit that no man can make a claim unless he can support 
it after careful research into the records of the country and into the law records, 
to see that his claim is substantiated before it can be made a paramount issue 
and be brought before those who are responsible. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: But in making a claim of that kind, very great care 
ought to be taken to base such a claim upon very sound documents and con 
tentions. 

Mr. KELLY: Speaking as a layman, as far as I have been aware, I have 
always understood that the support that we have for our claim was a good one. 
And "is it not a fact that in legal procedure this is the practice, to do as Mr. 
O Meara has 1 been striving to do, to support his contention by making quotations 
from this authority and from that authority? Why is it objected to in this 
case? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Because he does not quote correctly. 

Mr. PAULL: May I be allowed to interrupt for a moment? There is a 
book that has been published many years ago, which contains all the dis 
patches in colonial days with the Imperial Government. All of those dispatches 
are contained in that book and we have been trying all the time since I have 
been associated with this matter to get a copy of it. I have been to the Depart- 

4232515 f Mr - O Meara.] 



226 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

ment, and Dr. Scott could not let me have it. I have been to the Library, 
and they have not got it there. I know that Commissioner Ditchburn has that 
book; and I would ask to have access to it. 

Mr. STEVENS: I thought Mr. O Meara told me he could get production 
of the book. 

Mr. KELLY: He is not its custodian. 

The CHAIRMAN: He ought to know, as your counsel, that he should 
not quote from something which he cannot produce. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is the book in this room? 

Dr. SCOTT: I have no copy of this book, but this one for myself. I have 
no objection to allowing them to look at this book. I thought Mr. O Meara was 
referring to something original from the Imperial Government. 

Mr. PAULL: That is why we could not gel it, it is not available in the 
Library. 

Mr. KELLY: The point is that the quotation was made from a book which 
was in the Library, but somebody has taken that book from the Library since, 
and it cannot now be procured there. 

Mr. DITCHBT. T RN: I do not want that book to be put in and impounded. 
It is my personal copy and I do not know where to get another copy of it. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Read the section into the record, and then you will 
have it. 

The CHAIRMAN: We want you to read what you are referring to now, 
Mr. O Meara, into the record, because the book from which you are taking it 
belongs to the Indian Department, and they have only one copy of it, and 
they cannot let it go. 

Mr. O MEARA: I have already given the particulars, have I not? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It is a despatch from Lord Lytton? 

Mr. O MEARA: (Reading): 

This is an Extract from a despatch from the Right Hon. Sir E. B. Lytton, 
Bart., to Governor Douglas, dated 31st July, 1858. 

3. I have to enjoin upon you to consider the best and most humane 
means of dealing with the Native Indians. The feelings of this country 
would be strongly opposed to the adoption of any arbitrary or oppres 
sive measures towards them. At this distance, and with the imperfect 
means of knowledge which I possess, I am reluctant to offer, as yet, any 
suggestion as to the prevention of affrays between the Indians and the 
immigrants. This question is of so. local a character that it must be 
solved by your knowledge and experience, and I commit it to you, in 
the full persuasion that you will pay every regard to the interests of 
the Natives which an enlightened humanity can suggest. Let me not 
omit to observe, that it should be an invariable condition, in all bargains 
or treaties with the natives for the cession of lands possessed by them, 
that subsistence should be supplied to them in some other shape, and 
above all, that it is the earnest desire of Her Majesty s Government 
that your early attention should be given to the best means of diffusing 
the blessings of the Christian Religion and of civilization among the 
natives. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is that the whole of the despatch? 

Mr. O MEARA: That is the whole of what is described here as an extract 
from a despatch. It is paragraph No. 3, an extract from a despatch set out 
in this book, and it so appears in the record as I have given it. 

Hon. Mr. MURPHY: That is all that is contained in that book, of that 
despatch? 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, that is all that is contained in this book, from that 
despatch. 

[Mr. O Meara.] 



CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 227 

The next despatch to which I refer is a despatch from the Colonial Secretary 
to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, dated the 5th March, 1861. It 
is to be found in the same book. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: The Commissioner of Lands and Works, of British 
Columbia? 

Mr. O MEARA: Yes, that means the officer of British Columbia: 

The Colonial Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works 

NEW WESTMINSTER, 5th March, 1861. 

SIR, I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to request 
that you will take measures, so soon as may be practicable, for mark 
ing out distinctly the sites of the proposed Towns and the Indian Reserves 
throughout the Colony. 

2. The extent of the Indian Reserves to be defined as they may be 
severally pointed out by the Natives themselves. 
I have, &c., 

(Signed) CHARLES GOOD, 

for Colonial Secretary. 

That, Mr. Chairman, was the principle on which reserves were then to be 
set aside. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Presumably that was done. 

Mr. O MEARA: The next letter bearing on the matter is a letter from Mr. 
B. W. Pearse to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, dated the 21st 
October, 1868. I think this is in the same book. 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is at page 53. 

Mr. O MEARA: The letter is a report upon the declining of reserves in the 
Lower Fraser Valley. Mr. Pearse says that he went in company with the 
Stipendiary Magistrate, and he gives this as the result of it. I quote the 
following words: 

The principle kept in view was to give them from ten to twenty 
acres for each adult in the tribe, and an extra quantity for those possess 
ing stock or horses. This will throw open -about 40,000 acres for settle 
ment by white men. 

Now, gentlemen, may I submit to you the position as shown by this 
historical evidence? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Just a minute. We will read a little more, Mr. 
Chairman. I will read the despatch or report. 

The CHAIRMAN: May we know first exactly what the document is? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Yes. It has been put in as Mr. O Meara has taken 
an excerpt from it. I would like to read a little more bearing on this question: 

Mr. Pearse to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works 

LANDS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, 

21st October, 1868. 

SIR, I have the honour to inform you that in compliance with 
instructions I proceeded in company with Captain Ball, Stipendiary 
Magistrate, to define precisely on the ground the limits of the various 
reserves for the Indians on the Lower Fraser. This was done by marking 
trees or planting posts on each frontage, and making accurate sketches 
for the guidance of the surveyor. The chiefs of the various villages were 
with us in nearly every case, and with one exception (that of Who-nock) , 
expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with the lands allotted to them. 

42325 15 [Mr. O Meara.] 



228 SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

We took great care to include their potato grounds in every case. Where 
doing so would have involved too large an undivided area, we gave them 
a second lot. The principle kept in view, was to give them from ten to 
twenty acres for each adult in the tribe, arid an extra quantity for those 
possessing stock or horses. This will throw open about 40,000 acres for 
settlement by white men. We left Mr. Launders to run the lines and 
complete the survey o<f the river line. 

In our reconnaissance in the Chilliwback District we were accom 
panied by nearly all the settlers, some sixteen in number, who were very 
useful and obliging in pointing out MJcCoH s and other surveyors posts. 

That gives me an altogether different impression from that which would 
be left by Mr. O Meara s partial quotation. It will be noted that this report says 
that the chiefs of the various villages were with them in nearly every case, and 
that with one exception, they expressed themselves as thoroughly satisfied with 
the land allotted to them. 

Mr. O MEARA: That does not speak, Mr. Stevens, of the cutting down of 
the larger reserves. It refers to new matters, does it not? 

Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It speaks for itself, and requires no further comment. 
I have not read the whole despatch, but I have read all that seems to be of 
any particular interest. 

Mr. O MEARA: Gentlemen, I am not discussing the merits in any manner 
of that sort, I quote this for the limited purpose of proving by historical evi 
dence, that the Colonial policy up to the year 1864 was very different from 
that which has been relied upon as the foundation of Article 13, and I submit 
that the evidence is conclusive upon that. 

Mr. MCPHERSO