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. MCPHERSON: This was before 1864?
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: It was 1868.
Mr. O MEARA: Up to 1864, Sir James Douglas was Governor. He was the
Governor to whom the Imperial despatch was sent of the 31st of July, 1858,
recognizing completely as I submit the necessity for treaties securing cessions
of lands from the natives, and as a matter of fact, as shown openly by the
Statute, Governor Douglas proceeded under that to set aside large reserves
for the Indian tribes.
Mr. MCPHERSON: Why would they set aside reserves on that occasion, and
have the boundaries marked with the consent of the Indians, unless the Indians
were consenting to release the balance of the lands?
Mr. O MEARA: I appreciate that point, sir. But, I am going to refer to
what is quite strong evidence on that subject, namely the petition of the Lower
Fraser tribe presented on the 14th of July, 1874. I think that is already in
evidence before the Committee. That shows the great dissastisfaction of the
Lower Fraser people.
Hon. Mr. BARNARD: That is thirteen years later.
Mr. O MEARA: 1874.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Which was subsequently met and adjusted. I would
like to point out before we leaA^e this, that in this report of Pearse just referred
to, it will be noted that the Indians were taken along when the surveys were
made, which is in harmony with the instructions of the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, given in the despatch quoted a moment or two ago, to Sir James
Douglas. In other words, the Government of British Columbia at that time
was apparently carrying out the instructions of the home Government, in con
sulting the Indians regarding these adjustments.
Mr. O MEARA: I submit that on the historical evidence it is perfectly clear
that there was a radical chance in policy as to setting aside lands when Sir
James Douglas quitted office, and one result is shown here in the throwing open
of 40,000 acres of land in one locality for the white people. My purpose is not
to go into the merits of all that, but to point out that it has a bearing upon
[Mr. O Meara.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 229
Article 13 of the Terms of Union, and that it cannot safely and soundly be
argued that the Imperial Government and the Government of Canada were
intending to continue the sort of policy that there was from 1864 to 1871. It
is quite as reasonable to suppose that those Governments had in view the policy
that was in force up to the year 1864; and that remark, as I submit, applies
with special force to the Imperial Government, because naturally the Imperial
Government would consider that those early despatches had been carried into
effect.
The other important matter of fact to which I need to refer is that the
practice of the two Governments since Confederation has been on the principle
of sitting down and making an agreement; coming in some way to an agree
ment as to the quantity of land to be set aside for Indians in British Columbia,
to be conveyed by the province to the Dominion. That principle was adted
upon in the early days, and that principle has been acted upon under the
McKenna-McBride agreement, and after all the work of the Royal Commission.
It is all completed and before the two Governments 1 ; and what is done as a
matter of principle is that the two Governments sit down at a table and agree
that those findings shall be the end of everything, and say, " Those are the
lands for the Indians." Now I point out and submit very strongly, Mr. Chair
man and hon. gentlemen, that in carrying that out a wrong principle has been
acted upon, and that the Dominion of Canada and the province of British
Columbia have no constitutional power or authority for settling the matter of
lands by that means. I submit^-at the moment without referring to the
authorities on the subject as a matter of principle that there being the trustee
ship of Canada for the Indians, for the whole of that province, there being the
power of Canada to demand adequate lands for the Indians of British Colum
bia
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Where do you get that from?
Mr. O MEARA: From Article 13.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Well, it is not there.
Mr. O MEARA: I am humbly presenting my submission as to the effect of
that article.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: This is his argument upon that Article.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It is not there.
Mr. O MEARA: I submit that that is the effect of it, the right to demand
lands from British Columbia, and that there is a power conferred upon the Sec
retary of State for the Colonies to deal with that matter. And, on principle
only for the moment, I submit that the Dominion of Canada as trustee was
under obligation to exercise that power, because at the very bottom of trustee
ship, you will find obligation, and that is the principle upon which trusteeship
is based, that there is an obligation on the part of the Dominion of Canada for
carrying out that, and for demanding the lands from British Columbia. That
is what I submit. And therefore on behalf of the tribes of British Columbia,
I humbly submit that those powers, or that power, possessed by the Dominion
of Canada for demanding lands, and the power of the Secretary of State for the
Colonies settling the matter, are continuing powers, and that what has been
done by the McKenna-McBride Agreement has not destroyed those powers, but
they are continuing to-day.
" Hon. Mr. STEWART: In the first place you say that the Dominion of Can
ada has the power to get the land, and then you say, if they do not get the land,
the Secretary of State steps in?
Mr. O MEARA: I am saying the Dominion of Canada is trustee under
Article 13, and that, as trustee, there is conferred upon Canada the power
to demand adequate lands from the province of British Columbia.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Quite right.
[Mr. U Meara.]
230 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. O MEARA: And that there is also created by that same instrument
Article 13 a power on the part of the Secretary of State for the Colonies
to give the final word upon such demand.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Again I must call the attention of the Committee to
the fact that it is a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British
Columbia Government which shall be continued by the Dominion Government
after Union. The basis of the Dominion Government treatment is a liberal
policy, or a policy as liberal as that of the Colony before the Union.
Mr. MORIN: Is not your argument inconsistent with that, Mr. O Meara?
Hon. Mr. STEWART: The Dominion Government is to have the land, and
it is to have adequate land. Is not that the basis?
Mr. O MEARA: May I remind the hon. member that, in the document now
before this Committee, if my memory is correct, the Minister of the Interior
of 1874 declared in very emphatic language that Article 13 was fully inadequate
for meeting the situation, and he used very strong language as regards that.
,Mr. McPHERSON: Was that that the provisions of the Provincial Gov
ernment prior had not been adequate?
Mr. O MEARA: Well, he speaks very strongly on that subject.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit to you an authority upon that
subject which I shaM submit is quite conclusive. I refer first, to a case decided
by the House of Lords, and reported in Scott s Appeal Cases. First, Weller vs.
Ker reported in Law Reports Scotch Appeals, Volume 1 at page 11. I refer to
that as an authority but I leave that there because in a subsequent case, there
has been made a very useful statement of the principle for which I am contend
ing at this moment. I give this as the authority of the House of Lords, for
the proposition that a power of that sort is a continuing power, and cannot
be destroyed Iby any mere agreement. I refer also to this case in which the
principle has been laid down, decided in the Chancery Division of the High
Court of Justice in England, by Mr. Justice Kay. It is to be found in the
Law Times reports Vol. 49 at page 259. I shall read a few words from the
judgment of Mr. Justice Kay:
It is argued that by this release the power even if simply col
lateral is entirely destroyed under Section 52 of the Conveyancing Act of
1881. Assuming that this would be the case as to an ordinary collateral
power, the first question is whether if it be a power given to trustees
coupled with a duty it could be so destroyed, and I am clearly of opinion
that in equity it could not, if that be the nature of the power. A trustee
who has a power which is coupled with a duty is, I conceive, bound so
long as he remains trustee, to preserve that power and to exercise his
discretion as circumstances arise from time to time whether the power
should be used or not, and he could no more by his own voluntary act
destroy a power of this kind than he can voluntarily put an end to or
destroy any other trust that may be committed to him.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What are you quoting from now?
Mr. O MEARA: Mr. Justice Kay s statement of the principle. The case
is "In re Eyre."
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That is a case of a trusteeship of an individual, of a
minor, the same as this other case you quoted.
Mr. O MEARA: It is a trusteeship, and that is the principle.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Of an individual.
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, of an individual.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: If it is on trusteeship generally, as far as we are con
cerned, we might accept it. We are not questioning the power of a trustee, not
for a moment.
[Mr. O Meara.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 231
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Mr. O Meara is drawing a distinction between a trus
teeship and a guardianship. He is arguing that the position of the Dominion
of Canada is that of a trustee, and not that of a guardian.
Mr. O MEARA: The case is:
In re Eyre; Eyre vs. Eyre.
Upon the next issue, as to whether the McKenna-McBride agreement
destroyed the land rights of the tribes in British Columbia, I submit that it
did not. I submit that there is nothing whatever to be found in Article 13
which could be relied upon as empowering the two Governments to go to the
length of making an agreement for the adjustment of all matters in British
Columbia, relating to Indians and their affairs in British Columbia, by means
of that agreement. I submit that article 13 has nothing in it to authorize the
two Governments to do that.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Mr. O Meara in a word you say the two governments
have not the authority to settle Reserve questions?
Mr. O MEARA: No, Mr. Stewart, very different to that is my submission.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Then, I do not know what it means if it does not
mean that.
Mr. O MEARA: If the McKenna-McBride agreement was limited to the
putting in operation of the machinery for conveying lands to Canada for the
Indians, or in other words, for creating what we call reserves, then my point
would not apply; but I humbly submit that when the two Governments sit
down and put in that language, that the carrying out of that arrangement shall
be a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian Affairs in British Colum
bia, they did that which they had no authority under Article 13 to do.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It does not say that.
Mr. McPHERSON: Your submission then is that the Dominion Govern
ment, as trustees for the Indians, as alleged, had no right to enter into an
agreement to settle the interest of those Indians with the province.
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, sir, certainly.
Mr. MCPHERSON: You do not need to repeat it, if that is the contention.
Therefore, at no time could they finally settle the Indians rights as their
trustees.
Mr. O MEARA: As a trustee, yes. If it could be established that they were
in the position of guardians, and the Indians had become wards, then there
would be something in your contention.
Mr. MCPHERSON: I am not contending, I am taking your own contention.
Mr. O MEARA: My own submission is that they are absolutely trustees,
and the relation is that of trusteeship, and that there was no power under article
13 for the two governments to go the length of providing for the final adjust
ment of matters relating to Indian affairs in British Columbia.
Mr. MCPHERSON: Then to follow that up; if they have no power to make
a settlement on behalf of the Indians as trustee, then they have no power now
to do it without the consent of the Indians.
Mr. O MEARA: Exactly, that is my submission.
Mr. MCPHERSON : Then if the Indian is controlling his own affairs, why is
the Dominion Government the trustee and not the guardian?
Mr. O MEARA: I humbly submit that a trustee may be a trustee for cer
tain persons, and I submit that trusteeship is radically different from guardian
ship.
Mr. MCPHERSON : I do not see how that applies to one side of the dilemma
and not to the other.
Mr. O MEARA: I am arguing upon the basis of the relationship being that
of trustee.
[Mr. O Meara.]
232 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
With regard to the next issue, whether the Indian tribes have the owner
ship of the fore-shores in front of their reserves, I put in a short memorandum
on that subject, which will be found in this record, and which states the posi
tion in regard to the fore-shores. I am not going to add to that. I ask that
it be received and made a part of the record. It is a statement presented in
Victoria regarding the fore-shores in front of Indian reserves.
Hon. ,Mr. MURPHY: What date?
Mr. O MEARA: In the month of August, 1923.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Presented by yourself?
Mr. O MEARA: By myself as general counsel of the Indian tribes. I put
that in as part of my argument.
The CHAIRMAN: Was that at a meeting?
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, between Dr. Scott and myself and others.
Dr. SCOTT: That was the meeting in August, 1923, in Victoria. I allowed
Mr. O Meara to put in his argument on " fore-shores," instead of listening to it.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: We have that filed then.
Mr. KELLY: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this meeting was an impor
tant meeting, held at the request of the Minister of the Interior; it was an official
meeting.
Mr. O MEARA: As to the next issue, whether the tribes have aboriginal
fishing rights, I do not require to go into that. I simply put it before the Com
mittee.
Hon. (Mr. MURPHY: What do you mean by aboriginal fishing rights? Do
you mean by that unrestricted fishing rights?
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, fishing rights that would extend to their territory, the
territory they had 200 years ago.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Without restriction or control by white men?
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, without restriction, absolutely. That was their
aboriginal title.
The next issue is whether they have aboriginal hunting rights, the same
applies to that. But with regard to that matter, may I point out to the hon.
gentlemen that an exceedingly important issue exists, and that is whether the
Province of British Columbia has legislative authority for enacting restrictions
upon Indian hunting rights. The Indian tribes of British Columbia, or the
allied tribes, submit that the Province of British Columbia has not such legis
lative authority; and it will be found, gentlemen, that their submission is very
strongly supported by decisions that have been given, which can be quoted by
authoritative sources here in Ottawa. For the sake of brevity, I am merely
indicating what the position is and am not going into that, which in itself is a
large matter. But, before going on, may I point out this, which I submit is a
rather important consideration: the position has been taken and has been
brought up at this committee, during this sittings, that Canada is offering to
the British Columbia tribes all that has been given to the tribes of the rest of
Canada. Let me respectfully point out that, with regard to the hunting rights,
the position is this: in some of the most important treaties relating to other
parts of Canada, as no doubt Dr. Scott will agree, in, for instance, the Robinson
Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior Treaty, and also in several of the most
important treaties in Western Canada and Northern Canada, a part of the
treaty is the reservation of hunting rights to the Indians. So that just as the
lands are reserved to them under the Treaty, the hunting rights are reserved to
them.
The Dominion of Canada unfortunately is not in a position to offer to do
that in British Columbia, because the Province claims two things. It claims
that the McKenna-McBride agreement under the constitution is a final adjust
ment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in British Columbia; and the
Province also claims tha-t the Provincial Legislature can validly enact every
CMr. O Meara.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 233
restriction desired upon Indian hunting rights. I submit that for the con
sideration of the Committee.
Hon. Mr. MUKPHY: When you began this last argument did I understand
you to draw a distinction between the treatment accorded the Indians of British
Columbia in regard to hunting rights, and the treatment accorded Indians else
where in Canada.
Mr. O MEARA: The suggestion is official and on the records, that Canada is
saying to the tribes of British Columbia, "We will give you everything that has
been given to the tribes in the rest of Canada." I am pointing out that in regard
to hunting rights Canada is not in a position to do that, because British Colum
bia says that there has been a final adjustment of all matters in connection with
Indian affairs, and yet, when you go into other parts of Canada, hunting rights
have been reserved by treaties.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Reserved by treaty?
Mr. O MEARA: Under the treaties.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Do you suggest that in other parts of Canada the
Indians have all their original rights of hunting?
Mr. O MEARA: No, because the matter has been matter of controversy.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: Because that would be an absolutely absurb statement
to make, if it refers to lands which are not Crown lands.
Mr. PAULL: If I might answer that, by some treaty in Vancouver Island,
between some Indians and the Hudson Bay Company, on April 29, 1850, "with
the small exceptions becomes the entire property of the white people forever. It
is also undrstood that we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands and to
carry on our fisheries as formerly." That was the agreement entered into between
the Hudson Bay Company and some tribes on Vancouver Island. Our sub
mission is that now we cannot fish and we cannot hunt on these lands.
Mr. DITCHBURN: I think you ought to take into consideration that there
are no unoccupied lands in that part of the country. Now those are all privately
owned lands.
Hon. Mr. STEWART: And the same thing applies in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: It makes a reasonable claim almost hopeless to put up
any preposterous claims with it.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: There can be no shooting in Vancouver streets.
The CHAIRMAN: Have you finished, Mr. O Meara?
Mr. O MEARA: No, not yet, Mr. Chairman. I have promised to be as brief
as possible, but there are some important matters yet to be put before you. I
submit these hunting rights are important.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: You have stated them anyway.
Mr. O MEARA: Yes. With regard to general rights, the only other issue is
have the aboriginal tribes original water rights? I want to put a very important
statute of British Columbia before this Committee. Will Mr. Paull put it in?
Mr. PAULL: Mr. Ditchburn put that in already.
Mr. O MEARA: But may I point out that the final section of that statute
in so many words enacts that aboriginal water rights shall not be recognized in
British Columbia. I ask special attention to that enactment of the Province,
showing the position which the province takes on this whole subject of the rights
of Indian tribes.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That statute is all in. Mr. Ditchburn put it in.
Mr. PAULL: It is chapter 19 of the British Columbia Statutes of 1921.
Mr. O MEARA: The next two issues honourable gentlemen, as I shall sub
mit, are of all the most important issues to be placed before this Committee;
and at the sa"me time I hope to be able to put them before you in not more than
ten minutes. Those relate to the law of 1920, which, as I submit under the
memorandum before you now, is regarded as a sort of a vise in which the Indian
tribes are held and in which even the Dominion Government is preventing any
[Mr. O Meara.]
234 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
further action whatever. There is the heart of this whole trouble, as I submit.
There is the greatest difficulty standing to-day in the way of a real adjustment;
this law of the year 1920, which it is claimed carries into effect the McKenna
agreement, which says in so many words that the carrying out of this agree
ment shall be a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in
British Columbia.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Are you referring to the British Columbia Act?
Mr. O MEARA: No, to the Dominion Act of 1920.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You have already stated that twice.
Mr. O MEARA: I will state them and state them shortly. First of all, let
me refer to a very important judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in what is known as the Burrard case. Mr. Paull will give you the
reference. The Burrard case, which related to water rights, was a case of the
Burrard Power Company vs. The King, found in L.R. (1911) A.C. 94.
Hon. gentlemen will find that case most distinctly lays down the principle
that such rights as water rights depend upon the title to the land itself. There
is the principle upon which the Burrard case is based; and I humbly submit
that that has a tremendous application to this position regarding the Indian
tribes, because it means this, if the tribes have the actual beneficial territorial
rights which they have always claimed to have and are claiming to-day to have,
then, according to the Burrard case, they have fishing rights and hunting rights
and water rights. They have these because they have an actual beneficial title
to their territories. And if they have not that title, then they have not the rights.
Now then, having all that in view, what do we find with regard to the law of
the year 1920? The facts about it are familiar.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: You have not put in the Burrard case.
Mr. O MEARA: Yes, I state the principle, and I think that will be found to
be a correct statement of the principle.
In view of all of that, including the momentous matter of the principle of
the Burrard case, I come to ask this Committee to fully face what is meant by
the law of 1920 empowering the Governor General in Council to carry into effect
the McKenna agreement, which Mr. Newcombe said in his opinion, in so many
words, involves a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in
British Columbia.
I submit that the Parliament of Canada has not legislative authority for
enacting the law that was enacted in the year 1920; and I submit that, even
if the Parliament of Canada has such power, that statute is not properly inter
preted as being intended for taking away the rights of the Indian tribes. Those
are my two submissions with regard to the law which the Parliament of the
Dominion of Canada passed in the year 1920.
In support of it, honourable gentlemen, I think perhaps it might be suffi
cient to refer to the presentation of that matter of legislative jurisdiction with
regard to property rights, which was placed before the House of Commons a
few days ago by Mr. Bennett. I ask to make reference to that, and I submit
that the principle I am now placing before this Committee is the same principle
which was relied on by Mr. Bennett in debating the matter of the Ottawa River
and the rights of the Province of the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament
of Canada.
Hon. Mr. BARNARD: But those views did not prevail, did they?
Mr. O MEARA: I am going further and I place before this Committee the
principal authorities supporting my submission. From some of those authori
ties I will read a few words; but these are all authorities
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: This is the old game, Mr. Chairman, of referring to a
case without putting it before us. What is the Burrard case which you speak
of? What was the case? I do not mean the title of it, but was it a fishery
case or water rights?
[Mr. O Meara.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 235
Mr. O MEARA: It is relating to water rights in the interior.
Dr. SCOTT: It related to land within the railway belt.
Mr. O MEARA: I think so. Anyway the subject was water rights.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: What were the contentions?
Mr. O MEARA: If it should be necessary I shall look it up, but I think
I can give it sufficiently from this. This is what I put before the officials in
Victoria.
" I wish to refer to a few words used by their lordships of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, which had a most material bearing upon this
matter, and I humbly submit will be found conclusive."
Then I gave the reference to the Burrard case, Law Reports Appeal Cases
1911, page 94, and these words are quoted: "Their Lordships are of opinion
that the judgments of the Courts of Appeal are right. The grants of public
land undoubtedly passed the water rights incidental to those grants."
It is on the same matter that I referred to the case generally known as the
Fisheries Case, reported in 1914 Appeal Cases. I was intending to give a
reference to the principal authorities upon that, and I was intending to read a
few words taken from them.
The CHAIRMAN: We cannot allow you the time to read them.
Mr. O MEARA: Then, I will put before you the references.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: That decision was accepted by both Parliaments, and
later an Act was passed by the Dominion Parliament, reconveying the right
of administration of the water power in the railway belt to the province. They
considered that settled that part of it. It is not necessary to go over it again.
Mr. O MEARA: May I give a reference to this case, of the Attorney General
of Canada vs. the Attorneys General for Provinces, Law Reports 1898, Appeal
Cases, page 700, and especially at pages 709, 712 and 713.
The next case is Attorney General for British Columbia vs. Attorney
General for Canada, Law Reports 1914, Appeal Cases 753.
The next case is Attorney General of Canada vs. Attorney General for
Quebec, Law Reports 1921, Appeal Cases, Vol 1, page 413. And one more,
in Law Reports 1898, Appeal Cases at page 709, which contains Lord Herschell s
judgment on this whole matter.
What I submit as a result of these cases to which I have given reference is
this, that there is a broad distinction between property rights and legislative
jurisdiction. I submit that in passing the enactment of the year 1920, the
Parliament of Canada was seeking to deal with the matter of property rights.
That i,s all that I have to place before your honourable Committee.
Mr. McPHERSON: Mr. Chairman, as to these cases that have been quoted,
I wish to place something on the record. Mr. O Meara referred to two cases,
and asked us to consider them closely. I have read the full judgment in the
African case, which has been referred to as the Southern Nigeria case. I just
want to draw to the attention of the Committee that that was a case in which
the basis of the argument was as to whether the chief of the tribe had a right
to collect only partial duties, annual duties as it were, or dues, and not full
compensation as the owner of the land for the tribe. The case decided that he
was entitled to receive full compensation. Now, in that there were some remarks
made by his lordship, Viscount Haldane, as to general British principles in con
nection with aboriginal titles. They are not part of the judgment, but only
his remarks regarding them the world over, and happily he mentions in that very
case the fact that the Privy Council had already explained elsewhere the prin
ciples that guided it in connection with Indian tribes and their right to reserve
lands in Canada. The case he refers to is the other one cited by Mr. O Meara,
the St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Company vs. the Queen, in which the
judgment was delivered by Lord W atson. In that judgment his lordship states
as a matter of fact, this clause:
[Mr. O Meara.]
236 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
By an article of treaty it is stipulated that subject to such regula
tions that may be made by the Dominion Government, the Indians have
the right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing, throughout
the surrendered territory, with the exception of those portions of it which
may from time to time be taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or
other purposes.
Now, that is all the reference there is to the Indian title, and the balance of the
case was based upon whether the province of Ontario had control of the lumber
ing rights, or the Dominion Government. The Dominion Government had
issued a lumbering license and the rest of the case is devoted to deciding which
Government could collect those duties. It was held that the province of Ontario
had full control, not only of the lands, but of the lumbering also. That is all
there is in that case, and it conclusively extinguishes the Indian rights to the
lumbering in that territory. The treaty speaks for itself. Even their hunting
rights disappear when it is used for other purposes.
Mr. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hour of adjournment is just
arriving, but before concluding, I would like to say something which has been
omitted, and I think it is of too great importance to be overlooked. I think it
brings before us in a very definite way the subject of the argument of this morn
ing. This is Governor Douglas to the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
Despatch No. 24, dated Victoria, March 25, 1861. It is set out here in full,
and the answer thereto is also given. I would like to put that on record, with
the permission of the Committee.
The CHAIRMAN: Yes, read it, Do you want to put in the two despatches?
Mr. KELLY: Yes, this first despatch occupies a page.
The CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that these documents
should be put on record?
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: Both despatches should go in.
The CHAIRMAN: It is hardly necessary to read them.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: No, I do not think so.
Mr. KELLYS You have still minutes, Mr. Chairman, and I can get through
in three if you will allow me.
The CHAIRMAN: Very well, proceed.
Mr. KELLY (reads) :
Governor Douglas to the Secretary of State jor the Colonies
VICTORIA, March 25, 1861.
MY LORD DUKE,
" I have the honour of transmitting a petition from the House of
Assembly of Vancouver Island to your Grace, praying for the aid of Her
Majesty s Government in extinguishing the Indian title to the public
lands in this Colony; and setting forth, with much force and truth, the
evils that may arise from the neglect of that very necessary precaution.
2. As the native Indian population of Vancouver Island have dis
tinct ideas of property in land, and mutually recognize their several
exclusive rights in certain districts, they would not fail to regard the
occupation of such portions of the Colony by white settlers, unless with
the full consent of the proprietary tribes, as national wrongs; and the
sense of injury might produce a feeling of irritation against the settlers,
and perhaps disaffection to the Government that would endanger the
peace of the country.
2. Knowing their feelings on that subject, I made it a practice up
to the year 1859, to purchase the native rights in the land, in every case,
prior to the settlement of any district; but since that time in conse
quence of the termination of the Hudson s Bay Company s Charter, and
"Mr Kelly.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 237
the want of funds, it has not been in my power to continue it. YOIUI*
Grace must, indeed, be well aware that I have, since then, had the utmost
difficulty in raising money enough to defray the most indispensable
wants of Government.
4. All the settled districts of the Colony, with the exception of Cow
ichan, Chemainus, and Barclay Sound, have been already bought from
the Indians, at a cost in no case exceeding 2 10s. sterling for each
family. As the land has, since then, increased in value, the expense
would be relatively somewhat greater now, but I think that their claims
might be satisfied with a payment of 3 to each family; so that taking
the native population of those districts at 1,000 families, the sum of
3,000 would meet the whole charge.
5. It would be improper to conceal from your Grace the importance
of carrying that vital measure into effect without delay.
6. I will not occupy your Grace s time by any attempt to investigate
the opinion expressed by the House of Assembly, as to the liability of
the Imperial Government for all expenses connected with the purchase
of the claims of the aborigines to the public land, which simply amounts
to this, that the expense would, in the first instance, be paid by the
Imperial Government, and charged to the account of proceeds arising
from the sales of public land. The land itself would, therefore, be ulti
mately made to bear the charge.
7. It is the practical question as to the means of raising the money,
that at this moment more seriously engages my attention. The Colony
being already severely taxed for the support of its own Government, could
not afford to pay that additional sum; but the difficulty may be sur
mounted by means of an advance from the Imperial Government to the
extent of 3,000, to be eventually repaid out of the Colonial Land Fund.
8. I would, in fact, strongly recommend that course to your Grace s
attention, as specially calculated to extricate the Colony from existing
difficulties, without putting the Mother Country to a serious expense; and
I shall carefully attend to the repayment of the sum advanced, in full,
as soon as the Land Fund recovers in some measure from the depression
caused by the delay Her Majesty s Government has experienced in effect
ing a final arrangement with the Hudson Bay Company for the recon
veyance of the Colony, as there is little doubt when our new system of
finance comes fully into operation that the revenue will be fully adequate
to the expenditure of the Colony.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) JAMES DOUGLAS.
Now, I put that on record as proving the policy pursued up to that time
in the Colonial days, which is clearly embodied in that. Shall I read the reply
thereto?
Mr. MCPHERSON: It also proves something else, that the value of the land
was 3,000.
Mr. KELLY: $15 per family.
Mr. O MEARA: That is not material.
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: And all Vancouver Island had been bought except
those three districts.
Mr. PAULL: No, not all Vancouver Island, around Cowichan had been
bought.
Mr. KELLY: It says the settled districts of the Colony, with the exception
of Cowichan, Chemainus, and Barclay Sound.
Hon. Mr. MCLENNAN: Will you read the reply?
[Mr. Kelly.]
238 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. KELLY: The reply is as follows:
The Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor Douglas, C. B.
DOWNING STREET,
October 19, 1861.
SIR, I have had under my consideration your despatch No. 24, of
the 25th of March last, transmitting an Address from the House of
Assembly of Vancouver Island, in which they pray for the assistance of
Her Majesty s Government in extinguishing the Indian Title to the public
lands in the Colony, and set forth the evils that may result from a neglect
of this precaution.
I am fully sensible of the great importance of purchasing without
loss of time the native title to the soil of Vancouver Island; but the
acquisition of the title is a purely colonial interest, and the Legislature
must not entertain any expectation that the British taxpayer will be
burthened to supply the funds or British credit pledged for the purpose.
I would earnestly recommend therefore to the House of Assembly, that
they should enable you to procure the requisite means, but if they
should not think proper to do so, Her Majesty s Government cannot
undertake to supply the money requisite for an object which, whilst it is
essential to the interests of the people of Vancouver Island, is at the
same time purely Colonial in its character, and trifling in the charge that
it would entail.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) NEWCASTLE.
Mr. KELLY: Another thing, Mr. Chairman: At the request of Mr. O Meara
I think you commanded Mr. Chisholm to bring a memorandum here?
The CHAIRMAN: No, I did not command Mr. Chisholm to do anything.
I asked Mr. Chisholm to attend here.
Mr. KELLY: I am sorry. You asked Mr. Chisholm to be here, to bring the
memorandum which was prepared for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Was not that it?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not know anything about a memorandum. I asked
Mr. Chisholm to be present at this session of the Committee. If you want to
ask Mr. Chisholm any questions, he will answer them.
Mr. KELLY: Then, may I ask Mr. Chisholm for a memorandum prepared
by the Hon. Mr. Newcombe for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in June, 1910.
Mr. CHISHOLM: This memorandum was prepared by Mr. Newcombe for
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then Prime Minister. It contains an outline of
the respective claims made by the Dominion and the Province, and the Indian
claims now under consideration. It also contains certain views expressed by
Mr. Newcombe about each claim. I am quite sure that it was never intended
to be produced and given to the public.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: How has Mr. O Meara obtained knowledge of it then?
Mr. CHISHOLM: I do not know.
Mr. O MEARA: Dr. Scott brought it forward, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHISHOLM: He mentioned it to me yesterday, when he came over to
the Department. I do not know how he has any knowledge about the existence
of the document. I submit that it is not in the public interest to have this
memorandum produced. Litigation may arise at any time between the province
and the Dominion or on the Indian claims, and the legal views expressed in
regard to the claims should not be produced.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: It is a memorandum for the information of Sir Wil
frid Laurier.
[Mr. Chisholm.]
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 239
Mr. CHISHOLM: That is all. It was really confidential, although it is not
so marked.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Does your Department regard such documents as
confidential when exchanged between the Department and the Prime Minister
of the day?
Mr. CHISHOLM: Certainly, the same as a memorandum from an officer
of the Department to the Minister.
The CHAIRMAN: That document has never been brought down to the
House or the Senate?
Mr. CHISHOLM: No, Mr. Chairman, not even the Indian Department had
it until I gave a copy to Dr. Scott yesterday.
Mr. MCPHERSON: At best, it is the legal opinion of Mr. Newcombe.
Mr. CHISHOLM: It gives a short outline of sales in the different parts of
the country.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is it a narrative of fact about the position of affairs
as it stood between the Dominion Government, the Provincial Government
and the Indians?
Mr. CHISHOLM: Yes.
Mr. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, since we consider that of importance, in view
of what has been said, we do not ask for a public exhibition of it, but would
it not be possible for that document to be submitted to this Committee in
camera. We do not wish it to go beyond the bounds of this room. That is
all I wish to say, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will take up the question of the pro
duction of the document just referred to when they come to it.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: No Minister of the Crown would agree to the produc
tion of a document like that. I have held office, and I would not agree to it,
if I were in office. I do not think Mr. Stewart would agree to it. It is a private
document and if it were submitted to me for information in the capacity of a
Minister, I would say that it is not a document for publication.
Hon. Mr. STEVENS: I do not know anything about the document. I have
never heard of it until Mr. O Meara mentioned it.
Mr. PAULL: The reason we desired the introduction of that document, or
that we mentioned it, was that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a statement in British
Columbia, after having received the advice of the Deputy Minister, the advice
which was contained in the document in question.
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: You do not know whether it was advice, or merely
a narrative of facts?
Mr. PAULL: No, until the document can be produced, I do not know that.
Mr. MCPHERSON: Mr. Paull, I think the Committee have intimated that
they do not think a statement made by officials as to their own ideas, is binding
upon this House. Regardless of what they were based upon, or who made it,
we would not accept Sir Wilfrid Laurier s statement, and much less would we
regard a memorandum prepared for him.
Mr. PAULL: Would you regard Dr. Scott s memorandum in that light?
Mr. MCPHERSON: I would regard it as not binding on the Dominion of
Canada. Any opinion expressed
The CHAIRMAN: When will the Committee meet again, gentlemen?
Hon. Mr. MURPHY: Is any further evidence to be adduced?
The CHAIRMAN: Have you any further evidence to offer, Mr. Kelly?
Mr. KELLY: No, Mr. Chairman, we have no further evidence.
Mr. MCPHERSON: I think we should meet while everything is fresh in
our minds.
The CHAIRMAN: To-morrow morning at ten o clock then, just the Com
mittee, not to hear further evidence.
The Committee adjourned.
[Mr. Chisholm.]
240 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT NO. 6
Filed by P. R. Kelly
CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO HUDSON S BAY COMPANY
Saanich Tribe South Saanich
Know all men that we, the chiefs and people of the Saanich 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 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.
(Signed) WHTJT-SAY-MULLET his X mark.
and 9 others.
Witness to signatures,
(Signed) JOSEPH WILLIAM McKAY,
Glerk H.B. Go s, service.
RICHD. GOLLEDGE, Clerk.
Saanich Tribe North Saanich
Know all men, that we the chiefs and people of the Saanich Tribe, who
have signed our names and made our marks to this deed on the eleventh day
of February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, do consent to surrender,
entirely and for ever, to James Douglas, the Agent 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
as follows, viz: commencing at Cowichan Head and following the coast of
the Canal de Haro northwest nearly to Saanich Point, or Qua-na-sung; from
thence following the course of the Saanich Arm to the point where it termin
ates; and from thence by a straight line across country to said Cowiclian
Head, the point of commencement, so as to include all the country and lands
with the exceptions hereafter named, within those boundaries.
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 smaU
exceptions, becomes the entire property of the white people for ever.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 241
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 (amount not stated).
(Signed HOTUTSTUN his X mark.
and 117 others.
Witness to signatures,
(Signed) JOSEPH WILLIAM McKAY,
Clerk H.B. Go s. Service.
RICHD. GOLLEDGE, Clerk.
Certified Correct,
W. E. DlTCHBURN.
EXHIBIT No. 7
Filed by P. R. Kelly
Copy 59335-5
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OTTAWA, 17th December, 1913.
Petition oj the Nishga Indians of British Columbia
DEAR DR. ROCHE: I have received your letter of 3rd ultimo, enclosing the
petition of the Nishga nation or tribe of Indians of the province of British Col
umbia to His Majesty in Council.
The claim of the Indians is based upon the proclamation of His late
Majesty King George III issued on 7th October, 1763, that is, shortly after the
conquest of Quebec, a time, of course, long antecedent to the colonization, or
even, it may be said, the discovery of British Columbia. It must, of course,
be at least doubtful, whether, under these circumstances, the general words of
the proclamation, which, it may be reasonably supposed, related only to Canada
as then known, can be taken as having anything to do with the Indians of
British Columbia. It is necessary for the petitioners case, and in the seventh
paragraph of their petition it is alleged, that the territory now known as British
Columbia is all part of the Indian territories referred to in the proclamation.
You ask for my opinion as to the right of the Indians to present the peti
tion, and as to what effect the support of the Dominion would have upon the
legal questions involved.
I should be disposed to think that the Imperial Government would not be
inclined to initiate proceedings for the determination of the Indian claim, if
there be a remedy by proceedings, in the local courts, nor can I see any reason
why the claim should not be determined locally if the Government of Canada
should determine to press it.
I may remind you that it was the declared policy of our predecessors in
office to submit to the courts for decision the question of the aboriginal title
which is the subject of this petition and has been for some years agitated in
British Columbia. Questions with that object in view were framed for reference
to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the proposed reference fell through because
the Government of British Columbia would not agree to the submission. After
wards the Indian Act was amended by the enactment of subsection 1 of section
73A as it now stands under section 4 of chapter 14 of 1911. By the provisions
of this enactment it is competent to His Majesty to proceed in the Exchequer
Court or in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to recover possession of
lands for the benefit of the Indians, and the enactment was devised to provide
a means or convenient procedure for the determination by the courts of the
questions which are raised by this petition.
42325-16
242 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
The agreement of 24th September, 1912, between representatives of the
Dominion and British Columbia, which was approved by Order in Council of
27th November following, appears to evince a departure from the policy of the
late Government. It is recited in the preamble that it is desirable to settle all
differences between the Governments of the Dominion and the provinces respect
ing Indian lands and Indian affairs generally in British Columbia, and upon
this recital the stipulations or proposals of the agreement are said to be agreed
upon as final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in the
province. The agreement, while it provides for the ascertainment of the various
Indian reserves and the disposal thereof, or confirmation of the titles in the
manner therein provided, makes no reference to the aboriginal title, and it
may be considered that it would be incompatible with the intention of the agree
ment that the Dominion should maintain the cause of the Indians in respect
of the aboriginal title, seeing that this title is ignored by the agreement and
that the proposals or stipulations of the agreement are declared to have been
agreed upon as a final adjustment of all matters relating to Indian affairs in
the province.
I think, therefore, that the policy of the Government in relation to the
matter is a preliminary question to be determined. If the Government pro
poses to maintain the claim of the Indians, it would be advisable to institute
proceedings in a proper case under the statute to which I have referred, and
the case could then be carried if necessary on appeal to the Judicial Committee
with the advantage of the opinions of the local courts as in ordinary cases.
If the Government do not propose to uphold the claim, I think that the inadvisa-
bility of making any reference of this petition should be represented to the
Colonial Office ; and the Indians would in consequence presumably be left with
out any intervention or support from this Government, and in face of the
deliberate opposition of the Government of British Columbia, to pursue such
legal remedies on their own behalf and at their own expense as the very meagre
prospects of the situation might afford.
Upon the merits I think the Indian claim is a very doubtful one, but I am
not prepared to say that it is not without sufficient foundation to justify con
sideration by the courts.
I am retaining the petition, of which I daresay you have another copy, but
if you require it to be returned, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) CHAS. J. DOHERTY.
The Hon. W. J. ROCHE, M.D., M.P.,
Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa.
EXHIBIT No. 8
Filed by A. D. Macintyre
ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
ANDREW PAULL, REV. P. R. KELLY,
Secretary Executive Committee, Chairman Executive Committee,
North Vancouver, B.C. 46 Gillespie St., Nanaimo, B.C.
Circular Letter to the Tribes
DEAR FRIENDS, At the conclusion of our conference with the Hon. Chas.
Stewart, Minister of the Interior, held in the city of Vancouver on the 27th day
of July this year, and continued with Dr. Duncan C. Scott, Deputy Superin
tendent General of Indian Affairs, in the city of Victoria, which was concluded
on the llth of August, it was decided by the Executive Committee to send a
letter to the Tribes informing them of the claims made by the Committee on
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 243
behalf of all the Indians of this province. Great pains were taken to point out
to the representatives of the Dominion Government that the conditions pro
posed as a basis of settlement are only general in character. When the Govern
ments accept these conditions in principle, the Committee requested that a
Commission be appointed on which the Allied Tribes would have equal repre
sentation, said Commission to arrange the particulars of these conditions.
We have firmly declined to accept a settlement, based on the Order in
Council of the 20th of June, 1914. As the report of the Royal Commission on
Indian Affairs is based on this Order in Council, we have strongly objected to
its confirmation by the Dominion Government, because it does not satisfy the
land requirements of the tribes and also it empowers the Governments to reduce
the area of some of the reserves, amounting to 47,000 acres.
We clearly stated that we would be glad to effect a full settlement of the
whole question as it now seems probable, but at the same time pointed out very
clearly, if negotiations reveal that a settlement satisfying the claims of the
Indians cannot finally be arrived at by this method, we would insist on the
whole question of Indian Title being submitted to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council for a decision, such as we have always pressed for, in the
past.
We shall not know the result of the Conference until the report has been
fully considered and a decision arrived at by the Government of Canada, and
whatever decision is arrived at will be communicated to us immediately and
of course, the Tribes will be informed of that decision by the Executive Com
mittee.
We submitted the following conditions as a proposed basis of settlement,
having in mind the peculiar needs of the different parts of the Province:
1. All foreshores fronting on said reserves to form part of said reserve.
2. Further Land Grants by the B.C. Government on a basis of 160 acres
per capita, as a standard.
3. Unrestricted right to take fish for food purposes.
4. Full rights to fish for commerciail purposes off foreshores of Indian
reserves.
5. Rights for commercial fishing without license fee, off areas to be especially
reserved for that purpose as obtains around Annette Island, Alaska, also the
right to troll salmon for commercial purposes without license fee in all the tidal
waters of British Columbia.
6. Right to secure license for purse and seine fishing at half usua l fee.
This privilege is not enjoyed by the Indians.
7. Right to cut timber outside of reserves for fuel and for the manufac
ture of canoes.
8. Amendment of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty of 1911 to allow the towage
of canoes, by gasoline launches, to be used in the capture of seals from the
reserves to the sealing grounds.
9. Ample water for irrigation purposes.
10. Unrestricted right to hunting and trapping, and hunting areas to be
reserved where necessary.
11. Extension of the present school facilities by high and technical educa
tion on equal terms to those available to white residents, also university
courses to those who show capability.
12. Free medicail and hospital attention and a tubercular sanatorium in the
Province.
13. Sufficient grazing areas.
14. Mother s and Widow s pension as effective in B.C. for white women,
also Old Age Pension.
15. Cash compensation, to be finally paid within an agreed number of
years (this matter to be further considered by the Executive Committee) .
42325 K
244 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
16. Re-imbursement of about $100,000 spent by the Indians of B.C. in
endeavouring to secure a settlement of the Land Title question.
17. Many amendments of the Indian Act were asked for.
During the past year very little money has come from the Tribes, the
amounts received did not come up to expectations. The whole amount has been
used for current and other expenses of the Executive Committee. The Com
mittee faces heavy and pressing obligations and it is necessary to have funds on
hand for any eventuality. In view of the important and critical position the
land question has now attained, funds may decide full victory. The Com
mittee must have ample means to take full advantage of any opening to press
for success which would make possible the full attainment of the aspirations of
the Indian Tribes.
You must realize that the Executive Committee has discharged its respon
sibilities faithfully and successfully on your behalf, and the least you can do is
to give it your support financially so that it may keep on functioning. Where
there is no system in vogue for collecting money the Committee recommends that
each male and female member of the age of sixteen and over, contribute at
least one dollar each. The Committee begs to remind the tribes of this fact;
that while certain tribes faithfully bore the heavy financial burdens that were
necessary, there were others that did not make any serious effort to assist in
this matter. We would urge upon those Tribes the fairness of making more
liberal contributions than what is suggested herein.
Above all, the operation of the organization of the Allied Tribes is a neces
sity in your interest, and its existence is dependent on your financial support,
so please realize your responsibilities.
Please send all contributions to the Chairman and Treasurer of the Allied
Indian Tribes of B.C. who is Rev. P. R. Kelly, 46 Gillespie street, Nanaimo,
B.C., and thanking you in advance, on behalf of the Executive Committee
of the Allied Indian Tribes of B.C.
Sincerely,
P. R. KELLY,
Chairman Executive Committee,
~, 46 Gillespie St., Nanaimo, B.C.
ANDHEW PATJLL,
Sewetary Executive Committee,
North Vancouver, B.C.
VANCOUVER, B.C., September 12, 1923.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 245
INDEX OF EVIDENCE
COUNSELS WITNESSES
Beamenl, A. W., Barrister, Solicitor, Ottawa. Canada:
Represents the Petitioners as Counsel Expresses opinion that petitioners should be
given an opportunity to put in evidence such as will prove the allegations stated
in petition, etc., 28.
Directs attention to the fact that the petition is the petition of the Allied Tribes
Petitioners advised, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have in law a right, by
a petition to His Majesty in Council, to- have a judicial determination of the
substantive question as to merits of their claim, 75-77.
Chillihitza, Chi ef Johnny, Hereditary Chief of the Okanagans:
States that leading Indian Chiefs of British Columbia never relinquished their title
Do not want franchise Do not want to be made to live like the white people, but
just plain Indians Relates what the Queen s messenger told the Indian, chiefs
regarding Indian rights and native titles Change of conditions regarding waiter
rights, etc. Do not want reserves broken up No grazing tends Diversion of
streams running through reserves for irrigation purposes woirks hardship on Indians
Hunting and fishing rights ignored Indians desire to be consulted in the appoint
ment of Indian Agents Indians do not want certain white man to be living on the
Squilax reserve, 142-145.
Chisholm, John, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice :
Produces, by request, copy of Memorandum respecting Indian claims, which had been
prepared by Mr. Newcombe for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1910 Submits that it is not
in the public interest to have this Memorandum produced. Consideration of same
follows, 238-239.
David, Chief Basil, Cariboo Tribe:
States that his Indians throughout Cariboo are all short of irrigation waters and grazing
range Wants water and grazing range for them; ailso hunting and trap exploring
lines His Indian boys went to War in France; some of them came back wounded;
others are lying in France Collected money for the Red Cross Wants to sarUfy
his children who were wounded at war, 146.
Ditchburn, W. E., Commissioner of Indian Affairs for British Columbia:
Does not think the Indians complain so far as fishing for commercial purposes is
concerned Fishing conditions have improved since two or three years- Indians can
fish now under what is known as an independent license -the same as the white man,
and for a reduced license fee. 178-9.
For food purposes. Indians fishing rights have not been taken away Are permitted to
take fish for food under the supervision of and according to the regulations of the
Chief Inspector of Fisheries Regulations governing fishing on the Capilano reserve
and on Seymour creek. 179-180.
It would not be practical for Indians (to be consulted in the appointment of government
a cents Dons not think that statement made by previous witness re consultation
with Indians in the matter of appointments has any virtue in it at all There was
unfortunately a negro agent appointed over the Indians in the Kumloops agency,
180-181.
Opinion of witness regarding arrest of an Indian on his reserve, by police department. 181.
Explanation given regarding water rights under regime of Colonial government The
Todd and Thompson water license The British Columbia Water Acts of 1897
and 1924 consolidated, and what such Acts meant to the Indians Priority rights
How a certain, lawsuit re water rights was lost to the Indians, 181-183.
Water supply not ample for cu.Uiva-tion in Ivamloops reserve, but British Columbia
Cattle Company and Department of Indian Affairs have water in Fall -lake on a
fifty-fifty basis Cost of pumping plant for irrigation on the North or South Thomp
son rivers Cultivation on the community system important Indians advised to
plot their potatoes and allfafa together Loss of priority in -the Okanagan Every
acre of the Penticton reserve that is possible to be irrigated, is under cultivation,
183-185
246 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Dilchburn, W. E. Concluded.
Very good orchards in the Penticton district Indians .taught to cultivate orchards and
government supply them with spray pumps Duty of Inspector of Indian Orchards
Same scrubby trees around villages Water legislation wholly provincial Indians
appreciation does not follow direction to benefit them through education and such
condition is the great difficulty At residential schools children are taught principles
of agriculture, 185-187.
Aboriginal title, remedy suggested to remove grievance Indians east of Rocky Moun
tains treated differently from .the Indians of British Columbia with respect to the
treaty. So far as benefits are concerned they are treated the same with the exceiption
of annuities, 187-188.
Very hard to keep Indian children at school after they reach the age of 15 years lubes
fair from civilization., not interested in aboriginal title, 188-189.
Remarks made in the course of evidence given by other witnesses, 127. 129, 140, 168,
173-175, 196, 198, 226, 233.
Found, W. A., Director of Fisheries, Department of Marine and Fisheries:
Imiportanice of fisheries protection in British Columbia About 4,000 out of 26,000 Indians
secure the major portion of their earnings from the fishing industry Out of 11,750
licenses issued last yea i r Indians received, 3.352, 189-190.
How Department tries to overcome difficulties with Indians in methods of obtaining
fish for food and commercial purposes Spearing fish not permitted in certain sections
and law breakers severely dealt with Departmental officers always try to use tact
in dealing with Indians who are found breaking the regulations Indians must get
preference when drag seining is carried on near a<n Indian reserve Federal govern
ment is not in a position to grant exclusive fishing rights to Indians or whites in
tidal waters, 190-195.
Present regulations do not differentiate between Indians and whites in respect to seining
licenses for salmon and herring Indians should not be allowed to fish during
spawning season, 196-200.
Will give Indians all the privileges they want down on the commercial areas to get
fish; also give them permits without any price Extremely doubtful if Government
has got power to give exclusive nights in tidal waters Everybody has got the same
right to fish under certain conditions Cannot give the Indian an exclusive franchise
to fish By the Privy Council decision in 1920, the situation has been made pretty
dear, 200-202.
Spawning grounds should be protected Will give Indian any reasonable privilege they
desire Will lend them equipment if they come down to catch saimon in tidal
waters Provisions in the Act ; Regulations Remedy suggested to enable Indian to
secure fish for food. 202-207.
Kelly, Rev. P. R., Chairman, Executive Committee of Allied Indian Tribes, British Columbia:
Purpose for which executive committee was formed Tribes represented Membership
of, never repudiated to this day, 137-8.
Fifty years endeavour to obtain a hearing Delegations, organizations, views presented
to government Royal Commission of 1913 re grievance in respect to necessity of
adequate areas of land for the use of Indians, and provision therefor Memorandum
of department in 1924, conceding that Indian title had never been extinguished,
146-8.
Fundamental principle still remains, namely, that aboriginal title to lands, not reserved
for the use of Indians, has never been extinguished, 149-150.
Admits that in 1&23, at Victoria, a request for a memorandum on the constitutional
question was submitted by the Federal officer, and this was incorporated in the
evidence at that time Does not think that presentation of case in 1923 was .quite
adequate Maintains that general counsel should be given privilege of presenting, in
a connected form, arguments supporting stand taken, 150-151.
Grievances presented in 1914, 151.
Delegation of Indians to Victoria in 1887 re land question The Haida Tribe and the
Reserves Commissioners re land Intensive training needed for Indians, 152.
Annuities to Indians Negotiations and Treaties Official acknowledgment of the abori
ginal title Certain things agreed to under the Terms of Union" such as Article
Thirteen, 153.
Tried to get adequate lands The basis of 20 acres in 1874 considerably augmented since
then, and admits that the Government did respond to the request of the Indians in
this respect Report of Royal Commission of 1913-1916 criticised Additional claims
for lands filed in 1922 Not dependent entirely upon lands for a living, 154.
Describes land conditions in various parts of the province, 155.
The Indian needs more intensive training to-day than the white man, 156.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 247
Kelly, Rev. P. ^..Concluded.
Present state of civilization of the Haidas and Tsimpsians, 157-S
Amounts spent for education of Indians in British Columbia, and its benefits, 1S8-9
Keturned Indian soldier has been treated just as considerately as any other returned
soldiers, 159.
Asks for a negotiating committee to arrive at same valuation of what Indians are
claiming Aboriginal title further discussed Judicial decision in 1883 Law Reports
Lhe McKenna-McBride Agreement Various points considered 160-163
Order m Council of 20th of June, 1914, re Dominion benefits to be granted in return for
aboriginal title to be surrendered Reserves to be part of the compensation Gives
reason why paragraph in Order-in-Council was objected to, 164-166.
Accepts explanation of Superintendent of Indian Affairs re certain forms sent out to
Indian Agencies to be distributed conveying certain information to the Indians in
respect to proposed settlement as set out in Order-in-Oouncil Admits that provision
was made for representation by counsel in the event of having to submit differences
to the Courts Misunderstanding and trouble would have been eliminated had the
Indians been taken into confidence a little more Not quite as ignorant as we
used to be sixty or seventy-five years ago Gives credit to the present Minister of
the Interior in his endeavour to find out the facts of the case Gives further reason
why Indians would not agree to certain contents of Order-in-Council, 1&Q-168.
Have had no occasion to change our minds Exactly in the same position as in 1914
Confirm? statement of Minister of the Interior re. matters discussed and what the
terms of settlement were to be Reads statement prepared by committee in June,
191S Reads a resolution passed by the Tribes of the Interior of B.C., in December,
1917 Contends that Indians have a right, 169-170.
Parts of British Columbia where aboriginal title was extinguished, admitted Point upon
which witness differs in statement made by a member Witness appeal that counsel
be allowed to present constitutional argument Further discussion re Indian title,
170^173.
Complaints re fishing rights greatly reduced since 1922 Present regulations make it
harder for an Indian to get fish for food Relates an instance of an (Indian being
arrested for non-compliance of regulations Interview with Fisheries Commissioner
re fishing regulations on the Capilano river, 174-175.
Produces copy of treaty re conveyance of an area of land on Vancouver Island, by Che
Saanich Tribe, to James Douglas, Agent of the Hudson Bay Company, 177^178.
Remarks made in the course of evidence given by other witnesses. 137-138, 146, 188-189,
199, 203-207, 219, 233-226.
Maclntyre, A. D., Representing certain Indian Tribes of British Columbia:
Takes exception to statement that Committee of Allied Indian Tribes represent all the
Indians in British Columbia and claims that 28 tribes in the interior of B. C. do not
come under the Alliance ; that he alone, the witness, is authorized to speak for
them, 73-74.
Question of counsel for certain Indian tribes, and instructions received, 135.
Produces list of names of 29 Chiefs of Indian Tribes representing reserves reaching from
Fort George at the north down to the American boundary, 136. See a. so Exhibit
No. 5, page 176.
Interior tribes claim unrestricted rights to fish for food purposes; also ample water for
irrigation of their ; !and; also unrestricted right to hunt and trap; hunting areas to be
reserved where necessary, etc., 137-141.
The question of tenure or holding of land so that Indians cannot be dispossessed of it
Individual title to land .Relates instance of hardship caused by the arrest and fine
of two Indians who had killed deer out of season in an unorganized district; a clear
case of killing the deer for food was made out; a heavy fine was inflicted; request
tha.t such be redressed, 140-141.
O Meara, A. E., Counsel for the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia:
Says he has not yet stated a sentence on behalf of the tribes Will be given an oppor
tunity to-morrow Instructed to come prepared to argue the points already raised,
29-30.
Appearing as general counsel for the Association of Indian Tribes of British Columbia
Written authority of appointment as such, 72-75.
Reads circular letter outlining present position of the Indian case at Ottawa Witness
definite advice to the Tribes last October re petition, 78-80.
Files statement re "The British Columbia Indian Land Controversy", 81-84.
When Alliance was formed in 1916, witness undertook the professional charge of case
for the Indians Discussion follows re presentation of case and basis of claim of
native title, 84-88.
248 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
O Meara, A. E. Concluded.
Reads document in respect to territorial rights, foreshore, hunting, fishing, water, and
ali other general rights, the objective of which would be a settlement of the ques
tion, Discussion follows, 88-94.
Presents documents to prove the petition, 209-211.
Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act is keystone to whole of Indians claim Documentary-
statements follow with consideration thereof, 211-235.
Remarks made in the course of evidence given by other witnesses, 162, 163, 164, 165,
237, 238.
1 aiill. Andrew, Secretary, Executive Committee, Allied Indian Tribes, British Columbia:
Asks that all proceedings of this Committee be reported in book form and that Indians
be supplied with such record, 2.
Is a full-blooded Indian of the Squamish tribe Speaks for the organized Indians of
B.C., dealing with the question of aboriginal title Also represents Indians of the
interior parts of B.C. with the exception of those who are represented by Chief
Chillihitza, 24-25.
Expenditures of government money for Indians, arranged in sub-heads, namely, for
education, relief, aid to agriculture, medical attendance, dyking, irrigation, surveys,
boarding, and day schools, forming a total of over ten million dollars, about half of
which was for education, 25.
Indians themselves expended some money out of tribal funds in paying policemen to
maintain law and order Would like Dr. Scott to file a report showing how much
of the Indians own funds have been expended for schools, etc., 24-25.
Article Thirteen of the "Terms of Union" and Section 109 of the British North America
Act, considered in respect to question of aboriginal title Section 109 read into the
record Discussion follows, 26-30.
Was educated at the Bordeii school and made a special study of the Indian land ques
tion Evidence on which witness bases claim of the aboriginal title Relates earlier
experiences of the Indians up to the time when the "Terms of Union" comprising
Article Thirteen was agreed to Trouble arose on account of the reserve?, soon after
Confederation Indians had sworn allegiance to British Crown In Colonial days
the per capita area allotted to Indians was only about 10 acres Witness follows
up gradual discontent of Indians on account of insufficiency of land and other
questions, 94-96.
Refers to statements contained in diary of Father Foquet and letter to Father Cherouse
Meeting called by Governor Douglas Alleged agreement entered into by Gov
ernor Seymour Allotment of reserves soon after Confederation The Indian in
British Columbia has a special location for each different season Explanation follows
Allotment Commission of 1872 Petition signed by the Indians of Lower Fraser
river praying that sufficient land be surveyed for their own exclusive use and benefit,
96-99.
Deals with Article Thirteen and allotment of reserves All Indians know that Dominion
government are their guardians or trustees Memorandum of Hon. David Laird in
Journals and Sessional Papers of 1875 re living up to the exact terms of Article
Thirteen is altogether inadequate, 99-100.
Indian population prior to Confederation and now Indians now require more land,
gives reasons. 101-102.
Indian characteristics Petition to the Indian Commissioner for British Columbia, read
into the record Land allocated to the Cheam Band and to others Refers to this
land question as having been a great national question in 1874 and equally a
national question as it is now presented in 1927, 103-105.
The McKenna-McBride Agreement Order-in-Council defining fishing rights to certain
tribes or bands of Indians Fishing and Canneries question considered, 106-112.
Province of British Columbia depends upon Article Thirteen States that Memorandum
of Hon. David Laird coincides with opinion of Indians Reads into the record
portion of said memorandum relating to a liberal policy on the part of the Dominion
Government to be pursued towards the Indians of British Columbia as to lands
and other benefits Discussion follows, 117-124.
Indians claim all foreshore in front of Indian reserves Reasons for such claim found
in statement of James Teit, in 1920 Statement read into the record Discussion
follows. 124-126.
In non-tidal waters, streams, in many instances by the action of the provincial govern
ment, are diverted and result is that erosion is caused; encroachment occurs on
what was formerly the Indian reserve Gives instance of such case in Squamish
Indians also want hunting and fishing rights recognized Ninety per cent of the
Indians cannot read the regulations rn. icteu by the provincial government Want
no hunting restrictions in unorganized districts, 127-129.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 249
Paul], Andrew Cni/riil lcil.
Foreshore rights taken away from the Indians Province of British Columbia does not
recognize that Indians have any foreshore rights Can only hope for some agreement
in respect to foreshore in public harbours from Dominion Government The Mc-
Kenna-McBride agreement again considered re area of Crown lands made available
to Commission, 130-132.
Reads short despatch of Lord Carnarvon to Governor Douglas, dated llth April, 1859
Consideration follows, 132-134.
Reads statement from Minister of Justice in support of claim for aboriginal title
Reads extract from the judgment of their Lordships, delivered by Lord Watson
relating; to meaning of expressions "subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof"
etc., 135.
Remarks made in the course of evidence given by other witnesses, 24, 167, 168. 171, 172,
173, 178, 197, 198, 199, 221, 225, 226, 233, 237, 239.
Scott, Dr. Duncan C., Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs:
Reads into the record historical statement on the British Columbia Indian question, 3-20.
Since Confederation Indians have claimed aboriginal title to provincial lands Article
Thirteen of "Terms of Union 1 establishes the relations between the Government of
B.C., the Federal Government, and the Indians, 3-7.
Several Commissions at various times have tried to settle differences between Indians
and the Government but without any marked success A total of $10.800,300.37
has been spent by the Federal Government on the Indians of BjC. since Confedera
tion, 8-10.
Federal Government should take Indian question to the Exchequer Court to obtain a
decision on the aboriginal claim, as the Provincial Government of B.C. claim they
have done all that the !aw requires, 11, 20^-25.
Federal Government has at all times tried to reach an agreement with the Indians but
witout success (See also Appendices B. C, E, F, G, H,), 12-14, 20.
Indians in B.C. receive better treatment from Federal Government than elsewhere as
they are not self-supporting Quotes comparative figures, 15-18.
Dominion Government establishes vocational training schools for Indians, 19.
Remarks made in the course of evidence given by other witnesses, 25, 93. 104, 122, 123,
127, 155, 166, 170, 171, 178, 187, 188, 210, 212, 226, 232.
GENERAL SUBJECTS
Aboriginal Title :
Since Confederation the Indians have claimed aboriginal title to all the provincial lands
in B.C., 3, 90.
Under Article 13, Terms of Union, aboriginal titi e was not admitted, 5.
Indians were always considered wards of the Crown, 5.
Several Commissions at various times have tried to settle the differences between the
Indians and the various governments, but without any marked success, 8-10, 154.
The Dominion Government considered bringing the government of B.C. into Court so
that the whole question of title to the lands could be enquired into, but without
success, 11-14.
Dr. D. C. Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs thinks the Indians have
been fairly compensated by the governments of B.C. and the Dominion, in the provi
sion of reserves, 14.
The Government of B.C. say the Indians have no claim to the provincial lands, 20, 99.
Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act should be taken into consideration when dealing with the
question of aboriginal title, 26-28, 211.
Indians claim that they were never a conquered nation and should be entitled to aiM the
land they formerly held, 95.
Indians were always led to believe that they would be treated fairly by the Government
in respect to their daim to aboriginal title of the lands in B.C., 95-97.
Indians have always claimed that the reserves granted were too small, 103.
If Indians had been granted title to lands of B.C. it would have disrupted Confeder
ation, 148.
Indians claim they should be compensated for loss of their lands by a payment of
$2,500,000, 153.
Indians real desire is to have official recognition of the aborigmal^ title, 153.
Indians fee 1 ! that if their claim were to be considered by a Judicial Committee of His
Majesty s Privy Council they would receive justice, 161-165.
Reserves were considered as part of the compensation when Indian title surrendered, 166
Indians claim their aboriginal title has never been extinguished, 170.
250 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Aboriginal Title: Concluded.
If this question of aboriginal title were removed, either by proving that there was a cfiaim,
or proving to the Indians that they had not such claim, it wou ld go very far towards
more satisfactory working out of the administration of affairs by the department, 187.
Tribes far away in the interior not interested in the question of aboriginal titles, 189.
Mr. O Meara produces documentary evidence in support of Indians claims (see Appen
dix G), 209-210.
Claims that in 1875 the Minister of Justice in a report to the Governor-in-Council
acknowledges Indians aboriginal title to lands of B.C. (See Appendix A) and that
Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act bears this out, 211-216.
Absence of documentary proof in support of aboriginal claims, 216-232.
Claim is made that Article 13 df the " Termis of Union " destroys title of Indian lands
and that Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act has been ignored, 219.
Indians claim 251,000 square miles of iland in B.C. have not been surrendered to them by
the Crown, 223.
Agents, Indian:
Indians should be consulted in appointment of Indian agents, 144.
Mr. W. E. Ditchburn, Commissioner of Indian Affairs in B.C., does not think it wise for
the Indians to be consulted when Indian agents are appointed, 181.
Annuities, or Treaty Moneys:
Indians do not receive any annuities or " Treaty Moneys " from the government, 25, 188.
Appendices :
A. Statement of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, dated June 1916, filed by
D. C. Scott, 31-38.
B. Excerpt from Dominion and Provincial legislation 1867-1895, page 1024, Report of
the Minister of Justice to the Governor-in-Council dated 23-1-1875, 39^44.
Excerpt from Dominion and Provincial legislation 1867-1895, page 1038, Report of
the Minister of Justice to the Governornin^Council dated 6-5-1876, 44-45.
C. Excerpt from British Columbia papers relating to the Indian Lands question, page
160, 1875-1878, Report of the Acting Minister of the Interior to the Governor-dn-
Council, dated 10-11-1875, 46-49.
D. Statement of expenditure on account of Indians in B.C. from 1871^1926, by the
Department of Indian Affairs, 50-51.
E. Copy of Order-in-Counoil No. 1081 dated 17-5-11 together with annex to the Order-
in-Council being a memorandum on the British Columbia Indian Land Situation,
52-54.
F. Copy of Order-in-Council No. 751 dated 20-6-14 together with a memorandum to the
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs from Dr. D. C. Scott dated 11-3-14 and a
statement of the Nishga Nation or Tribe of Indians dated 22-1-13, signed by W. J.
Lincoln, as Chairman of the Meeting, outlining their claims, 35-60.
G. Copy of Privy Council decision 59, 335-4A of 16-12-18, 61.
Co,py of letter to A. E. O Meara from Minister of Justice, dated 14-11-14, 61-62.
Copy of letter to A. E. O Meara from the Secretary to the Governor General, dated
25-9-16, 63.
Copy of letter to A. E. O Meara from the Secretary to the Governor General, dated
17-3-20, 63-64.
H. Memorandum from the Deputy Superintendent General! of Indian Affairs to the
Minister of the Interior re meeting olf Council of Indian Tribes and various govern
ment officials, dated 29-10-23, 65-71.
Article 13, Terms of Union, British Columbia and Dominion of Canada:
Indians claim that this Article destroys the title of Indian lands, 219.
When interpreting Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act the Article above mentioned should be
taken into consideration, 26, 219.
Indians have tried to live up to the provisions of this Artio .e, but they find it is inadequate
in ats terms, as there was not sufficient land put aside for reserves, 99.
Article 13 establishes the relations between the Government of B.C., the federal govern
ment and the Indians, 4-7.
Brili-h North America Act:
References made to Sections 109 and 146 applicable to British Columbia, read in connec
tion with disallowance of Land Act in the course of evidence given, 148, 211, 216, 219.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 251
Cases Referred to in Evidence Given:
St. Catherines Mailing Case, 149, 161, 215, 216, 235.
Southern Nigeria Case, 90, 211, 214, 218.
Weller vs Ker Case, 230.
Eyre vs Eyre Case, 230-231.
Robinson Huron Treaty. 232.
Robinson Superior Treaty, 232.
Burrard Case, 234, 235.
Claims, Allied Indian Tribes and Unassociated Tribes:
See Exhibit No. 8, 242-243.
Commissions, Royal and Otherwise:
Reserves were formerly selected by a Joint Commission, this was later changed to a
Dominion Commissioner, 8.
Report of MoKenna Commission of 1912 not acted upon, result MicKenna-McBride
Agreement, 8-9.
Royal Commission of 1913-1916 looked into only one phase of grievances and that was
to provide Indians with adequate lands Laboured four years Had no right to touch
on any other grievances, 147.
Report of Royal Commission of 1913-1916 confirmed by the Province of British Columbia
in 1923 and by the Federal Government in 1924, id.
Compensation (See also Annuities) :
Indians claim they should be compensated to the extent of $2,500.000 for Joss of annuities
and treaty money, 153.
Indians of B.C. do not receive any annuities or treaty money, 188.
Counsel, Allied Indian Tribes and Unassociated Tribes:
Mr. Warwick Beament. Barrister, Ottawa, appears as counsel for the Allied Indian
Tribes of B.C., 28^29, 75-77.
M>r. A. D. MacLnt.yre claims to represent as counsel certain tribes of the interior of B.C.
who do not form part of the Allied Indian Tribes, 73-74, 135-139.
Mr. A. E. O Meara claims to be the official counsel for the. Allied Indian Tribes of B.C.,
73-75, 81.
Request that general counsel be allowed to present constitutional argument to Com
mittee, 149-151.
Crown Lands:
Insufficient crown lands available for distribution to Indians, 130.
Delegations :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier meets deputation of Indians at Pinince Rupert and Kamloops in
1910. 11.
Nishga Indians come to Ottawa to consult with the Government re claims, 13.
In 1922 Hon. Charles Stewart meets a representative delegation of Indians in Vancouver
to discuss complaints, 14.
Prior to Confederation the government of B.C. met delegations of the Indians on many
occasions and tried to satisfy their demands, 96.
In 1906 Chief Joe Capilano and two other chiefs waited on His late Majesty, King
Edward VII. 133.
Chief Jolinny ChiMihitza takes his complaints to the King in an effort to get satisfaction,
144-145.
Delegation of Indian tribes to Victoria in 1887 re insufficiently provided with land, 152.
Documents read into the record:
Telegram dated March 17. 1927 from John Oliver, Premier, British Columbia stating
that the province will not be represented before the Committee. Government relies
on Section 109 of the BjN.A. Act and Sections 10 and 13 of the Terms of Union, 2.
Memorandum on the British Columbia Indian Question prepared by D. C. Scott, Deputy
Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. 3-20.
Extracts from Exhibit 2. read into record, circular letter from executive of Indian Tribes
to all members of the Association, dated 2-12-26, 78, 79.
Memorandum on the British Columbia Indian Land Controversy prepared by A. E.
O Meara, 81-84. 88-92,
Petition prepared by the Indians shortly after Confederation and presented to the
Indian Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, 103-104.
252 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Documents read into the record: Concluded.
Memorandum prepared by the Hon. David Laird in 1874 deadline with Art id e 13 of the
Terms of Union, 117-121.
Statement prepared by James Teit in 1920 outlining the claims of the Indians of B.C.,
125.
Extract from a letter to Governor Douglas of B.C. from Lord Carnarvon dated 11-4-
1859, 132.
Extract from Appendix B. a report of the Minister of Justice to the Governor-m-
Coimcil dated 23-1-1S75. 134.
Excerpts from Law Reports appeal cases 1897, pages 199 and 210, portion of judgment
of Lord Watson on Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act. 135.
Letter from Narcisse Bat.ise dated Oliver, B.C., March 16. 1927 to D. C. Scott re Chief
Johnny Chi llihitza, 136.
Extract from page 89 of "The British North America Acts" re Indians and lands reserved
for the Indians, 215.
Extract from a dispatch from the Secretary of State to the Colonies to Governor Douglas
of B.C. dated 31-7-1858, re instructions to be followed in dealing with the Indiajie,
222, 226.
Copy of a letter from the Colonial Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and
Works in B.C. re marking of Indian reserves, dated 5-3-1861.
Copy of letter from Mr. B. W. Pearse to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works
in B.C. reporting on Indian reserves, dated 21-10-1868, 227-228.
Copy o f letter from Governor Douglas to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated
25-3-1861, re compensation for loss of lands, 236-237.
Reiply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor Dougilas (letter, dated
19-10-1861, 236-237.
Education :
Dominion Government has established vocational training schools for the Indians, 19.
Witness Paul! claims that major portion of government expenditure on Indians in B.C.,
did not go for schools and education, 25.
Indians contributed their own tribal funds to maintain the schools,, 25.
Figures given of amount spent for the education of Indians in B.C., 1920-1926. Agri
cultural .training., 158-159.
Federal government teach Indians how to cultivate orchards and supply them with the
necessary equipment, 185.
Government schools are of material assistance to the Indians but the benefits are not
fully appreciated by them, 186-187.
Very hard to keep Indian children at school after the} reach the age of 15 years, 188-189.
Executive Committee, Allied Indian Tribes of B.C.:
Organization and membership of Committee in 1916, its purpose, additional members
in 1922, 24-26, 74-75, 175-176, 137-138.
Exhibits :
No. 1. Memorandum re appointment of Arthur E. O Meara as General Counsel for the
Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, dated 20-1-22. filed by Mr. O Meara, 113.
No. 2 Copy of circular letter to all tribes comprising the Alliance in which the authority
of the General Counsel of the Alliance is specifically confirmed, dated 2-12-26, filed
by (Mr. O Meara, 1 14-115.
No. 3. Statement comprising introductory notes for the Parliament of Canada prepared
by the general counsel of Allied Indian Tribes, read into the record by Mr. O Meara,
81-82.
No. 4. List of Indian Tribes comprising the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia,
filed by Andrew Paull. 175-17C.
No. 5. Names of Indian Chiefs and their reserves of the Interior of British Columbia
represented by Chief Jotmny Chilliihitza, hereditary chief o f the Okanagan tribes,
filed by A. D" Maclntyre, 176.
No. 6. Copy of deed of sale and agreement of sale by Saanich Tribe to Hudson s Bay
Company, dated 6-2-1852, filed by Rev. P. R. Kelly, 240-241.
No. 7. Copy of a letter from the Minister of Justice to the Minister of the Interior re
Petition of the Nishga Indians of B.C., dated 17-12-13. filed by Rev. P. R. Kelly,
241-242.
No. 8. Copy of circular letter to Allied Indian Tribes of B.C.. from the executive of the
Tribes, re claims against the government, dated 12-9-23, filed by Mr. A. D. Mac-
dntyre, 242-244.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 253
Expenditure, by the Dominion Government:
Reference to educational and other financial assistance to ihe Indians by the Federal
Government, 10, 15-19, 25, 158-159, 185-187.
Exploring or Mining Rights:
References to, in the course of evidence given, 146-147.
Farming :
References to, need for further irrigation, etc., 89, 139-141, 143, 146, 182-187, 232-236.
Federal Government, Help to Indians, etc. (See Education) :
A total of $10,800,300.37 has been expended by the Federal government on the Indians of
B.C. since Confederation, 10.
Fishing :
Reference to, in the course of evidence given fishing rights ignored and no compensa
tion paid, 89, 124-130, 143-144, 232-236.
Additional fishing rights for tribes, 146.
Indians claim they should have unrestricted rights to fish, 139-141.
Indians should have no complaint re treatment by Government, 179.
Indians claim fishing rights greatly reduced since 1922. They find it difficult to obtain
risk for food, 174-175, 179-180.
Out of 11.759 fishing licenses granted in B.C., Indians received 3,352 while there are
large numbers of Indian women who fish but who have no license, 190.
Fishery protection is very important, Indians do not respect protection regulations. Gov
ernment tries to assist Indians to obtain fish for food, etc., 190-192, 195-201.
Spearing not permitted in certain sections, and law breakers severely dealt with, 192.
Indians must get preference when drag seining is carried out near an Indian reserve,
194.
Federal Government is not in a position to grant exclusive fishing rights to Indians or
whites m tidal waters, 194.
It is impossible to allocate certain fishing areas for use of the Indians solely, 194-196.
The present regulations do not differentiate between Indians and whites in respect to
seining licenses for salmon and herring, 197.
Indians should not be allowed to fish during the spawning season although they ask that
they be allowed to fish at all times, 199-200.
Indian.? must realize that all fishing must be done according to law and that the regula
tions must be observed, 202.
Fishing, Commercial (See also Fishing) :
Indians should have no complaint insofar as fishing for commercial purposes is concerned
as foreign competitors have been eliminated, 179.
Foreshore Rights, Fishing, Etc. :
Reference to, in the course of evidence given, 89, 108-4 12, 126, 194. 232-236.
Franchise :
Witness Chillihitza claims Indians do not want franchise, 142.
Funds, Tribal :
Indian^ contributed own funds to assist in keeping up government schools, hospitals, etc.,
215.
Grievances of the Indians of British Columbia:
Two main grievances: inadequate areas of land and aboriginal title of Indians to lands,
a fundamental issue as between lands reserved, and lands not reserved for the use
of the Indians, 146-150.
Hunting Rights:
Hunting rights ignored. Greater privileges and more areas to be allowed for hunting for
food and commercial purposes, 89, 124-125, 128-129, 139-141, 143-144, 146, 232-236.
Indian Affairs, Deputy Superintendent General of:
Historical statement on the British Columbia Indian question read into the record, 3-25.
Memorandum of 1924, conceding that the Indian title had never been extinguished
argument follows, 148-9.
254 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Indian Chiefs, Various:
References to, in the course of evidence given
Johnnie Chillihitza, 25. 137, 138, 139, 181, 187.
Joe Capila.no, 102, 133.
Narcisse Batisse, 137.
George Batisse. 138.
Basil David, 137. 207.
Thomas Adolphe, 138.
Stephen Retachet, 138.
(See also at p. 175).
Indian Tribes of British Columbia, Various:
References to, in the course of evidence given
The Haidas, 152, 157.
The Saanich, 74, 102, 129, 177, 178.
The Tsimpaians, 157.
The Nishga, 12, 13, 75.
The Squamish, 24.
The Okanagan. 74. 184.
The Lillooet, 74.
The Chikbttens, 74.
The Songhees. 74.
The Sooke, 74.
The Shuswap, 146.
Indian Tribes, B.C., Executive Committee of Allied:
Organization, and membership of Committee in 1916, its purpose, additional members
in 1922, 24-25, 74-75, 137-138, 175-176.
Indian Reserves:
References to, in the course of evidence given
Indians do not want reserves broken up, 142, 145.
Wi ne.- s Paulil. claims that discrimination is shown in the allotment of reserves, 103-
106. 117, 135.
Indian reserves increased from 47,058 acres in 1912 to 87.292 acres at present time,
but with decreased value, 122, 131.
Acreage of, 122.
Xo protection for Indians in the sale of reserves, 123.
Foreshore and other rights, 123-129, 130.
Witness Paul! -claims that Capilano Reserve was never surrendered, 131.
The Squilax Reserve, Indians do not want a certain white man to live on this
reserve, 145.
Witness Maclntyre claims Indians of the Interior have not sufficient reserves. 139-141.
Irrigation, Water for:
Indians should be compensated for loss of water being diverted for irrigation purposes,
89, 143.
In memorandum prepared by the late J. A. Teit in 1920. he stresses the need of further
assistance in irrigation owing to poor quality of reserve lands, 124-125.
Tribes oi the interior of B.C. claim they should have more water for irrigation, 139-141.
Indians of Shuswap tribe want more irrigation, 146.
Water rights not evenly distributed and preference shown to whites, 182-184, 187.
FederaJ or Provincial governments have no right to interfere with Indians aboriginal
water rights, in the opinion of Mr. A. E. O Meara, Counsel for the Tribes. 232-236.
Lands, Grazing:
References to, in the course of evidence given
Indians want more land for grazing purposes, 139-141, 142-143, 146.
Laurier, Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid:
Witness Keilly requests Justice Department to produce, for the information of the Com
mittee, copy of a memorandum on the B.C. Indian question prepared by E. L.
Xrwcombe. Deputy Minister of Justice This was refused as the Department took
the stand it was a private and confidential document. 238-239.
References to. in the course of evidence given, 11, 12, 83, 91.
Land Act of Britif h Columbia :
Disallowance of, because of contravention of the trust features of Section 109 of the
B.X.A. Act of 1867 Clause read supporting disallowance, 147-148.
CLAIMS OF THE ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES, B.C. 255
Law Reports Appeal Cases:
Part of decision re Indian rights, read by witness Kelly, 149, 161.
Licenses, Fishing, Hunting and Mining:
References to, in the course of evidence given, 139-141, 143-144 146, 179 180 160-192,
195, 197, 202, 232-236.
McKenna-McBride Agreement :
References to. in the course of evidence given. 8-15, 89, 214. By witness Paull in state
ment of James Teit, 124-125.
Section 8, re agreement as to new reserves and sale of Crown lands with .consent of the
Indians. 130.
By Witness Kelly, How agreement is understood re Indian affairs in the province,
162-164.
Statement prepared by committee appointed in 1916, contains reference to agreement
in respect to refusal of Indians to consider settlement under same, 169.
Witness O Meara claims that agreement did not destroy the land rights of the tribes, 231.
Newcombe, E. L., Former Deputy Minister of Justice:
Prepared memorandum on the B.C. Indian question for the Rt Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
238-239.
Orchards :
Government teach Indians how to cultivate orchards and supply them with spray
pumps, etc., 185.
Very hard to get the Indian to look after his orchard and in many cases neighbouring
orchards are infected by disease, etc.. which comes from the Indians trees which are
not properly cared for, 155-156.
Petitions:
Petition of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia as submitted to Parliament in
June 1926, iv-viii.
Privileges :
Indians of B.C. receive better treatment from Federal Government as they are not
self-supporting, 15-18.
Indians old privileges have diminished with the advent of the white man and civilization
95.
Indians do not appreciate all the Government is doing for them, 186.
Indians must get preference when drag seining is carried out near an Indian reserve, 194.
Procedure :
Mr. W. Beament suggests procedure Committee should follow in dealing with Indians
claims, 28-29. 75 77.
Discussion in committee as to procedure Mr. O Meara is to follow when presenting the
case for the Indians, 77-81, 85-87. 91-94.
General counsel requests permission to present constitutional argument to Committee,
149-151.
Promises, made by British Government before British Columbia entered Confederation:
Indians claim that promises made to them by representatives of the Queen and others
have not been kept by the Government, 83, 96-99, 142.
Recommendations of Special Committees. See Final Report, p. vi-xviii.
Regulation?,, Fishing, Hunting, etc. (Set Licenses) :
Reserves, or Indian Lands (Sec Indian Reserves).
Reserve Commissioners :
Refi ri iici s to, in the course of evidence given 97. 107. 119.
Approached the Haida tribe of Indians of the Queen Charlotte Island- re area of land
to be set apart, 152.
Returned Soldiers, Indian:
Witness David pleads for special .consideration for the returned soldier members of his
tribes, 146.
Twi ive members of the Cariboo Tribe served overseas, 146.
Witness Kelly states that as far as he knows the Indian returned soldier is being treated
the same as any other returned soldier, 159.
256 SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Rights, Hunting, Grazing, Fishing, etc. (See under Fishing, Hunting, Licenses, etc.).
St. Catherine s Milling Case:
Part of decision re Indian rights, read by witness Kelly, 149, 161.
Referred to, in the course of evidence given 215, 216, 235.
Schools :
Dominion Government establishing vocational training schools for Indians, 19.
Witness Paull claims Indians contributed own tribal funds to help maintain schools, 25.
Government schools are of assistance to Indians but benefits of education not fully
appreciated, 186-187.
Very hard to keep Indian children at school after they reach the age of 15 years, 1S8-1S9.
Seining, Drag:
References to, in the course of evidence given 193, 194, 197.
Spawning, Fishing wliHe:
References to, in the course of evidence given 190-192, 195, 199-200.
Spearing, Fish:
References to, in the course of evidence given 126-130, 139-141, 143, 144, 146, 179-180, 192.
Teit, James .4. :
Memorandum prepared in 1920 outlining Indians claims or rights re hunting, fishing,
etc., read into the record, 124-125.
Terms of Union (Sec Aboriginal Title and Article 13).
References to, in the course of evidence given 5, 7, 26, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 1.33-154, 219.
Training, Vocational .Sec Schools).
Treaties :
Treaty No. 6, analysis read into record by D. C. Scott, 15-16.
Treaty No. 8, analysis read into record by D. C. Scott, 17-18.
Reference made to Treaty No. 28, 172.
Procedure followed when treaties with Indians were effected before Confederation
Formalities of negotiation, etc., 153.
Treaty Monies:
Indians of B.C. never received any monies, 25, 153.
Union, Terms of (Sec Aboriginal Title and Article 13).
Waters, Tidal:
References to, in the course of evidence given 89, 126-130, 194, 196, 197, 232-236.
Waters, for Irrigation (See Irrigation).
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11