1950-06-21

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

["Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1950, I advised hon. members that there had been representations regarding the regulations covering depreciation, particularly as to some of the rates, and the limitation of the allowance for corporations to the amounts charged in their financial statements.\nI promised that careful consideration would be given to these matters, and that the government's decision would be announced in due course. I am now glad to be able to advise hon. members that certain revisions have been made in the regulations, particularly in regulation 1100(4), and that these changes, which were effected by order in council, P.C. 2576 of May 23, 1950, have been published in the Canada Gazette of June 14, 1950, part II, Statutory Orders and Regulations.\nI now wish to table a copy of the statutory orders and regulations that contain the changes."]
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That items 64 to 84 inclusive of the main estimates 1950-51, approved and reported upon this day by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table copies, in English and in French, of a letter addressed to me under date of June 6 by the premier of British Columbia respecting the proposed general conference to be held in the autumn of this year, and copies of my reply under date of June 12.


INCOME TAX
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1950, I advised hon. members that there had been representations regarding the regulations covering depreciation, particularly as to some of the rates, and the limitation of the allowance for corporations to the amounts charged in their financial statements.
I promised that careful consideration would be given to these matters, and that the government's decision would be announced in due course. I am now glad to be able to advise hon. members that certain revisions have been made in the regulations, particularly in regulation 1100(4), and that these changes, which were effected by order in council, P.C. 2576 of May 23, 1950, have been published in the Canada Gazette of June 14, 1950, part II, Statutory Orders and Regulations.
I now wish to table a copy of the statutory orders and regulations that contain the changes.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Fulton:: What is the average yearly salary paid to members of the security branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Garson:: The salary paid to members of the special (security) branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police drawn from the regular strength of the force and the civil service is in accordance with normal civil service and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pay scale.



PASPEBIAC, QUE., WHARF

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Was any repair or construction work done to the wharf at Paspebiac, Bonaventure county, Quebec, during the fall of 1949?
2.	If so, were tenders called and where were they posted?
3.	What are the names of those who tendered and the amount of their respective tenders?
4.	Who was awarded the contract, and at what price?
5.	Has the work been accepted? If so, by what engineer?
6.	Has the work been paid for in full? If so, on what date?
7.	Were any extras granted over and above the contract price?
8.	If so, in what amount and to whom?
9.	Who supervised the work?
10.	What was the unit price for each item of the contract?


Alphonse Fournier: [DOT]
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes, but not posted; (b) tenders invited from local contractors.
3.	Arthur Bujold, $27,058.30; J. Romeo Allard, $28,375.50. (Tender was also asked from Mr. Julien Cavanagh, but he did not submit a price).
4.	Arthur Bujold, $27,058.30.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) Robert Blais, chief engineer.
6.	(a) Yes; (b) final payment made on January 21, 1950.
7.	Yes, for additional work.
8.	(a) $8,421.74; (b) Arthur Bujold.

Questions
9.	Alphonse Bellavance (staff engineer).
10.	Demolition, $18 per M.B.M.; Flooring, $125 per M.B.M.; Sheathing, $130 per M.B.M.; Floor joists, caps, waling and wheel guards, $200 per M.B.M.; Braces, $240 per M.B.M.; Piling, $1.65 per lin. ft.



HEALTH GRANTS-HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Has the Department of Health and Welfare received requests from hospital associations asking for changes in the hospital construction grant formula?
2.	H so, how many, and what are the names of each association and the change or changes suggested by each of them?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	6.
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities:
Claimed that the present grant formula restricting federal contribution to $1,000 and $1,500 per bed, with the proviso that the grant shall not exceed one-third of the total cost, is unsuited to the needs of the province in that it requires, for full utilization of the grant, additional bed construction at an annual rate in excess of financial capacity of the province.
Recommended a more flexible formula by removing these specific references to net increase in beds and permitting the matching of provincial grants without restriction in the maximum federal contribution.
Recommended that the range of qualifying expenditures be broadened to include nurses' quarters, nurses' training facilities, laboratories, X-ray departments, and other facilities essential to modern and efficient services. Saskatchewan Urban Muncipalities Association:
Resolution passed at annual convention of Urban Municipalities Association, and forwarded to Paul Martin on October 19, 1949:
"Whereas under an order in council P.C. 3403, pertaining to the federal policy of grants to hospitals, as recommended by the Minister of National Health and Welfare under section 4B whereby grants are made for increasing the bed capacity, with no provision for auxiliary hospital buildings or replacing of buildings condemned by the provincial department of public health;
"Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of National Health and Welfare give consideration to including in order in council P.C. 3403, section 4B, grants for replacement of auxiliary hospital buildings and buildings condemned by the department of public health as outlined above, and further that the

federal government be requested to increase the grants per bed in order to meet cost of construction."
Manitoba Hospital Association:
Recommended that in cases where hospital buildings are demolished and replaced by new hospital construction, grants made under such circumstances include all beds constructed and not net bed gain only.
Requested that the possibility of setting aside some of the grant for training of hospital personnel be explored.
Recommended that grants be made for construction of additional nurses' beds on the same basis as set forth in the regulations for patients' beds, and that in the case of other facilities, grants be made on a square foot basis similar to the provision for health units.
Associated Hospitals of Alberta:
Resolution passed at the 1949 convention of the Associated Hospitals of Alberta, and forwarded to Hon. Paul Martin on November 22, 1949:
"Whereas some hospitals are discouraged from modernizing their hospitals by building auxiliary services or are loath to build to increase the number of beds when the hospital construction grants are to apply only to the net increase in the number of hospital beds;
"And whereas an increase in the number of hospital beds also means an increase in all service departments, including nurses' homes, boiler plants, etc;
"And whereas lack of adequate accommodation for nurses tends to decrease the number of nurses in training and to prevent some hospitals from getting an adequate staff of nurses;
"Therefore be it resolved that we petition the dominion government to extend hospital construction grants to all phases of general hospital construction, and particularly for nurses' home construction."
Maritime Hospital Association:
Resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Maritime Hospital Association, and forwarded to Hon. Paul Martin on September 19, 1949:
"Whereas the federal health plan aims to provide adequate hospitalization for patients requiring it, and
"Whereas it is absolutely necessary to have nurses to care for the patients hospitalized under this plan, and
"Whereas it is impossible for municipalities to pay the complete cost of erecting nurses' residences:

Questions
"Be it resolved that the Maritime Hospital Association make representation to the provincial and federal departments concerned with a view to having the present construction grants extended to include construction of any and all buildings necessary for the proper maintenance of a hospital unit and with particular reference to nurses' residences."
Canadian Hospital Council:
Recommended use of the grant for construction of accommodation for nurses in training.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have plans been made by the Canadian National Railways to purchase any rolling stock for that part of its system situated in Newfoundland?
2.	If so, for what rolling stock?


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Mail cars, 3; Baggage cars, 3; Express refrigerators, 10; Sleeping cars, 6; Automobile cars, 25; Boxcars, 60; Air dump cars, 20; Jordan spreader, 1; 50-ton locomotive crane, 1.



WAGE EARNERS AND UNEMPLOYED, 1931-49

Mr. Jones:: 1.	What was the estimated total number of wage earners in Canada, in each year from 1931 to 1949?
2.	What was the number of unemployed in Canada for each of the above years?


Mr. Mitchell:: 1.	Number of wage and salary workers in Canada for each year from 1931 to 1949:
1931		 2,573,000
1932		 2,498,000
1933		 2,398,000
1934		 2,570,000
1935		 2,518,000
1936		 2,559,000
1937		 2,680,000
1938		 2,704,000
1939		 2,724,000
1940		 2,768,000
1941		 2,817,000
1942		 3,102,000
1943		 3,237,000
1944		 3,251,000
1945		 3,206,000
1946		 3,104,000
1947		 3,233,000
1948		 3,364,000
1949		 3,496,000
The data for the years 1940 and 1942-1945 inclusive are approximations only based on "the best available information. All figures refer to June of each year.
2.	Number of unemployed in Canada for each year from 1931 to 1949:
1931		 440,000
1932	  627,000
1933	  681,000
1934	  524,000
1935	  509,000
1936	  458,000
1937	  327,000
1938	  400,000
1939	  395,000
1940	  450,000
1941	  200,000
1942	  130,000
1943	  75,000
1944	  60,000
1945	  70,000
1946	  126,000
1947	  91,000
1948	  82,000
1949	  103,000
Prior to 1940, the above data only refer to unemployed persons who usually worked for wages and salary. Thus, certain groups of unemployed persons, such as young people seeking jobs for the first time, are excluded. Figures for the years 1940 to 1945 inclusive are approximations based on the best available information. Data for the remaining years are based on a sample labour force survey conducted by the dominion bureau of statistics. All figures refer to June of each year.



MACAULAY, NICOLLS, MAITLAND BUILDING, VANCOUVER, B.C.

Mr. Green:: 1.	From what persons, firms and corporations were tenders received for alterations for various government departments in the Macaulay. Nicolls, Maitland building, Howe and Hastings streets, Vancouver, British Columbia, as called for by advertisement dated on or about May 12, 1950?
2.	To what persons, firms and corporations were blue prints and specifications of the work supplied?
3.	What were the amounts set out in the different tenders as the price for doing such work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	G. D. McLean and Associates Ltd., M. Kampferer; Dawson & Hall Ltd.
2.	Dawson & Hall Ltd., Vancouver; Jarvis Electric Co., Vancouver; M. Kampferer, Vancouver; G. D. McLean and Associates Ltd., Vancouver; Nova Electric Ltd., Vancouver; C. J. Oliver & Son, Vancouver.
3.	G. D. McLean and Associates Ltd., $21,669; M. Kampferer, $27,741; Dawson & Hall Ltd., $29,800.



ABBOTSFORD, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. Green:: 1. Has a contract been let for the construction of a post office building at Abbotsford, British
Columbia?

Questions
2.	If so, to what firm?
3.	At what price?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Allan & Viner Construction Company Limited.
3.	$102,000.



LADNER, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the government purchased a site for a post office at Ladner, British Columbia?
2.	If so, as of what date, and from whom was it purchased?
3.	What was the price of such site?
4.	Were any valuations of the site obtained prior to such purchase?
5.	If so, from whom, and what were the respective amounts thereof?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Purchase of site from Edgar C. Dunning was authorized by order in council P.C. 2583, dated June 10, 1948.
3.	$9,500.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Samuel C. Cory; (b) $10,000.



WHITE ROCK, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the government purchased a site for a post office at White Rock, British Columbia?
2.	If so, as of what date, and from whom was it purchased?
3.	What was the price of such site?
4.	Were any valuations of the site obtained prior to such purchase?
5.	H so, from whom, and what were the respective amounts thereof?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Purchase of site from James Leo Monaghan and Albert V. Gay was authorized by order in council P.C. 3133, dated June 20, 1949.
3.	$27,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) James L. Dorgan; (b) $24,000.



SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL


Mr. Herridge:: 1.	Did the purchasing agent for the Department of Veterans Affairs call for tenders for supplies for the Shaughnessy hospital, as follows (a) white soap chips; (b) yellow soap chips; (c) yellow laundry bar; (d) vegetable oil soft soap?
2.	If so, who were the successful tenderers, and at what price for each item?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Soap chips white: No order placed; (b) Soap flakes yellow: Western Soap Co., Vancouver, $4.35 per 50 lb. bag; (c) Soap, laundry yellow bar: Kavanagh Soap Co., Vancouver, $4.40 per 50 lb. case of 16 oz. bars; (d) Soft soap, vegetable oil: Kavanagh Soap Co., Vancouver, $4.85 per 50 lb. drum.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by the government for freight assistance under the feed grain policy since the act went into effect, up to and including the year 1949?
2.	What is the total amount paid by the government under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act since the act was proclaimed, up to and including the calendar year 1949?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	$134,789,677.37.
2. Gross payments	 $116,953,380.21
Less collection of 1 per
cent levy	 44,999,688.40
Net	 $ 71,953,691.81



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Pouliol:: 1.	In what newspapers of the province of Quebec has the government given notice, since January 1, 1949, of the redemption of bonds, debentures and other securities before maturity?
2.	What other means did the government use for giving such notice?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Green:: For a copy of any and all valuations obtained by the government on the Alvin building in Vancouver, British Columbia.



BONAVENTURE, QUE., FISHERMEN'S WHARF

Mr. Couriemanche:: For a copy of the specifications in connection with the contract, in the amount of $15,306.50, awarded to Messrs. Fortunat Bernard & Arthur Bujold, in 1949, for the extension of the fishermen's wharf at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec.


Henri Courtemanche: For a return showing a copy of payrolls and lists of materials used in connection with the repair work done to the fishermen's wharf at Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during the month of April or May. 1950.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lennard:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged, during the past four years, between Mrs. Olive I. Henderson, 172 Julian avenue, Hamilton, Ontario, and the unemployment insurance commission and the civil service commission, as well as all correspondence exchanged between the civil service commission and the unemployment insurance commission, during the same period, relative to Mrs Olive I. Henderson.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the national film board, to define more clearly the purposes and powers of the board: and to provide, inter alia, that the board may acquire personal property, patents and copyrights, and enter into contracts for personal services for any purpose necessary for the production, distribution, projection or exhibition of films pursuant to this act; to authorize the governor in council to appoint and determine the salary of a government film commissioner to be the chief executive officer of the board; to provide for the appointment, promotion and salaries of persons to fill positions under the board, and to provide further for the establishment of an account to be known as the national film board operating account and that expenditures made by the board from moneys in the consolidated revenue fund shall not at any time exceed the amount of receipts shown in the account by more than seven hundred thousand dollars or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the treasury board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the rising consciousness in the United States, and in Canada as well, of the importance of civilian defence, is it the intention of the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces to discuss this matter at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The dominion-provincial conference is a conference upon general topics, and I would imagine that we would be discussing
Trust Companies Act
all the responsibilities of the several levels of government, and the way in which these responsibilities can be met within the tax dollar.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 307, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Organization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This bill, as in the case of the insurance bills, was referred to the banking and commerce committee for detailed examination. The provisions of the bill were approved by the superintendent of insurance. Although I am not a member of the banking and commerce committee, I understand that these provisions received careful consideration there. The amendments are analogous to those made to the insurance act, to provide for some amendments in the investment powers of the bill, and I think they should prove satisfactory to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 308, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Organization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A similar procedure was followed with respect to this bill. It was referred to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. Adamson:: The minister is not a member of the banking and commerce committee. That is unusual, because his predecessor was always a member of that committee, was he not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speaking from memory I cannot say, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he was. Of course if it became necessary for me to be

Loan Companies Act
on the banking and commerce committee, it could always be arranged. One of my parliamentary assistants is on the committee. Because there are so many other calls on my time, up to the present it has not been necessary for me to serve on the committee.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Just a matter of convenience for the minister?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The former minister of finance was a member of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-President, vice-president, chairman of board.
Mr. Knight:: I should like to make a general remark or two with respect to some of the methods employed by those who lend money in small amounts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Before my friend goes on, may I raise a point of order? This bill does not relate to what are commonly known as small loan companies. It affects only five companies, incorporated under this dominion act, which are under the supervision of the superintendent of insurance. The companies to which this bill relates are not engaged in the small loan business. Their distinguishing characteristic is that they are empowered to , lend on mortgages.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It happens that the remarks I wish to make apply to companies which are lending money on mortgages. With the permission of the committee I shall proceed for five minutes to develop this subject.
The first point I would make has to do with the misleading advertising put out by those who are lending money. The average man in the street, particularly one who is in urgent need of $100 and cannot get it anywhere except from these people who make small loans, is not usually conversant with rates of interest in tables which would be perfectly clear to a chartered accountant. When these companies say in their advertising that they are prepared to lend, let us say, $100 to a person under certain conditions, they draw up a schedule in which they say that they will lend the sum of $100 and that for this service the borrower will have to pay only the small amount of, let us say, $9 each month for 12 months. That is, if the loan was made on January 1 there would be a payment of $9 at the end of that month; then at the end of February another $9 would be payable. The innocent victim of this type of propaganda, who, I should imagine, thought he was paying eight per cent per annum, actually paid-although I have not figured it out-between twelve and fifteen per cent per annum.

My plea is that legislation should be passed to prevent people from misleading the public in that way. In other words, to put it briefly, when these people advertise that they have money to lend on that basis, they should be made to state clearly in their advertising the amount of interest per cent per annum- note, not just the rate of payment per month, but the interest in terms of percentage per annum.
The second matter to which I should like to refer has reference to money lent on a mortgage, and what I shall say arises from a grievance stated by one of my own constituents. I have looked into the matter and I have found that this grievance represents a fairly general practice. I shall not mention any names, although I am tempted to do so- and I shall do so if the practice continues in my own home town of Saskatoon, from which this complaint came.
This has reference to the borrowing of money for the purchase of a house. In this instance the house was purchased from a perfectly respectable firm, the Toronto General Trust Corporation-and I have nothing to say against them. This lady's lease was expiring, and in a month or so she would have been put out in the street. She went to one of these combined real estate and lending agencies. She had in her possession $2,000 to put down as a cash payment on the purchase of a house, and applied to these agencies for $3,500, the balance of the purchase price, making the total purchase price $5,500. Her job was to get the $3,500 somehow. She could of course obtain it by offering to give a first mortgage to a company that would advance the money.
With that in mind she made a tour of the various agencies in the city. The agency with which she finally did business consented to put up the money and-note this- demanded a bonus of $500 for so doing. So the situation came about that this lady signed a mortgage in favour of that agency for $4,000, on which she pays what I am told is the customary rate of six per cent interest for such a transaction.
She has in her possession a statement signed by a responsible officer of the agency dated March 25, 1948, in the following words:
Purchase price at $5,500, plus bonus of $500; total

She informed me that another agency asked her for a bonus of $700 for similar accommodation. In my view that is a public scandal. Here was a woman who borrowed $3,500 for a perfectly legitimate purpose. I shall be told of course that whether she should sign the mortgage or not was a matter

within her own discretion. But her circumstances, the fact that her lease was expiring, and the further fact that she made her living by keeping boarders, simply meant that she had to sign that mortgage for $4,000 in order to obtain the $3,500. It might be added that her husband is an invalid. The result is that today that woman is paying interest on $4,000 at six per cent. She obtained from the company $3,500, but in addition to paying six per cent on that amount, she is paying six per cent on an additional $500 she never received.
She holds a letter dated April 7 from this same agency in Saskatoon. This appears to be the final word in the matter of closing the transaction-as I shall now close my remarks. This letter states:
The property Is now standing in your name, subject to a mortgage of $4,000 repayable monthly including principal, interest and taxes.


Mr. Fair:: What company pulled a steal like that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I say people like this should be exposed, and legislation should be passed by the House of Commons to protect innocent victims from such robbery.


An hon. Member:: What is the name of the company?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall give it. This whole transaction has to do with Saskatoon Agencies Limited. It is registered under that name as a company engaged in handling real estate and lending money to victims such as the one I have mentioned. I have mentioned the name of this company because it was concerned with this particular transaction, but there are others.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Chairman, both the points raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon have nothing to do with the companies concerned in this present piece of legislation. No one will decry more than I an instance such as the one last described; but let us always remember that when a person seeks a loan on real estate the amount borrowed must be kept in mind. Many years ago I had a good deal to do with the lending of money on mortgages. I spent my first year as a law student writing out mortgages by hand-they did not allow us to type them in those days. It was felt then that fifty per cent was a safe lendable value. The view was that to that extent, a loan could be made with reasonable safety but that anything over that amount-and in the instance referred to by the hon. member it was a great deal more-involved taking a much greater risk and must bring a greater return. I will go so far as to say that charge might have been considered outrageous.
Loan Companies Act
It is very easy to rail against lending companies and insurance companies. But having had a long experience with many of them I know there are other sides to the picture. In that area of western Canada from which my hon. friend comes, insurance companies in the lending business-and I am referring to the larger and legitimate ones-did suffer tremendous losses in connection with real estate loans. Fortunately conditions improved, and if they maintained the properties they probably got their money back.
My real point is to say a word-and it is not popular from a vote-catching standpoint to say a good word for a lending company- on behalf of these companies. What I say is said in the light of my own experience. I want to commend the treatment that has been accorded to individuals by some of these loan companies. I agree that in the case of some of these little touches the interest rates charged are almost phenomenal, but that does not apply to the larger respectable loan companies in the dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 313, to amend the statute law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Agent of His Majesty.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have not read this bill, which is perhaps my fault, but I take it that it is the bill that was introduced some time ago by the Minister of Justice to provide that government corporations may sue or be sued in the ordinary courts of the country. I want again to make the plea that I have made for the last six years, that we should be able to sue the government in the same way as we are being allowed under this bill to sue a corporation which it controls. I have never heard from the Minister of Justice, or the last two ministers of justice, any real reason why the subject should not be able to sue this government-or any government; because I am not speaking from the political point of view-without the necessity of obtaining a fiat so to do.
I cannot think it means liberty, I cannot see that it is democratic, that anything of that kind should be necessary. On the last occasion the Minister of Justice told us that there was

Statute Law Amendment no necessity for this because the government had not refused a fiat. He was giving information which he had obtained from his deputy, something that he had heard, but I know that flats have been refused or have been stalled-I use the word in the most respectful sense-so that in the course of getting a fiat a person may become tired and simply let the matter drop.
I can see no legitimate reason why a subject who has been wronged by any government, provincial or otherwise, should have to get a fiat in order to seek redress. This does not apply in connection with our municipal governments. If a city truck runs over me and injures me I can issue a writ, but in most municipalities I would be required to give notice of intention to sue. I am all in favour of that, because the government has agencies in almost every municipality across Canada and I think notice should be given, as is necessary in the case of most municipalities, so that the government could get in touch with its people and have an opportunity of discussing the matter and probably reaching a settlement.
For the subject to have to ask permission to sue is out of date. Of course the thing is based on the old adage that the king can do no wrong. That is the only reason for this silly business of obtaining a flat. If the king can do no wrong, it is obvious that there is no action.
I am not going to move any amendment. As I say, I have raised this question on previous occasions and I am delighted that the minister has gone as far as he has in the direction of granting complete justice to* the subject-or the individual; the latter word is perhaps better, because he does not need to be a subject in order to sue in this country.
Why we are making two bites of the cherry is just beyond me. We should go the whole way, as I think all hon. members believe we should do, and permit the citizen to sue the crown, with the safeguard I have mentioned of giving thirty days' or even sixty days' notice, so that the government, either federal or provincial, may have plenty of time to investigate the matter and probably reach a settlement and thus avoid long and expensive litigation.
I have nothing more to say. I am simply following the course I have taken since I first came here. I can think of no reason why we should continue this antediluvian and outdated idea of insisting on a fiat before the crown can be sued.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that I thought the remarks of my hon. friend were out of order on this bill, because


of the generous treatment which was accorded the bill the other day I did not feel that I should be so discourteous or ungenerous as to raise a point of order against him. The bill is concerned with the very thing which the hon. member advocates, the abolition of the necessity of a flat in so far as crown companies are concerned.
With regard to the use of fiats in actions by individuals against His Majesty, when the estimates of the Department of Justice are before the committee I shall be glad to go into that matter at whatever length my hon. friend wishes. But with your permission, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say just a word or two by way of reply to my hon. friend in connection with this matter of securing fiats.
To listen to my hon. friend, or to read certain criticisms of the fiat system, one would think that the necessity of getting a fiat placed some great and expensive impediment in the way of people seeking justice against the crown. I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary West knows that the Petition of Right Act is a short and simple statute consisting of fourteen sections. I do not know of a judicature act in any other country that is as short and simple. It provides that where John Doe, we will say, thinks he has some kind of claim against His Majesty, he goes to his solicitor, and the solicitor draws up form A, which is set out in the Petition of Right Act. I should like to refer to form A to show how complicated and difficult-of course I am speaking ironically-it is to file; because I defy my hon. friend or any other member of the house to find a simpler form in any statute of any other country in the world.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with all that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The form is as follows: Petition of Right.
In the Exchequer Court of Canada.
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
County (or district) of (place proposed for trial) to wit:
The humble petition of-
We will say John Doe.
-showeth that (state with convenient certainty the facts on which petitioner relies as entitling him to relief).
Could anything in the English language be simpler than that? After the conclusion of the statement of facts the form continues: Conclusion
Your suppliant therefore humbly prays that (state the relief claimed).
That is the great impediment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is a statement 'of claim, and has to be drawn just as carefully.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, but not more so. When the petition is signed it is taken to the office of the Secretary of State and filed without fee. When the fiat is issued, the Secretary of State upon payment of 'the court fee of $2, will file the petition in the exchequer court, and then the case is before the court. I make these remarks to place the plain facts of this system before members of the house in order that they may judge whether this method is open to all the harsh criticisms that have been made about it from time to time.
On another occasion when my estimates are before the house I shall be glad to go into this other question which is not relevant under this measure, and draw a distinction on the one hand between this bill, which applies to crown corporations, and the retention, on the other hand of the fiat system so far as individual suits against His Majesty, the government, are concerned.
While I am on my feet, having regard to the fact that it was not necessary for me to make a statement about the principles of this bill on second reading, I think it might be desirable before we begin consideration of the individual sections for me to make a brief statement concerning the principle applicable to all such sections.
In recent years, in the preparation of government legislation to incorporate commercial crown companies, it has been the policy and the practice of the government to include in the respective statutes a provision that the corporation so created could sue and be sued in respect of obligations arising out of the business which it conducted. Examples can be given, such as the Industrial Development Bank Act, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the Government Companies Operation Act-which is a statute applying to a number of government companies, such as the Polymer Corporation; the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, and so on. Unfortunately the practice has been followed only in recent years, and there are a number of statutes of older vintage in which no such provision was included. Unfortunately also the wording of this provision in some of these more recent statutory provisions is not as uniform as it might be, and in some cases the judicial interpretation of some of these provisions has not, in our judgment, always appeared to carry out what seemed to have been the intention of parliament.
We are not adopting any new policy or principle, but in order to carry out a prin-
Statute Law Amendment ciple which has already been adopted by the government we submit the present bill to make the provision uniform for all corporations carrying on commercial business that crown corporations should be suable in the courts without a fiat. The purpose also is to remove any doubts that have arisen in connection with judicial decisions.
The bill passed through the house the other day with such rapidity-and I must thank hon. members for their generous co-operation-that it has resulted in an unintended embarrassment to me. We wanted to have the bill passed at the present session if at all possible, and have been under some pressure in its preparation in order that that object might be accomplished. We were awaiting consideration of one of the sections by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. After second reading of the bill that corporation submitted a change in wording which, after consideration, we commend to the house. I should like to refer hon. members to section 12. I choose this section merely because it deals with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, although hon. members will see that the amendments provided in all other sections are uniform with that provided in section 12.
So far as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, hon. members will see that the relevant words in section 12 of the bill read as follows:
Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the corporation may be
(a) brought or taken against the corporation, without the governor general's fiat, etc.
In the case of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-and the same may be true of some of the other corporations-contracts have been taken in the name of His Majesty as represented by the corporation. Mr. Mansur, head of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and his legal adviser, Mr. Linkletter, were inclined to think there might be some slight doubt, if the bill were left in its present form, whether the language would apply to instruments which have been taken in that manner in the name of His Majesty. Inasmuch as the whole purpose of this statute is to make this provision uniform in all these crown corporations, and to remove all doubt in connection with every one of them, we have agreed to accept the suggestion that after the word "corporation" in the third line the words "on behalf of His Majesty, whether in its name or in the name of His Majesty" should be added. Therefore I have had an amendment prepared making this language applicable to every section of the act and to every one of the corporations
3928	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment
affected by the bill, in order to make it perfectly clear that instruments taken out in the name of His Majesty through the instrumentality of any one of these corporations shall be covered, and that actions upon them can be launched in the provincial courts without securing a fiat.
There is one slight variation to this wording on page 3, in connection with the Veterans Land Act. There the word "his" instead of "its" is required to be inserted, since the corporation sole in connection with that statute is the director under the act. Therefore I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to move this amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is section 6.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That Bill 313, an act to amend the statute law, be amended by Inserting the words "on behalf of His Majesty, whether in its name or in the name of His Majesty," after
(1)	the word "Commission" in line 13 on page 1,
(2)	the word "Board" in line 25 on page 1,
(3)	the word "Council" in line 10 on page 2,
(4)	the word "Board" in line 22 on page 2,
(5)	the word "Corporation" in line 36-37 on page 2.
([DOT]) the word "Corporation" in line 22 on page 3.
(7)	the word "Board" in line 34 on page 3,
(8)	the word "Corporation" in line 46 on page 3,
(9)	the word "Board" in line 12 on page 4,
(10)	the word "Bank" in line 26 on page 4,
(11)	the word "Corporation" in line 38 on page 4,
(12)	the word "Company" in line 5 on page 5.
(13)	the word "Board" in line 17 on page 5,
(14)	the word "Corporation" in line 29 on page 5,
(15)	the word "Commission" in line 42 on page 5,
(16)	the word "Corporation" in line 7 on page 6,
(17)	and by inserting the words "on behalf of His Majesty, whether in his name or in the name of His Majesty" after the word "director" in line 7 on page 3.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Anticipating that hon. members might be agreeable to this amendment, and for greater clarity in their perusing the bill, I asked the clerk to have some copies run off with these changes indicated in every section, and if hon. members agree we might have these new copies distributed now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Knowles:: Had we not better wait until we reach section 6 before moving the amendment?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not going to delay this legislation very long. Again I want to compliment the minister on what he is trying to do by this bill, because I am very much in favour of it. But to tell me that, when we have a bill loosening certain procedure, I am out of order when I say the bill does not go far enough, surely cannot be
fMr. Garson.]
correct. Here we are providing that in connection with certain crown corporations a certain procedure shall apply and the necessity for a fiat is removed. We are dealing with the matter of a fiat; that is the substance of the bill, and all I was advocating was that we should go further with the abolition of the fiat and do away with it in connection with actions against His Majesty. I am not asking for a ruling; I am not going to move an amendment, but I did ask why the minister thought the fiat should be retained, and, with great respect, he has not answered. He says he will do so on the estimates, and with that I content myself. If you move that $1,000 should be devoted to a certain purpose, surely an amendment can be moved to increase or decrease that amount. That was what I was suggesting here, though this does not deal with dollars. I was only saying that the abolition of the fiat, which is dealt with specifically in this bill, should be extended, and I submit that what I said was entirely in order under our rules.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive as amended agreed to.
On section 6 as amended-Proceedings by and against the director.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Is this amendment simply for greater caution, greater safety?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is correct. Perhaps if I read it slowly as it will read after the amendment has been inserted, hon. members will be able to follow it.
Actions, suits or other legal proceedings in respect of any right or obligation acquired or incurred by the director on behalf of His Majesty, whether in his name -
That is the director's name.
-or in the name of His Majesty, may be
(a)	brought or taken against the director, without the governor general's fiat, or
(b)	brought or taken by the director, in the name of the director in any court that would have jurisdiction if the director were not an agent of His Majesty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this case, then, you are
asking to amend further the amended section as it is now printed? The reprint as we have it before us contains the word "its".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is a typographical error. The document the hon. member has in his hands has no significance; it was merely printed for the convenience of hon. members. That word will appear as "his" in the corrected draft of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill in the hands of the
clerk contains the word "his"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, because the motion my
colleague moved contains the word "his". There is separate provision for that. The difficulty is that in all the other sections corporations are involved. In section 6 it is also a corporation, but what they call in law a corporation sole, because it is the director of the Veterans Land Act and in reference to him one has to use the word "his" instead of "its".
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 17 inclusive as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Judges Act, 1946, by making provision for the salary of one additional judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; the salary of one additional county and district court judge for the province of Ontario; the salaries of district court judges of the province of Newfoundland, and for increased travelling allowances to judges of a superior or county court or district judges in admiralty of the exchequer court attending at any place other than that at which or in the immediate vicinity of which they are by law obliged to reside.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am trying hard to keep up with what is going on. What is the substance of this resolution? Probably it has been explained and I have forgotten.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the annual group of amendments to the Judges Act, to take care, for the most part, of new vacancies which have been created by provincial legislative action. It affects British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland. It also provides for a small increase in the judges' per diem expenses.


Arthur Leroy Smith: These are routine and are asked for? They have provincial legislation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. As my hon. friend knows, the provincial courts are created by provincial legislation. They have to create these vacancies. We are now taking authority to fill the vacancies which they have created.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That has been done?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. We cannot make the appointments until this bill goes through.
Judges Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: I mean, they have created the vacancies?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And you are
now merely routining them through.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have not only satisfied ourselves that they have created the vacancies, but we have satisfied ourselves, by securing statistics, that there was need for their being created.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this is the only explanation we are to have from the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: We are only on the resolution. What more do you want?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion is that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon this resolution. When the house goes into committee, questions may be asked of the minister. It is not in order to ask questions at this time.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
you a question, Mr. Speaker? Is it in order to debate this matter now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: should like to make some observations on this resolution, since the minister has not given much enlightenment to hon. members on the part of it that deals with the appointment of judges to the district courts and the salaries for these judges in Newfoundland.
I am glad that the minister has introduced the resolution, but I cannot help wondering why he waited fifteen months to bring it in. The act of union was passed and union was consummated on April 1, 1949. We are in June, 1950, and it is only now that he is bringing in this resolution. I cannot help contrasting his tardiness with the energy and zeal displayed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who, according to his own report, took every precaution, beginning in the autumn of 1948, to see that family allowance cheques would go to Newfoundland as soon as they could be issued after April 1, 1949.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: It was before the election.


William Joseph Browne: Before the election, of course; and that every old age pensioner would receive an old age pension cheque as soon as the department could manage to get the cheque to him. Their offices were set up and everything went in


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Judges Act


Alphonse Fournier: This is just too much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is perfectly parliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not interrupt the hon. member, but I doubt whether his remarks are in order at this time.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, they are correct.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is personally interested in the matter, and for that reason I did not interrupt him. If he will be brief, I shall allow him to continue with the consent of the house.


William Joseph Browne: I shall deal briefly with the proceedings following that. The next day the premier went into the riding, and in five places he slandered me and intimidated the people by saying that if they voted for me, no public money would be spent in the district.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: I took proceedings against him, abortive proceedings, which have not yet been concluded and which perhaps may now never be concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If proceedings are now pending I do not think the hon. member should continue.


William Joseph Browne: I should
like to refer to the facts, however. By an accident there was a minister of finance in Newfoundland who was not contesting the election, and when he heard of the matter he was very indignant and paid me the salary which in the ordinary course I would have received; it was at the rate of $5,000 a year. The salary to be voted was the same as the district court judges will receive under federal law, namely, $6,666.66. I have not made any claim for that, but I feel I should draw attention to the injustice that was done. I am not making any complaint, even against the Minister of Justice, at the present time, but I do feel that an injustice was done, whether consciously or not. Hon. members will realize that it is embarrassing and painful for me to bring this matter up. I have not brought it up until now. The reason I am doing it now is that I fear another injustice is going to be done to men most qualified, in my opinion, by training and experience, to be appointed judges in St. John's.
I hold in my hand the new act dealing with the district courts in Newfoundland. The men to whom I refer are the men who served with me. There are two of them. It would be an injustice if these men were penalized, and some defeated candidate, merely because he was a supporter of the Liberal party, should be appointed to these vacancies. As

Judges Act
I say, I hold in my hand the act respecting district courts. It seems that it is now going to cost the dominion government a lot of money because there are to be seven district courts instead of one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Five.


William Joseph Browne: Seven,
according to this act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look
at the bill before him, he will see that it provides for five.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have not the bill here.


Alphonse Fournier: Let the resolution
pass and you will get the bill.


William Joseph Browne: I have the act respecting district courts. It says:
Unless otherwise provided by the lieutenant governor in council, Newfoundland is for the purposes of this act divided into seven judicial districts the names and boundaries of which shall be those set out in the schedules to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
There shall be in and for every judicial district a court of record to be called a district court of the judicial district of (naming the district).
There are seven districts. The English seems to be plain that there are to be seven district courts. They may fill only five of the seven. They may not have enough lawyers to fill the seven, because the majority of the lawyers were not in favour of the present system in Newfoundland, nor were they in favour of confederation.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the resolution. The resolution provides for the salary of the district court judges in the province of Newfoundland. I do not think at this time he should refer to appointments that are likely to be made.


William Joseph Browne: I hold in
my hand a copy of the British North America Act. The two things seem to go together. Section 96 says:
The governor general shall appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in each province . . .
Section 100 says:
The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the judges of the superior, district, and county courts . . . shall be fixed and provided by the parliament of Canada.
Section 100 is carried into section 30 of the act of union, and the two go together. This government is going to make the appointments. and this is the only opportunity that is given to me to make recommendations to the government for consideration when they are making the appointments. I claim, Mr. Speaker, to know as much as, if not more
(Mr. Browne (St. John's West) .1
than, any other member of this house about this particular subject. I am not very familiar with most of the legislation coming before the House of Commons, but I suggest I am familiar with this subject. May I say the custom was in Newfoundland that when any magistrate was appointed he was sent to me for training.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Congratulations.


Mr. Kent:: I was not sent to you for training.


William Joseph Browne: I exclude, of course, lawyers. They did not need that training. I am referring to laymen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the hon. member has said is no doubt true, but I do not see its relationship to the resolution. No doubt he will have other opportunities to make representations on behalf of certain individuals he may know and whom he would like to see appointed to the bench. However, I do not think it is in order to make those representations at this time. This resolution deals only with the salaries of district court judges in Newfoundland and other places.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just their salaries, not their training.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to correct the last statement I made. I was referring to magistrates, who were not lawyers, who were sent to me. Those who did not have training as lawyers were sent to my court in the beginning to see how things were done. Several of them served under me, and I am sure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Kent) is familiar with that fact.
I appreciate the distinction made by Mr. Speaker, and I presume another opportunity will be afforded to discuss this matter. However, I have been forced to resign my position, and I shall have to work in these courts. I look forward to as good a practice as I had before I took on the job of judge, and that is why I am so much concerned about it. I would ask the Minister of Justice to consider carefully getting the best possible appointees when he is making these appointments.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations to make about this resolution. I am not a lawyer; I am an ordinary layman, and I represent most of the common people in my riding. I believe there is nothing wrong in the appointment of a judge where population has increased. But in my view we have reached the time when we must start chopping from the top, not from the bottom.

Judges Act
I have no doubt that last year a number of applications were made to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) for an increase in salary. Knowing the Minister of Justice as I do, and in view of the fact that he came from Manitoba and began his work in a small district, I do not believe he favours any one class. At the same time, when representations have been made to him for increases at the top they have been readily obtained.
At this time most of the producers in this country are being asked to take lower prices for their products. It was stated by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) that judges received huge increases in salaries last year. Therefore I cannot see why men who are drawing salaries as large as that of the Prime Minister would be entitled to anything of that kind.
When one stops to consider that there are 365 days in the year, and that from that one must take fifty-two Sundays, and the fact that the judges are allowed thirty days' holiday with pay, and figure out the over-all rate of salary, he finds that it works out at a guaranteed salary of about $65 a day until the age of seventy, at which time there is retirement at a rate of two-thirds of the salary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that the resolution makes no provision for increases in the salaries of judges. I would point out further that the resolution does not affect the courts in Manitoba. Perhaps in view of those observations the hon. member would be prepared to reserve his remarks until a later occasion.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I knew that; I was referring to supreme court judges. I must say that in my own heart I feel this is not the time to increase travelling expenses.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss at length the merits of the resolution as it stands. I wish merely to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that there seems to be a serious omission in the resolution as it is worded.
I had hoped that when this measure was brought in it would include provision for the salary of an additional judge in the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta. As the minister knows, the population of that province has increased tremendously in the past two or three years, with the result that supreme court judges are very much overworked. As a matter of fact the situation is such that the judges in Alberta cannot take care of the cases on the list. Particularly is (hat true in the trial division, where many cases have to be postponed for months before
they come to trial. Would the minister consider appointing another judge to the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it clear, as implied by Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not provide for any salary increases or any changes in the pension arrangements of judges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Solon Earl Low: Would the minister comment on what I said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. Our practice in connection with the filling of new vacancies created by a province is that we feel a responsibility to the House of Commons not to fill a vacancy of that kind until it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to do so.
With respect to the vacancy in Alberta, to which the hon. member has referred, I believe that in that province an act has been passed creating the vacancy, and that such act is to be brought into effect by proclamation. Representations have been made to us by various bar associations in Alberta and by certain members of the courts there, as well as by the attorney general of the province. In accordance with our usual custom, we have asked the attorney general to supply us with statistics showing the volume of litigation and indicating whether any congestion such as that described by the hon. member is due to the fact that there has been a large increase in volume of litigation or whether it is merely because of maldistribution of cases among the judges, so that some of them have far too much work while others do not have very much. I am speaking from memory now, but some time in March or April my deputy and I both wrote in that connection, but we have not yet been given the information. Not long ago, in the absence of that information, I telephoned to the attorney general of Alberta and asked him whether it would be possible to get this matter finalized so that provision could be made in this bill to take care of a vacancy in Alberta if one needed to be filled. He suggested that he was getting this information for me, but that it had not as yet been assembled. He said that the legislature of Alberta had provided for an increase in the jurisdiction of the district courts so that those courts would be able to handle some of the work now being done by the superior courts. When this arrangement has been completed we will look at the problem with a view to bringing down, if necessary, an amendment next session authorizing us to fill a vacancy in the trial division of the superior court.

Judges Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: The resolution provides for increased travelling allowances to judges of a superior or county court or district judges in admiralty of the exchequer court. I was under the impression that travelling allowances were provided for each year in the estimates. Is there to be a change in the practice of providing for these travelling ailowances? Will they now be incorporated in the statute?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friend is referring to is the amount that is required to meet these expenses, but the rate per day is a statutory provision, and in order to increase it we have to have an amendment to the statute. The increase is not large, and should not attract any great amount of criticism. It is simply to take care of the additional expenses which a judge has to pay for hotel accommodation, and so on.


William Joseph Browne: Is the Minister of Justice going to take advantage of this opportunity to explain why he has waited so long to introduce this resolution so far as Newfoundland is concerned?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is not much of an analogy, if I may say so with deference, between the provision for family allowances and the provision for new judges in the bill we are now considering. Once Newfoundland became a member province of the federation the federal law having to do with family allowances became immediately applicable to that province and the payment of those allowances could be commenced right away. I think I have explained two or three times in the course of this debate that we can only fill judicial vacancies which are created by provincial legislative action.


William Joseph Browne: This has to do with salaries, not vacancies.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The British North America Act provides that the provincial legislature shall create the provincial courts, and this is a provincial court. We could not take any steps to fill a vacancy in Newfoundland until there had first been a legislative enactment of the new province of Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: There was no vacancy on April 1, 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It was impossible at the last session of parliament to bring down a bill of this sort. Rather than inflict several amendments to the Judges Act upon the house during a session, as a rule we try to gather together all the provisions that are required and bring them down in one bill. In the case of Alberta these negotiations were going on for some time-


William Joseph Browne: Stick to Newfoundland; never mind Alberta.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as Newfoundland is concerned there was no hardship created by the fact that these vacancies are not being filled, because the existing Newfoundland courts are functioning at the moment.


William Joseph Browne: They were functioning in April, 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As soon as this bill passes we shall be in position to fill the new vacancies which have been created, as my hon. friend correctly says, by the Newfoundland act of last December. Then the newly appointed group of judges will take over and from that time on will exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by the new provincial act.


William Joseph Browne: That
plausible explanation is not good enough. It is a weak and miserable explanation. What I drew to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and what he ought to know, is that there was a district court act in effect on April 1, 1949 and that a resolution of this kind was drafted by Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice, and withdrawn, I presume on the minister's instructions. A resolution was prepared for judges of the central district court and the right to pay his salary, as was provided for in the terms of union and in the documents submitted to the Newfoundland convention. Why was the position of judge of the central district court dropped from that resolution? That is what I want an explanation of and it has not been given.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Joseph Browne: Justice is just as important as national health and welfare. Whether it is a judge who is suffering or some other individual, justice should be done. The minister is entrusted with a responsible position, and I am asking him why that resolution was altered.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should be delighted to help my hon. friend if I possibly could, but I am sorry I have no personal knowledge whatever of the matter he is referring to. I shall be delighted to take it up with my deputy, and either give the hon. member privately the information he is seeking, or bring it before the house, if he so wishes. I think I should point out that he is not quite correct when he says that the district court act was in effect in April, 1949.


William Joseph Browne: On a point of order, I did not say that this district court act was in effect, because it was passed only

in December, 1949; but there was an act passed in 1869 which was still in effect in April, 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What we are discussing here is the filling of a vacancy created by the provincial legislature. What the hon. member is talking about, as of April, 1949, is not a court which was created by the province of Newfoundland. We have authority under the British North America Act only to fill vacancies in courts which have been created by the legislative action of some province. What the hon. member has been saying with regard to the situation in April, 1949, quite apart from any other qualities it may have, is completely irrelevant to the matter now under discussion.


William Joseph Browne: I submit that it is not irrelevant; it is perfectly relevant. First, there was a district court act in effect on April 1, 1949. There was a district court and there was a district court judge. There was provision in the terms of union that his salary should be paid from federal funds, and it was not done. What has the Minister of Justice to say about that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nothing.


William Joseph Browne: I want to know what he has to say about it. He is evading the question. There is no use talking about an act passed in December, 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have told my hon. friend that I have no personal knowledge of the matters that he is discussing.


William Joseph Browne: Why haven't you? It is your job.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have said that I shall be very glad to look into them, and if he wishes the matter further ventilated on the floor of the house, I shall be delighted to ventilate it for him-


Mr. Martin:: We have enough ventilation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -on the estimates of the Department of Justice. I do not think it is proper that we should be talking about a totally different court that was functioning in April, 1949, on a resolution concerning a bill which has to do with filling vacancies in respect of a statute passed in December, 1949.


William Joseph Browne: I gave the
minister the opportunity to reply, and I think everyone will see that he has not faced the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few moments ago there
was a brief interchange between the hon. member for Kamloops and the Minister of
Judges Act
Justice as to the travelling allowances referred to in the resolution. I thought I heard the Minister of Justice say that the amount of money required for travelling allowances was included in the estimates and was voted annually. I should like to point out to him that there appears in the estimates for our information an item covering the Exchequer Court of Canada, judges' salaries, including district judges in admiralty and travelling allowances; but that item is statutory.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not vote it. The
amount is fixed. Therefore it seems to me that the question of the hon. member for Kamloops should be answered. To what extent and by what amount are travelling expenses being increased in the statute?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend is
raising the same point of order that he did on a previous occasion, namely, whether any disclosure should be made at the resolution stage of the amount of money involved in a money bill. I am certainly not going to be inveigled into a long discussion of that point on this occasion. The proposal here is to increase judges' travelling allowances by $2 per day. That is the amount. It may be improper for me to disclose it at this stage, but that is the information my hon. friend is seeking.


Mr. Coldwell:: What is the present
allowance?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The present allowance varies, depending upon whether the place of attendance is or is not a city. It is $10 if it is a city, and $6 for other places. That is the main distinction. You will see the refinements when the bill comes before the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 316, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
a second time? Next sitting of the house?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is very simple.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is very simple there is no harm in letting it stand over.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a routine bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting. Let us obey
the rules once in a while.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.

Indian Act INDIAN ACT



CONSOLIDATION AND CLARIFICATION


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 267, respecting Indians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at confederation, pursuant to section 91 of the British North America Act, Indians and lands reserved for Indians and the administration of Indian affairs, which had been under the management of the several provinces, came under control of the parliament and government of Canada. Prior to 1876 there were several acts with respect to Indians which were consolidated in that year, and since then there has been only one Indian Act and one Indian administration in Canada.
The last complete revision of the Indian Act was in 1880, a biblical life span ago, and while it has been amended from time to time, it became increasingly apparent in the light of present day conditions and the stage of development of the Indians that many provisions of the present act were outmoded and did not sufficiently provide the framework within which the needs and aspirations of our Indian population could best be met.
The scope of Indian legislation, past and present, covers many subjects, dealing as it does with practically the whole life of the people living on Indian reserves, including a number of nomadic groups scattered throughout the country, and numbering in all approximately 136,000 at the present time. Here I might mention that the popular conception that the Indians are disappearing is not correct. Actually they are increasing, and during the past decade the rate of increase has been about one and one-half per cent per year. Without taking up too much time it is only possible to touch lightly upon some of the more important subjects covered in the bill, such as band or tribal membership; the selection, purchase and management of Indian reserves; the lease and sale of resources for the benefit of the Indians; the management of Indian trust funds; the administration of estates; the education of Indian children and adults; the election of chiefs and councillors and their powers, and many other related matters.
In recent years considerable thought and study has been given to the problems of the Indians by parliament, the government and various groups, including of course the Indians themselves, throughout Canada. It will be recalled that in 1946 a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act and to report on Indian
TMr. Speaker.]
administration in general. During the sessions of 1946, 1947 and 1948 briefs were received and evidence heard by the committee from representatives of Indian organizations and bands, departmental officials, and other groups and individuals interested in the welfare of the Indians.
I should like to compliment the committee on the fulness of the examination, the wide range and diversity of views and outlook which received attention, and the constructiveness of the recommendations made. The recommendations of the committee, together with the voluminous record of evidence and briefs, have been of great value in the preparation of this bill to give effeot to the changes considered necessary to meet the needs of Indians today. If the house will permit me, I should like to mention particularly the joint chairmen, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and the Hon. William H. Taylor, who, representing the Senate, succeeded the late Hon. J. Fred Johnston; and the late John R. MacNicol, all of whom made the Indians' case their own.
In considering the whole question of Indian legislation it must be remembered that there are a great many Indian tribes widely scattered throughout Canada, speaking different languages, all differing in racial and cultural backgrounds, and in various stages of economic and social development.
In view of these varied and diverse Indian interests, a comprehensive Indian Act has to be broad enough to accommodate the different Indian groups and communities. It was thought therefore that it would be only fair to give the Indians an opportunity to consider the bill, before its enactment into law, as intimated by the Prime Minister on May 5. This has been done, and the representations that have been received from Indian organizations and bands have been given very careful consideration by the government. May I also interject that we are continuing to receive representations, and no doubt will continue to receive them after the bill is passed. I want to assure the house that all these representations will be brought to its attention next session so that any appropriate amendments may be made.
One of the most difficult problems with which Indian administration has been faced is that of determining who is and who is not an Indian. This is a matter in which the Indians themselves are vitally concerned. The present definition of "Indian" has been statutory since 1876, and it was felt that it was not sufficiently clear. In order to clarify the ambiguity, the committee recommended a new definition, and also the revision of existing band membership lists. The committee also recommended that public moneys

appropriated to promote the welfare of Indians should only be spent for the benefit of persons who are legal members of an Indian band. These recommendations have been kept in mind in preparing the bill.
The definition of "Indian" is clarified and made more restrictive. Provision is made for the setting up of an Indian register, in which eventually all Indians will be recorded. Provisional membership lists for approximately eighty-five per cent of the Indian population have been received and are being scrutinized. In keeping with the committee's recommendation that only persons who are in fact Indians should live on reserves and receive moneys appropriated by parliament for the welfare of Indians, provision is made to exclude quarter-bloods born of marriages entered into after the coming into force of this act. No one of quarter-blood status at present living on a reserve would be affected; this would apply only to those children born of marriages contracted after the passing of the act upon reaching the age of twenty-one years.
It is hoped that by clarifying the definition of "Indian", setting up an Indian register and excluding those who are predominantly of non-Indian blood, many of the causes of the complaints that have been voiced by Indians over the right of certain persons to be members of a band and reside on a reserve will be removed. This act, however, will not adversely affect anyone entitled to protection under the present act, and sympathetic consideration will be given to any person whose residence on a reserve has been accepted generally by the band.
The problem of the Indian and of his land, covering as it does every province of Canada, is one of the major responsibilities of the department, and one in which the Indians themselves are vitally concerned. Provision is made in the bill for simplifying and clarifying the procedures to be adopted with respect to the management, surrender, leasing and disposal of Indian reserves and surrendered lands, and to give the Indians, through their elected band councils, greater control over the reserves upon which they reside. These provisions are based upon past experience and present conditions, and are designed to give adequate protection and also provide for the granting of certificates of possession and occupation to individual Indians. Likewise the provisions of the present act dealing with the management of Indian moneys have been simplified, and greater control given to the band council in the expenditure of band funds. The existing provisions with respect to the administration of estates have been completely revised.
Indian Act
Under the present act there are two systems of electing band councils, the one-year and three-year systems for bands in different stages of advancement. It was thought desirable to provide a uniform system of electing chiefs and councillors which would meet the general requirements of Indian bands in all areas in Canada, and by regulation to accommodate varying degrees of social, economic and political development. The bill provides for this. In keeping with the view that Indians should be given every opportunity to participate fully in local affairs and assume greater responsibilities, provision is made for extending the powers of the band council to bring them more into conformity with those ordinarily exercised by municipal authorities.
The exemption from taxation of real and personal property held by Indians on reserves has been modified so that it will not apply to the personal property of Indians ordinarily resident on reserves, other than veterans of the first and second great wars and their wives, who execute a waiver under an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938; otherwise the exemption from taxation stands as it has stood since this provision was enacted in 1876.
This provision is complementary to the amendment to the Dominion Elections Act passed by the house the day before yesterday. It leaves the matter of voting in federal elections entirely to the voluntary choice of the Indians.
It is proposed to apply this only to personal property; the real property on the reserve is held in trust by the crown and does not belong to the individual Indian, but is held for the use and benefit of the band or community as a whole, and it is felt that such property should not be taxed, as the individual Indian has only an occupational interest in the land.
It may be of interest to note that the Indian Act of 1869 was entitled "An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians." At this time it was apparently thought that Indians would become readily absorbed into the general community, and provision was made for any qualified Indian to attain full citizenship by applying for enfranchisement. Since then the way has been open for Indians who have sufficiently demonstrated their ability to maintain themselves off reserves to attain all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens of the country. The procedure is by order in council. Since yearly records were established in 1918, more than 5,000 Indians have sought and received enfranchisement.	.

Indian Act
Indians can be enfranchised either as individuals or by entire bands on their own application or in certain circumstances, and subject to adequate safeguards, on the initiative of the government.
Provision is -made for the individual Indian to be enfranchised with or without his lands. The usual practice is for the Indian to dispose of his lands to a member of the band. Where a whole band is enfranchised of course the land goes with it.
There is only one case of an entire Indian band being enfranchised, and this was in the case of the Wyandots of Anderdon in southwestern Ontario, who were enfranchised oh their own application in the 1880's. The records indicate that this experiment was a success and that the enfranchised Indians took their place in the general community without ill effects and in most cases with beneficial results. The provisions in regard to enfranchisement, while retained as to principle, have been improved for the purpose of facilitating enfranchisement for Indians.
The underlying principles of Indian legislation through the years have been protection and advancement of the Indian population. In the earlier period the main emphasis was on protection. But as the Indians become more self-reliant and capable of successfully adapting themselves to modern conditions, more emphasis is being laid on greater participation and responsibility by Indians in the conduct of their own affairs. Indeed, it may be said that ever since confederation the underlying purpose of Indian administration has been to prepare the Indians for full citizenship with the same rights and responsibilities as those enjoyed and accepted by other members of the community. This aim has not been lost sight of in the preparation of the bill.
The ultimate goal of our Indian policy is the integration of the Indians into the general life and economy of the country. It is recognized, however, that during a temporary transition period of varying length, depending upon the circumstances and stage of development of different bands, special treatment and legislation are necessary.
At the same time it is not claimed that the bill will provide an immediate solution to all the problems of the Indians. The bill is what it purports to be, a revision of the Indian Act based on an appraisal of conditions as they really are and a re-examination of the provisions of the present act in the light of these conditions, a bill which modernizes and improves existing legislation.
If one had been expecting an immediate assimilation of the Indians into all phases

of Canadian life, all that would have been needed would be to repeal the Indian Act, but so long as we have Indians requiring the assistance of the government of Canada in the conduct of their affairs, an Indian Act is necessary to give the government the required statutory authority to expend public money and to do other incidental matters.
However, we have provided for the present and future requirements of the Indian, people by such measures as old age allowances, greater facilities for education such as I detailed to the house last week, and now that the vote in federal elections has been extended to Indians, we hope that increasing numbers of them will take advantage of it and that the business of the Indians will receive additional consideration through elected members in the house representing them. Aside altogether from the desirability of having everyone in Canada vote, this will have the great advantage of leading to more widespread attention to Indian affairs and better administration.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that a bill to revise the Indian Act has finally come before parliament, but I am sorry it has come in at this time in the session, when, in my opinion, there is no time to give it the consideration which it should have. Moreover, since its introduction some two weeks ago, and its first reading-the motion today is for second reading-there has not been sufficient time for the Indians across the country to consider the provisions of the bill, to study them and to make recommendations as a result of that study.
The Indians throughout Canada, a number of us here in the house, and other persons and associations throughout Canada who have been interested in the Indians and their welfare and the improvement of their situation generally, have been pressing for several years for a revision of the Indian Act.
The minister gave something of an historical review of what has occurred in that respect during the past five or six years. In 1945 we had a full day's debate on Indian affairs as a result of a resolution I moved that the old age pension should be extended to the Indians. At the end of that day's debate the then minister, Mr. Glen, announced that a full-scale revision of the Indian Act would be undertaken, and that a committee of the house would be set up in the following session to get that work under

Indian Act
way. As a result of that undertaking a joint committee of the other place and of this house was set up in 1946. It held sessions throughout that year, and also in 1947 and in 1948. As a result of that study the committee made a draft revision of the Indian Act, and submitted that draft in 1948. That was two years ago. Apparently it has taken the government two years to revise the draft act which was submitted by the committee, and to bring in the present bill.
In view of this long delay it would seem that the government did not consider it a very urgent matter that the Indian Act should be revised. I fail to see why now, at the very end of the session, they should suddenly consider it very urgent to get this bill through without full consideration being possible, either by the Indians or by the members of this house.
At the beginning of this session it was indicated in the speech from the throne that this revision of the Indian Act was to be introduced this year. Subsequently several members of the house, including myself, urged that the bill should be introduced early in the session so that the Indians would have an opportunity to know what the provisions were, and to make recommendations in connection with them. That action was not taken. Instead of the bill being introduced at the beginning of this session, as I believe it should have been, so that there would have been ample time for all of these things to be done and for this bill, if necessary-and I this it is necesary-to be considered by a special committee of the house where detailed study could be given to its various provisions, the bill is introduced at the end of the session, when we are all rushing to get the estimates through and to finish the session before the end of this month.


An hon. Member:: By the end of this week.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Somebody says "this week". Apart from that altogether, certainly nearly everybody here is hoping that the session will close at the end of the month. That does not give the time required for proper study of this bill by this house and by the other place, and particularly it does not give the opportunity, which should be given, for Indians across the country to study the bill and make their recommendations.
In his statement this morning the minister said that the Indians had been given an opportunity to consider the bill. In my opinion a statement of that kind from the realistic point of view is a joke. It is of course no joke so far as the Indians are concerned that that position should be taken. But the bill which was given first reading 55946-249
two weeks ago was not printed until a day or two after that. I think it finally came out on the ninth or tenth of the month. Copies were then mailed out. I am sure there are many bands of Indians in this country that have not yet received copies. With regard to the particular bands to which copies were sent, I think they were mailed to the superintendents as well as to the agents. There certainly has not been a wide enough distribution of the bill or anything like sufficient time for the Indians, most of whom, as hon. members know are illiterate or semi-literate, to comprehend all of its provisions, or to send in any reasonable recommendations in connection with them.
We are now on second reading of the bill, and to the extent that second reading means approval of the general principle that the Indian Act should be revised, I think we are all in agreement. We have been pressing for that; we want the act revised. However, this particular bill-in other words, the revision which has been put before us- contains a large number of things which Indians across the country, many of us here, and other people who have been interested in the subject, do not approve. In short, this is not the bill which it was hoped would be introduced. It does not provide for many of the reforms and improvements which it was hoped would be covered by the new bill when it was introduced.
Seeing that that is the situation I hope that the government will not press second reading through to a conclusion. I hope that when we have had the debate today it will be adjourned and the matter left there and brought up immediately at the beginning of the next session; because I am convinced that it is not reasonable to push this bill through at the present session.
It seems to me that giving second reading to this bill at the present time would not only indicate that we want a revision of the Indian Act; it would indicate that this house has given approval in general to the terms of the present bill, and there are many of us here who cannot do that. Many of us who have been most anxious for a revision of the act cannot subscribe to many of the provisions of this bill. I repeat that I hope the government will not press the measure through, but will allow the matter to stand over until next year, and in the meantime hear the representations of the Indians across the country, and bring in a bill embodying a good many of the recommendations which are made. In other words, give us a more satisfactory bill. Someone says that the

Indian Act
act can be amended afterwards; but I have found that the procedure of having acts amended is always difficult.
This is the first time the act has been revised in toto since it was passed about seventy years ago. Under the circumstances I suggest that after this long period of three-quarters of a century without any major revision, we should do a thorough and complete job now, and not talk about bringing in further amendments next year or the year after to cover up deficiencies in the bill.
This is all the more necessary in view of what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on May 5 in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as to what means were to be given to the Indians to make representations in regard to the bill. At that time the Prime Minister made this statement, as reported at page 2205 of Hansard:
The department felt it had all the information required for the drafting of the legislation, and that it would be desirable that the bill be given first reading and be distributed, and then that a sufficient lapse of time be allowed so that interested chiefs and other members of their bands may see what it contains and make representations.
I draw attention particularly to the suggestion that a sufficient lapse of time after first reading be allowed so that the interested chiefs and other members of their bands might see what the bill contained, and make their representations. The plain truth is that sufficient time to do that has not been allowed. Many Indians have not seen the bill and have not been able to study it and make intelligent representations in respect to it. The Prime Minister added this:
Of course it is legislation in the interests of the Canadian nation, but more particularly for the Indians themselves. If it appeared from their reaction to the bill that they would prefer not to have it adopted at this session but rather to have further discussions with them and further consideration of the legislation, their views would be given sympathetic consideration.
I do not think there is any question that the Indians would prefer to have this bill deferred until the next session of parliament so that they can study it and make representations.
I have received a considerable number of letters and telegrams indicating that that is so. I should like to read a few excerpts from some of them to show the reaction to this bill and the evident effort to push it through hastily at this session. The first of these is a copy of a letter addressed to the minister by Mr. John Laurie, secretary of the Indian Association of Alberta, in which he says this:
We are aware that it Is pressing legislation. We are also aware that it seems to have taken almost two years to the day to frame this bill, and that

two weeks, which includes mail transit, is rather short for almost illiterate Indians to discuss, let alone comprehend, its terms.
May we, therefore, urge that we be given assurance that we shall have an extension, even if the bill must be set over for second reading until next session.
At the same time I received a letter, dated June 13, from Mr. Laurie in connection with the bill, in which he said this:
Just got a copy of bill today. Cannot possibly make decent study in two weeks.
Of course he was not allowed two weeks; he was allowed only about nine days. It continues:
Sections of this bill are straight communist dictatorship, without elements of decent respect for a human being. Sections 5 to 16 inclusive damnable, especially 12 (a) (iv).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should read letters of the kind. He is here to express his own opinion and not those of others. It is not customary to read such letters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a letter from the Indian Association of Alberta, representing practically all the Indians in that province. If there is anything which could be germane to the discussion, then I think it would be the opinion of these Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house has a bill before it for consideration. It is for hon. members to express their opinions on the bill. The members must decide whether the bill is to be enacted or not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I was attempting to establish, the Indians of this country are not satisfied that they have been able to make the representations they were led to believe by the Prime Minister they would be permitted to make. In his statement he said that if they were not satisfied the bill would not be pressed. The letters I have attempted to read indicate the reaction of the Indians to the Prime Minister's statement:
If it appeared from their reaction to the bill that they would prefer not to have it adopted at this session but rather to have further discussions with them and further consideration of the legislation, their views would be given sympathetic consideration.
I am indicating by these letters the reaction of the Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not stop the hon. member immediately, but allowed him to proceed at some considerable length. May I refer to Beauchesne's third edition, citation 265, which I have quoted on other occasions in the house, and which states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting

Indian Act
on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I must say that ever since I have been here hon. members have been reading letters in every debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is correct in that, and it was because I had that in mind that I gave him considerable leeway. But, having done so, may 1 now ask him to express his own views on the bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that I have these letters and telegrams, and so far as I can determine from them the general reaction to the bill by the Indians in Alberta is extremely hostile. According to a letter I received this morning, the only Indians who have had time to study the bill at all have been Blood Indians. The information I get is that they are highly incensed over the bill, and the general opinion among them is that more resentment has been stirred up by the apparent intention to push the bill through without hearing their representations than has arisen on any other occasion in the last fifty years.
In addition to the reaction of the Indians in Alberta, articles appearing in the press indicate that there is a considerable degree of resentment among Indians in all parts of Canada. I do not think there is any doubt that they do not want the bill to go through in its present form. They want to have an opportunity to study it and to make representations. I say we should have regard to their wishes in the matter.
I do not think there is any provision against reading a press dispatch in connection with a matter of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: That would come within the same category as the reading of letters. The citation which I read referred definitely to articles in newspapers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This does not express an opinion; it is just a straight news item.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I will allow one.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I clipped this from the
Montreal Gazette of this morning:
Sixty Indian delegates ask act's deferment.
Ottawa, June 20-Sixty delegates of the North American Indian Brotherhood-some in tribal costume-met Citizenship Minister Harris in the parliament buildings tonight to seek deferment of the new Indian act.
They placed before the minister a petition asking parliament not to enact the Indian bill "in view of the fact that many of the clauses are too detrimental to the best interests of the Indians."
The petition was adopted today in resolution form by the sixty delegates in a hastily called convention held here when the brotherhood received word
that the government had introduced the bill, product of three years of committee study of Indian affairs, in parliament.
The delegates, who will hold another session here tomorrow, came from all provinces except Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They said delegates could not come from those provinces because of western flood conditions.
What I have said and what I have been allowed to read I think indicates the attitude of the Indians. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister, and the fact that the Indians are apparently opposed to having this bill go through at the present time in its present form, I think the government, as I suggested before, should allow the debate to be adjourned and let the bill stand until next session. If the government presses through the second reading of the bill, then I think the clause by clause study should be deferred. I do not think the majority of us here have been able to give sufficient study to the bill to be in position to consider it properly in committee of the whole.
I am not going to risk being called to order again by referring to specific clauses of the bill, but I should like to say something about what is contained in the bill and to indicate some of the things which I think are wrong with it.
Sections 5 to 16 deal with the definition of Indian, and provide for the registration of Indians. I think these sections will prove particularly troublesome. They appear to indicate an arbitrary determination by legislation of the question who are Indians or who will be Indians in the future. It would exclude a considerable number of persons who have always considered themselves as Indians and who were considered by the bands to be Indians.
This brings up the whole matter of the Macdonald report which was issued in Alberta some years ago. The department undertook to remove from the reserves a considerable number of people who had been living there all their lives and who regarded themselves as Indians. Several hundred people were excluded from the reserve, and in many cases from the only life they had ever known, and from any chance of earning a livelihood. There was much complaint, and the government appointed Mr. Justice Macdonald as a royal commissioner to inquire into the whole matter and make recommendations. Mr. Justice Macdonald went up into the north country where most of these people lived and heard representations from the Indians, from departmental officials and so forth, and then submitted his recommendations. One recommendation was that the majority of the people affected be reinstated to Indian status, but the report was not acted

Indian Act
upon. A small number of these people were readmitted to Indian status, but the great majority were not.
These people consider that an injustice has been done to them and they keep bringing up the question. It was brought up before the joint committee on Indian affairs. It now appears that under these sections of the bill the whole question is to be settled arbitrarily, and these people are excluded and will continue to be excluded. It does not seem to me to be a just and reasonable way of dealing with this problem. It seems to be only one of many problems which are being settled arbitrarily and unjustly by the provisions of this bill.
Then there is a provision that persons who have received half-breed land or money-scrip, and their descendants, are to be denied Indian status. At the time of the Riel rebellion many people who were more or less pure blood Indian, or at least mixed blood; many people who were living with the Indians and for all practical purposes were Indians, took half-breed lands or money-scrip. They then sold it to unscrupulous whites for practically nothing. In many cases they were encouraged to take this scrip so that some white man could get possession of land for very little. Many of the descendants of those people now live in the Indian bands.
There has always been great difficulty in determining whether a man's grandfather or great-grandfather took the scrip, and that difficulty still exists. It was on this basis that a lot of people in northern Alberta who were dealt with in the Macdonald report have been excluded from band membership. It is apparent that the provisions of these sections would exclude from band membership a considerable number of people who have been brought up as Indians, who have lived as Indians all their lives, and who know no other way of life. These people could not be reasonably happy in any other form of life. This is a matter which needs more study and consideration.
Another provision is that the illegitimate children of male Indians shall be excluded from band membership and denied Indian status. This brings up the question of what is illegitimacy. In the past a large number of Indians have not considered it necessary to get a marriage certificate and go through a marriage ceremony according to the white man's custom and law. There has always been a large number of Indians who have married according to the old native custom, and in my opinion those marriages should be looked upon as just as legitimate as any other. It is not realistic to expect an Indian

to secure a marriage certificate as a white man would and go through a marriage ceremony, and his children should not be considered illegitimate. Whether or not that will be the effect of this bill, I do not know. Without a careful definition of illegitimacy, certainly this provision will cause a great deal of hardship among Indians and Indian children.
I should like to deal briefly with the provisions of the bill concerning liquor. As all hon. members probably know, up to the present time liquor has been completely prohibited so far as Indians are concerned. The bill prohibits the possession or consumption of liquor on reserves. Any Indian found in an intoxicated condition on a reserve is subject to fine or imprisonment. On the other hand, where bars and beverage rooms exist, Indians are allowed to enter such premises to drink liquor. What the bill actually provides is a compromise between complete prohibition and the laws governing the consumption of liquor as applied to the white population. In my opinion it is an unworkable compromise. From the practical point of view nothing but trouble will arise from it, and it will be impossible of just enforcement. So far as the Indian population is concerned, it seems to me that you must have either one thing or the other. There must be complete prohibition; otherwise Indians must be put on the same basis as white people and made subject to the same laws and penalties involved in the use of liquor.
If that is done then there should be provision in the bill to enable reserves to hold local option votes if they so desire. If the majority of Indians on a particular reserve want it to be a dry reserve, they should have the opportunity to say so. So far as I can ascertain, the majority of Indians in Alberta are against the removal of prohibition, but in other parts of the country that is not so. There are some Indians who think they should be put on the same basis as the white man, and I think there is a great deal to be said for that point of view in certain localities. As I say, the problem could be solved if Indians were put on the same basis as white men, with provision for local option votes so far as individual reserves are concerned. I am quite certain that the compromise arrangement provided in the bill will not work. In Alberta an Indian will go into a beverage room in a small town and get too much beer. As soon as he sets foot on his reserve he will be in trouble.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: How about the
Ontario cocktail bars?


Gordon Graydon: The voice of experience.

Indian Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same thing applies to cocktail bars, except that I do not think you will find a great number of Indians coming into cities of a size that have cocktail bars. They will go into the small towns that have beer parlours, and that will apply to a substantial proportion of the entire Indian population.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no provision in the bill for the establishment of a commission to settle the treaty rights of the Indians. There is no provision of any sort to satisfy the Indians so far as their claims under their treaty rights are concerned. One of the sorest points among the Indians is that in their opinion their treaty rights have not been observed. They point to the provisions of the various treaties in which they were concerned, and particularly those which gave them the power to fish and hunt at will. Of course those rights are now severely restricted by provincial hunting and fishing laws. The Indians have never had any compensation for the curtailment of their rights.
There is much doubt as to what the position really is so far as Indian rights are concerned. The practical result is that Indians are constantly being arrested for infractions of provincial game laws, whereas they believe that they have the right to hunt and fish wherever and whenever they please. That is a whole problem in itself, and one which needs to be settled. Until it is settled the Indians will continue to be dissatisfied. From the practical point of view I believe there is no question that we cannot allow the Indians to hunt and fish at any time of the year anywhere they please. Nevertheless there should be some settlement made with them for the abrogation of the rights guaranteed in their treaties.
Another section of the bill makes it illegal for any person to solicit or receive contributions from an Indian for the alleged purpose of improving his lot without the written consent of the minister. If that provision is put into effect I believe it will make it impossible for Indians to form associations. As the present time there are quite a few Indian organizations. There are the Indian Association of Alberta, the Indian Union of Saskatchewan, the Native Brotherhood, the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, and others. If the provision is passed in its present form it seems to me that Indians will not be permitted to form such organizations unless the minister is agreeable to their existence. That does not appear to be reasonable or democratic. I do not think that Indians should be limited in respect to organizations they may wish to form or to
which they may wish to belong. Of course if you are going to form an organization you must have funds to support it.
In the bill power is taken to enfranchise a particular Indian or a band of Indians against their will if, in the opinion of a committee of three appointed by the minister, it is deemed a desirable thing to do. I do not think that is reasonable. I do not think we should force enfranchisement on an Indian when it means, so far as he is concerned, the loss of certain rights and exclusion from his reserve and from medical and other benefits to which he is entitled. There is no question that this is another provision which certainly should not be passed without a great deal more study being given to it.
Over the past five or six years I believe I have been in as close touch with Indian affairs as any other member of the house. I have not had time to digest the bill and study it properly, and I am certainly not yet in a position to suggest what amendments should be made to particular sections. In addition I have not yet been able to ascertain the reactions of Indians in my own province and their recommendations as to the various provisions of the bill. I believe every other member of the house is in the same or a worse position. Therefore I once more make a plea to the government not to push through second reading of the bill, but if they do, let them not carry it beyond that stage.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that for years many hon. members of this house have looked forward to the introduction of a much more progressive, more modern and more satisfactory Indian Act than we have had on the statute book. Until the joint committee was set up in the last parliament and sat, partly as a committee and partly as a royal commission, for some three years, only twice since 1867, I believe in 1926 and 1930, had commissions or inquiries under the authority of this house gone into the conditions of Indians. I had looked forward to the introduction of the bill, but I must say that I am disappointed in it. It is not the bill we hoped for. It does not do what the joint committee, in its recommendations, hoped such a bill would do. Very reluctantly, and I mean that word, I am joining with those who are asking the minister to withhold the bill for this session.
I feel that the bill is unsatisfactory. I repeat that it does not do the things the members of the committee hoped would be done. It has some good features, but the bill does not put into effect some of the important suggestions contained in the report of that committee, which incidentally was made on June 22, 1948, exactly two years ago. I had

Indian Act
hoped that something more would be done for education than has been done in this bill. It is true that there is some advance over the provisions of the present Indian Act, but I had hoped that the advance would be much greater. I had hoped that consideration would be given to the wishes of those members of the Indian population who desired not only sectarian schools but non-sectarian schools as well. I believe an Indian should have the right to decide exactly what kind of education his child will have in that regard. It is a privilege we demand for ourselves, and I think it is a privilege the Indians should have. While I readily recognize that the provision of the bill-and I do not want to discuss the clause just now-dealing with the educational system among the Indians where agreements are reached with governments, and so on, is a considerable advance over what we have in the present act, in my opinion it does not go far enough.
Then, as was suggested by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Harkness), I believe more attention should have been paid to the recommendation of the committee as to the setting up of a commission to deal with the ancient treaties made with the Indians. That has been a very sore point with the Indian population of this country for a number of years. So far as I have been able to judge, both from the reading of our history and from documentary evidence, and indeed from some of the old treaties, those treaties have not been observed by this country. In my opinion the Indians today are entitled to a thorough investigation into what has been done with respect to their lands and their rights, with a view to the restoration of those rights, or, where restoration is impossible, proper compensation for that which has been taken from them. That, I think, was in the mind of the committee when it made its recommendations in 1948.
We were hoping, to repeat a phrase that was used at the time, that this bill would be something of a Magna Carta for our Indian population, but it falls far short of that. It is merely an amendment of the act now on the statute book. We had hoped this bill would provide in a definite, certain way for the transition of our Indian population from the position of wardship or trusteeship it now occupies in relation to us, toward the goal of complete citizenship and equality with the rest of the population. So we are disappointed with this bill.
I am not going to deal with the various clauses concerning enfranchisement and so on, because an opportunity will be given to the house to discuss them when we study the bill

in detail. However, I believe any hon. member reading the recommendations of the committee, which will be found in the Journals of this house, volume 84, 1948, at pages 647 to 652, and comparing them with the clauses of this bill, will find that the bill falls far short of what was contemplated by the committee at that time. I know that many of these matters of necessity require consultation with the provinces. I believe it was suggested in the report of the committee that matters dealing with education, health and social services, fur conservation, the development of Indian trap lines, provincial fish and game laws, provincial liquor legislation, the validity of marriages solemnized by Indians on Indian reserves according to tribal customs and ritual, all should be the subject of dominion-provincial conference. The recommendation was that these matters should be placed upon the agenda of the next dominion-provincial conference so that they could be discussed and understandings arrived at before we passed a new Indian Act. That has not been done. I know that in some instances there have been negotiations with the departments concerned, with the departments of education in some of the provinces, the departments of natural resources in others, and so on; but there is no uniform understanding between the provinces and the dominion as to what shall be done in these matters for our Indian population.
I do not propose to deal now with these matters at length. I can quite understand the government may feel that very little good would come out of any delay, so far as hearing further representations is concerned, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. I was not a member of the committee which sat for three years, but I did drop in occasionally to listen to the briefs, the representations and the evidence, and I felt there was no consensus among the Indians who appeared before that committee. It seemed to me that in all probability this house and the government would have to make up their minds from the very conflicting evidence that was submitted to the committee, and I doubt very much whether further representations would bring results which would be different from those we have already had from former representations.
But since this bill is in our opinion unsatisfactory, I think that further opportunity- since the time between the introduction of the bill and its second reading has been so short-might be given for further representations, in the hope that more success would be achieved than was the case in 1946, 1947 and 1948. But my main suggestion is not that. It is that the bill is disappointing. The bill is unsatisfactory in so many particulars and fails to

bring into effect so many of the main recommendations of the committee that I think the house and the government would be well advised to let the matter stand for this session.
One other consideration is this. The house apparently is anxious to bring this session to a close. I must say that I have not a great deal of sympathy with that consideration, even if I myself thought the house might close at the end of this week and have made certain engagements because of that belief. But I have not much sympathy with trying to rush things through. This is a bill which is exceedingly important to a large section of our Indian population, and I think that the suggestions that have been made for delay and opportunities for further discussion should be considered by the minister and a decision made to postpone its enactment this session.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I listened, Mr. Speaker, with considerable interest to the statement the minister made when the bill was first proposed for second reading. He gave a good, plausible-sounding speech that tickled the ears and really made one think that the government had accomplished something in this act. As his first highlight I notice that he said that the old act had not been suitable to the needs and the aspirations of the Indians. While I do not recall that he specifically stated that the new act met the needs and the aspirations of the Indians, he surely strongly implied that it did. The second highlight which impressed me was that he mentioned the fact that it had been the government's desire to make provision for permitting the Indians to give careful consideration to this act. And consequently the act, Mr. Speaker, was actually introduced to this house two whole solid weeks before it was brought in here for second reading! In order to give people over thousands and thousands of miles of Canada, in remote areas, a chance to read and consider it! I must admit that two weeks is almost exorbitant in the provision it makes. I wager that over five-sixths of the Indians never did see this act at all, nor their leaders, in the paltry few days that we have been allowed to have for the Indians to study the act.
The third highlight was this one:	The
Indians were to be given more control of their affairs. I had a deputation of Indians waiting on me yesterday, among whom were some of what I consider to be the most intelligent Indians in Canada. They spent a good deal of time telling me that, as far as they could gather from the act, the act had almost successfully removed all hope of effective control by the Indians of their affairs on their own reserves. Of course on reading the act and explaining it under the
Indian Act
minister's direction, probably we shall be able to see wherein he can justify his case. But I should not be a bit surprised if the Indians were right; because, after all, they have been the victims of the kind of government that Canada has given them now for over seventy years, and they recognize from afar the coming evils.
After I heard the minister's speech, I thought probably I had been deceived in connection with the act; so I went and glanced over the act again in order to make sure that I had really been concentrating on it when I had gone through it the first time. On reading this act I find that I simply cannot justify the minister's optimism by any stretch of the imagination. It is an astonishing thing to me that he should have thought that these fine things he spoke of were embodied in the act. I wonder if somebody else wrote his speech for him without his having read the act. I would not think that would be the case, but the minister is an extremely busy man.
I would say that the act is an entirely negative one. It is apparently designed to govern an inferior and subordinate people and to keep them inferior and subordinate. The first great error which has been committed in dealing with our Indians in Canada has been that of taking it for granted that the Indians were an inferior race and a subordinate race, and that we were going to keep them inferior and to keep them subordinate for nobody knows how long. I think that was a wrong point of view.
In the early days while the land was sparsely settled and people were being protected by a thin red line of mounted police over thousands of miles of area, I can understand that considerable anxiety might have filled the minds of those charged with responsibility with respect to the Indians. They might have desired to keep a fairly firm hand over the Indians; and they might have been quite justified in such a desire. I am not sure. I did not live in those days, although I must say that I came into Canada with my parents in 1892. Things were rather primitive in the area in which we settled in those days. We settled right alongside an Indian reservation. I am not sure that what was done was exactly the right thing or the wrong thing. But certainly if there ever was any cause whatsoever for looking upon the Indians as subordinate and for desiring to keep them so, that cause has now disappeared.
It should be borne in mind that the Indians were not a conquered race. They never were a conquered race in this nation. This nation made a treaty with the Indians on equal terms; and in most cases the Indians who

Indian Act
signed those treaties were perfectly worthy to look the white man straight in the eye and to meet him on equal terms. They were just as intelligent, just as skilful, just as noble, just as brave and strong, and just as effective in every single way. In most cases there never was any thought of conquering the Indians. The Indians made a treaty. The treaty money that we find the Indians obtaining throughout Canada is clear evidence that such was the concept. It is time that everybody in Canada, in his thinking and in his acting-and that the government in their thinking and acting-should go back to the time when the Indian was looked upon as an absolute equal.
When we look upon a good many of the Indians today, if we find it hard to consider them as equals, then I must say that the fault lies entirely with us; because the ancestors of the present Indians were certainly the equals of any white man that ever stepped on Canadian soil. I think there is no successful way of controverting that statement at all.
When the act is apparently a negative one and is designed to keep the Indians inferior and subordinate, that fact alone condemns it as a whole, regardless of what the individual clauses may contain of merit.
When I come to examine the act, as a member of the Indian affairs committee, I find myself deeply disappointed. I spent three years of hard work on that Indian affairs committee, as did the other earnest members who were there. To think that, after all our efforts, the sum total of our reward is this contemptible thing we have before us today makes me wonder if I do not have to struggle to keep my faith in humanity. We were told that we were going to help the Indians to help themselves. I looked into the bill, but up to the present time I am sorry to say that I have found no evidence of anything in the bill to help the Indians to help themselves beyond what we had in the old act.
We were told that we were to build a Magna Carta for the Indians. Well, I fail to find any evidence of any Magna Carta for the Indians. I may have overlooked something, and the minister will have an opportunity of pointing out what I have failed to see, but I think he will do pretty well if he can justify any such high sounding hope as that this bill would be a Magna Carta.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


John Horne Blackmore: Members of the house were saying that in the past when we were building up an act-I do not think the minister said that. I want to say this. I think personally, Mr. Speaker, that the present minister of course is completely innocent of any part
rMr. Blackmore.I
in connection with this bill. He has just come into his department. I think he is taking hold of his department and doing a good job. All the things that I am saying about the bill are no reflection on the minister. I am quite sure that if the minister had been in charge of the affairs of this department from the beginning there would be an altogether different bill from the one that is now before us. I think that is only fair, but it is no reason why we should pass this bill. I think rather it is one of the best reasons why we should go slowly and withhold the bill for a year, and give the minister a chance to get his feet on the ground, to get accustomed to his department, and then tell us something about the kind of bill he would like to have in order to handle the department successfully.


Mr. Johnston:: Fire the officials.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know about the officials. They probably did what they were told to do, but who told them? Sometimes there are ways of having orders given out, I understand, behind the hand in this country; you can never tell who is speaking from behind the hand.
The first thing a person wonders about is where the non-sectarian education is that members of the committee almost to an individual decided the Indian should have. Where is it? I fin'd no evidence of it in this bill. Out on the reservation alongside of which I have grown up, among the Blood Indians of whom I have the honour to be a chief, I find that if a man is going to send his child anywhere to get any education he has to send that child either to a Catholic residential school or to an Anglican residential school. I am finding no fault with either of these splendid organizations, but to say that an Indian, in order to get his child educated, has to take that child out from alongside his own fireside, out from under his own parental roof, and allow the child to remain for years and years under an influence which is contrary to what he may desire, to say that an Indian has to do that in order to get an education for his children is to say something that is so far beneath the sense of British justice that every member of this house has, that it alone constitutes a reason in itself for the rejection of this bill, until ample provision is made for the nonsectarian education of the Indian.
Where is the defining of the extent of the government's obligation to the Indians through treaties, promises, agreements, by sweeping specific agreements which have been made with the Indians for many years ever since our fathers first came here to deal with the Indians? We find no evidence in the bill, so far as I can see, of the setting up of a claims commission. We find no evidence

of any statement made by the minister that there is contemplated such a commission independent of the bill. But the time is far overdue when a claims commission should be set up to consider the injustices which the Indians have suffered from by reason of our failure to keep the treaty obligations that we solemnly entered into back in the years of long ago.
Where is the formula for gradual but continuous transition from wardship to citizenship which we all expected we would find in the bill? We had a right to expect it. Where is the formula? It simply is not in the bill. There should be at least this important provision in this bill.
I do not propose to discuss any individual clauses at all but I will say that six essentials ought to be provided for in the bill:
First of all there has to be something done, and done soon, for the thorough rehabilitation of the Indians. By that I mean in a general way there must be provision made whereby an Indian has a chance to start out in life. Let each of us members of this house suppose now that he were an Indian father and that he had an Indian son twenty-one years old. The boy wants to get married. He comes to us and he says: "Dad, what may I do to get started to support my family?" I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if the average member of this house were surrounded with the circumstances which confront the average Indian father across this land he would be stricken with complete despair and dismay at the thought of advising his son.
There simply are no facilities in the ordinary life of the Indian for rehabilitating himself. I speak as one individual having much experience because I live alongside one of the finest reserves in the Dominion of Canada, inhabited by one of the finest bands of Indians in the Dominion of Canada, namely, the Blood Indians. I know the difficulties; I know many of the fathers, some of them about my own age. Many of them have talked to me about their problems. Something simply must be done in the way of a large revolving fund to enable these people to borrow money to buy stock and equip themselves on their land, or through other means something must be done to give the young rising generation a chance to establish itself. There is not a doubt in the world about that; and if this house permits this opportunity to go by without making provision for that important essential then it will have betrayed its trust in this most important time in the history of Canada.
Secondly, there must be a claims commission set up right now, within the next year. I do not see why we should ask a splendid 55946-250
Indian Act
young man like the present minister to undertake the administration of such a department as this under such a handicap as he will be under if he has no claims commission. With the ordinary officials of his department loaded down with the weight of routine detail, the considering of petitions from groups of Indians for redress of grievances from which they are suffering by reason of this, that and the other thing which has resulted through natural development is far too much to ask of any minister. What chance has the minister to carry on and give the very best he has to his department unless a claims commission is set up so that he knows something about where he is?
Then there should be provision for selfgovernment among the Indians more and more. If the Indians are unable to govern themselves, then how can we expect them by voting to be able to govern us and help us to govern ourselves? And if they are able to help govern Canada by voting for members to come to this House of Commons I see no reason why they cannot govern themselves. To contemplate the situation from that angle makes the matter palpably absurd.
Education, as I have indicated, simply must be provided for. The average Indian boy or girl has not a fifty per cent chance of education comparable with that of his white brother or sister who lives just across the road from the reservation. Yet if he goes out in competition in the world around him he must be in competition with that young white brother or sister in every sphere of activity. Well, together with the natural handicaps which hold the Indians down by reason of many things which need not be mentioned, to give them the additional handicap of inferior preparation through education is to visit upon them the grossest kind of injustice.
A fifth important thing is the right to remain Indians. We have cavalierly assumed, as white people in this country, that it is a completely desirable thing that the Indians shall mingle with us, become whites, be submerged and lose their identity. Well, I think we are going a long way when we assume that we are so completely superior as all that. I do not see any reason under the sun why the Indians should not be able to continue a long history in which their race shall be preserved, just as the race of certain other peoples we can name has been preserved. I shall have more to say about that. The whole object of our policy in Canada seems to be to submerge the Indians and to assimilate them out of existence. That may be all right; it may be desirable; it may be that the Indians want it. But if they do want it, then they should do that sort of thing of

Indian Act
their own volition, and not through anything imposed upon them by us. If they choose to intermarry with our people, and our people choose to intermarry with them, then let that be taken up in a purely natural way. Do not try to force it on the Indians in a way which would assume the nature of dictatorial demands on them.
Finally the Indian should be provided religious freedom. There is nothing that the ordinary individual in Canada values more highly than religious freedom. There is not a member in the House of Commons who would not step out and die any time for his religious freedom, the right to believe and to live in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. But we have consistently denied that right to the Indians. Granted we have not passed any law making it impossible for the Indians to worship according to the faith of their fathers, but we have placed them in a position where they cannot get instruction unless they send their children to schools where the faith of their fathers is destroyed. It may be, too, that they are too poor and not organized well enough to have religious worship as we would have it. In various other ways, too, we have placed the Indians in a position where they are virtually denied the right to religious freedom.
Of these six essentials, I do not find provision for a single one in the present bill- certainly there is not adequate provision. Who would not condemn a measure of that kind? Who would not recoil from it? No wonder the Indians are in despair-and they are. The very contemplation of this act fills them with dismay. I have talked with many of them, and I have learned that that is so.
May I now turn to the first item I mentioned, namely that of rehabilitation? On the reserve adjoining the area in which I live there is an abundance of land to provide good farm homes or good ranch homes for virtually every Indian couple on the reservation. Yet to the average Indian it is a complete impossibility to get an advance of money sufficient to enable him to buy five or six young cattle with which to start out, and the equipment necessary to operate such a farm.
That ought not to be. Something has to be done by way of supplying a large revolving fund of millions and millions of dollars-tens of millions of dollars. Of course that scares us. Suppose it does; the contemplation of a war financial obligation scares us, too, but we assume it when it becomes necessary. Surely we should not recoil from a peace obligation just because there are financial commitments involved. Provision should be made to give the Indians vocational guidance. When one thinks of the various means

whereby we give our own young people suggestions as to what they should do and what vocations they should enter, and then realizes that there is so little of that sort available to average Indian boys and girls, once more we have that sinking feeling about the life they have to face and the difficulties they must have to keep themselves looking up instead of down.
On many of our reserves there is no longer ample land and no longer are there ample resources to support the Indian populations. I doubt very much whether the minister will find available to his hand, when he begins to probe into the difficulties which are bound to come, data which will enable him to tell the resources of a given reserve

call it reserve P, if you like, or call it reserve K. He will not be able to tell whether that reserve is equipped with sufficient resources to support the Indians thereon.


George Matheson Murray: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly.


George Matheson Murray: Do not the Indians in British Columbia, particularly those along the coast, have in their reserves the most arable and fertile land to be found in the province?


John Horne Blackmore: But that is not the whole of Canada, and I was talking about the whole of Canada. And, as I recall it, if my recollection of history serves me correctly, British Columbia pretty well settled the Indians of that province before the dominion government took over. The result is that the British Columbia Indians are perhaps more fortunately situated than those of any other province. My recollection is that when British Columbia entered confederation she stipulated that the dominion government should take just as good care of the Indians of that province as had been given them by the province.


George Matheson Murray: The same applies to the province of Quebec, and certainly it applies to Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member. I hope he will allow me to deliver my speech.


George Matheson Murray: Deal with facts, then.


John Horne Blackmore: The things I a-m dealing with are facts. If the hon. member wants me to take him in hand about the facts, I will soon do it.

Indian Act


George Matheson Murray: I am asking the hon. member to state the facts fairly.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member will have a clear floor when I have finished, and he may say all he wishes to say. If he can find any fault in what I am saying, I shall be ready to take it back. But I suggest that he had better assume that I know what I am talking about, because I live alongside a reservation, just as he does.
I doubt exceedingly that there is a reservation in Canada today equipped with adequate resources to support the Indians living thereon. To the extent to which any reservation is unable to support those Indians, this parliament ought to make moneys available; and we should have the principle laid down whereby the resources of a given reservation can be supplemented by one means or another.
Leadership should be provided in developing self-sufficiency among the Indians. That may not mean much until we probe into it a bit; but there are a great many things the Indians could do on an ordinary reservation -if they had the leadership-to supply the needs of the Indians living on the reserves- as was done ninety years ago on the reserve I live near.
With wise guidance and a little supplementary assistance the Indians could be enabled in large measure to become selfsufficient on their reservations. There are living out in Alberta a group of people-


Mr. Warren:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: So long as these questions do not become so numerous that they use up my time.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why is it that the hon. member for Lethbridge, who lives alongside a reserve, does not supply that leadership?


John Horne Blackmore: If anyone can imagine a more absolutely stupid question coming from any man than that, just call me up and tell me.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is not a stupid question. Come up to Golden Lake reserve in my riding, where I initiated something in the way of leadership which has proved most successful. They are as happy a community as is to be found anywhere in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: That sounds very fine. This bill will be in committee after a while, and the hon. member will have a standing invitation to boast all he wants to.


Ralph Melville Warren: I am not boasting.
55946-250i


John Horne Blackmore: It looks as though certain people are attempting to interrupt this speech. If that is so, then there will be no more questions allowed. I have a message to convey; I represent a very fine tribe of Indians, and I am going to convey that message.


Ralph Melville Warren: So do I.


John Horne Blackmore: I have a responsibility to discharge, and so has the hon. member. I suggest he get up and deliver a speech of his own, and that he ought not to interrupt mine -and the same applies to the hon. member for Cariboo.
As I have said, much could be done to enable the Indians on reservations to be selfsufficient. I would point out that in the same area where this reservation is located there is a group of Hutterites, some 150 strong. They are able to live together, almost completely self-sufficiently, on land no better than that on which Indians are living. But those people know how to work the land, they have the equipment with which to work it, and they have the knowledge. I do not know why something like that could not be done on our Indian reservations. We should make an attempt to rehabilitate our Indians.
With regard to old age pensions, I have said several times that in my opinion it is nothing less than a scandal that we pay old age pensions to white people and refuse them to the Indians who are much more needy. Old age pensions should be paid to the Indian at a much lower age. Why? Because the Indians have greater difficulty under ordinary circumstances to get work than the white people. They go out of the economic market at least five years earlier than the white man. If the white man needs an old age pension at 70 years, surely it is the barest of justice to give the Indian his pension at 65 years. It must be borne in mind also that from the cradle to the grave the Indian is faced with poor nourishment; malnutrition besets him all that time. The result is that deterioration from old age comes far earlier in his case than it does with the white man. There should be a larger old age pension for the Indian and he should be eligible at least five years earlier.
There should be larger family allowances for the Indian. Surely if the white man requires family allowances of the size given, the Indian needs at least half as much again in order to have anything like a chance.
Special assistance in buying should be provided for our Indians by this legislation. My experience has been that in buying housing, food and clothing and all the other necessities of life the ordinary Indian is in direct

Indian Act
competition with the white man who is far more skilled and shrewd than he is. The result is he is beaten every time. From the time I was a little boy I can remember seeing white men buy good Indian ponies for $5 when they were worth at least $30. We should provide co-operative selling and buying facilities for the Indians, using the government's credit.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: The Liberals are certainly interested in the Indians, are they not? They are so much interested that they cannot even bear to hear a little discussion about them! The government's credit should be provided so that the Indian can obtain his food, clothing and shelter far more cheaply than he can get these things in the open market. Today the Indian must go into the open market and frequently has to pay higher prices than the white man would ordinarily pay. Co-operative selling facilities for his goods should be provided under government supervision, but I shall not go into that. I have often been heartsick to see how difficult it is for the average Indian to sell his products at reasonable prices.
There is no reason why the government should not help the Indian establish himself in industry. All these things can be provided for in the act as a means of rehabilitating the Indian.
In dealing with the need for an Indian claims commission I will keep my eye only on the reservation with which I am thoroughly familiar. The wood on that reservation is not as plentiful by any means as it was when I first knew the reservation. The water supply is not nearly as great. The fish have completely disappeared. There are no game animals from one end of the reservation to the other where once there used to be an abundance of game. There is hardly any fruit on the hills or in the valleys and grazing has been almost ruined by over-grazing by the white man. The Indian reservation is nothing like what it was in 1877 when the Indians signed a treaty and were given the reservation. The deterioration of the reserve is due in large measure to the activities of the white man. An Indian claims commission would be able to establish the amount of deterioration that has taken place in this heritage of the Indians and set the proper reimbursement for the Indians for their losses. That is the only fair way I can see of approaching this matter.
Provision should be made for self-government by the Indians. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) indicated that he was not quite sure whether one of the

sections of this bill would prevent the organization of the Indians so that they could train themselves in self-government and express more effectively their desires to the white man's government. I am afraid that there actually is provision in this bill against the further development of even the loose and meagre organization the Indian now has. In my judgment the government should be doing everything in its power to enable the Indian to become thoroughly organized and should be ready to work with the Indian organizations.
Then a few more words about education. The education which the Indian child receives should be specially adapted to his need when he returns to live in the teepee on the reservation. As far as I have been able to see we have been trying to give the Indian child an education to fit him for life in the city. Such an education ordinarily is almost useless to him after he is through. If we want to educate an Indian child for life in the city we should educate him for that kind of thing, but if he is going to live on the reservation then his education should be adapted to that sort of life.
As I said a minute ago, Indian education should be completely non-sectarian. Up to the present time one of the difficulties encountered in educating young Indians is truancy. Sometimes the parents will not come in so the children can go to school. I think the only thing we can do about that problem is to establish non-sectarian residential schools, state-owned and state-controlled, similar to our universities, at which the Indian boys and girls could be taken into residence and be subject only to non-sectarian influence. It should be good, wholesome influence but not that of any particular religious denomination. That is the only way I can see of guaranteeing the Indian religious freedom and good education in any real sense of the term.
Everything should be done to preserve the racial identity of the Indian so that the Indian child one hundred years from now will still be an Indian if its parents feel that that should be the case. We must bear in mind that the Indians are a great race. Those who have gone back into the history of the race have been astonished at what they have found there as the probable racial origin of these dark people who have roamed our plains. They are a great race; they have a great history and they can have a great future. If they do not have that great future, in large measure it will be our fault. Provision, should be made in the act to enable the Indian to maintain his racial

identity. The act appears to me to be designed to destroy the racial identity of the Indian and submerge it out of sight.
After having said all this I do not think I need tell the minister that I am going to be among those who will support him by demanding that he withdraw this act and give us a year in which to study it and give him a year in which to find out what kind of act he needs in order to help him in his onerous duties of managing the Indians of this great dominion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would ask the leave of the house to allow me to move the adjournment of this debate until later this day. It would be a great convenience to me if I could proceed with my estimates this afternoon, but they would not be continued this evening. This debate could lbe resumed at eight o'clock.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



COMPLETION OF BIG BEAVER-MINTON RAILWAY GAP

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, before the m.otion is put I should like to take a few moments of the time of the house in discussing an important matter which has recently been brought to my attention. I wish to raise a matter which was brought to my attention through representations from a number of people in southern Saskatchewan. I will not have any other opportunity to bring it to the attention of the government at this session, and therefore I should like to do so now. I refer to the completion of the railway gap between Big Beaver and Minton. The people concerned are holding meetings throughout the area to press for completion of the railway line from Minton to Big Beaver. They point out that the need to fill the gap is very great. The people in that part of the province are isolated for a great part of the year. Completion of the line would improve railway service tremendously and would prevent a long and costly back haul. Since the gap is only some twenty-five miles it is the hope of the people in that area that construction may be undertaken at an early date.
I urge the Minister of Transport to use his influence to see that this is done. I have a resolution which expresses the need a lot better than I can, and I should like to read it to the house. It is as follows:
Whereas the original intention of Canadian Pacific Railway was no doubt to connect up the railway lines between Minton and Big Beaver;
Big Beaver-Minton Railway Gap
And whereas over twenty years have passed by since these two lines were constructed;
And whereas by connecting up these two lines better service could be given to the residents in the area;
And whereas each year of delay in connecting up these two lines is costing the farmers a considerable amount of back haul;
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the linking up of the branch lines between Minton and Big Beaver.
That resolution was passed by the municipal council of the rural municipality of Souris valley. Substantially the same resolution was endorsed by many municipalities throughout that area. As the government has not seen fit to postpone the coming into effect of the recent increase in freight rates, which I had hoped it would, it is essential when the railway companies are given increasingly higher freight rates that they give better railway service. In that part of Saskatchewan there are innumerable lines that have not been completed, and for that reason the railway service generally is poor. Railway lines should be completed between Mankota and Valmarie, Neidpath and Swift Current, Willow Bunch and Assiniboia, and Neptune to Webster to connect with the C.N.R. line running to Radville, a distance of only a few miles. I hope the Minister of Transport will take my words into consideration and use his great influence and good offices to see that these gaps are filled and that the people of the area are given more adequate railway service.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
85. Departmental administration, $1,392,488.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks on the item for departmental administration. I had the opportunity particularly on the budget address to give a fairly complete review of the financial position of the country and the administration of my department. Therefore I shall not attempt to do so on this item. I want to say in a word or two how gratified I have been at the work that has been done this year by the standing committee on public accounts. It has had a great many sittings, and I understand has gone into the method of presenting the estimates in a great deal of detail. I have not had an opportunity to consider carefully the reports which have been presented so far, but I want to congratulate all members of that committee of all parties on the careful and painstaking work which they have been doing.
I am sure the recommendations they have made will prove of the greatest assistance in

Supply-Finance
considering what improvements can be made in the method of presenting the estimates to the house. In addition I welcome, as I have said before, the care and attention which has been given by the committee to the examination of specific items of expenditure. I shall not delay the house longer at this time, but I am quite sincere when I say that I am delighted at the way in which the public accounts committee has functioned this year. Instead of being a committee which meets infrequently, I hope it will be a committee which will meet during each session of parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, on this item I should like to make a few general observations. First of all I should like to say something about what the minister has just said with reference to the public accounts committee. I was a member of it, although not as regular an attendant as I would have liked to be. I think what the minster has said is justified, and I am pleased that he has said it. I think we can assure him there will be no difficulty about having it meet every year because that is certainly the desire of our party. We had the good fortune to have before that committee notably the Auditor General. I say notably because he has a particular relationship to this house. We also had other civil servants whose help we appreciated and whose capacities we admired.
Finance enters very deeply into our lives, and I should like to make a few remarks this afternoon concerning a matter which has been brought up in the house before, and which I am afraid will have to be raised again until we get away from some of the difficulties which perplex us. I want to say something about controls, what one might call the use of arbitrary power, what someone very well described as delegated power which almost in spite of ourselves seems in some ways to be becoming almost paramount. I am not going to dwell on the matter at any length, and I hope not to be controversial. Sometimes it seems as if the house is not much interested in arbitrary power. One must assume that the house takes a light attitude towards it, if I am right in saying that they do, because they feel that is also the attitude of the country generally towards it. Therefore one is glad to find occasionally people outside the house who seem to share the feelings of some of those inside the house.
I should like to read a short extract from a letter written the other day to the Senate committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms by a professor at Queen's university. I think he is quite innocent of any connection,

however remote, with the party to which I belong. He refers to the developments which have come upon us, not because anybody planned them but which nevertheless I think we should try to look at in a realistic manner and not pretend that they do not exist. Let me also say that if they do exist, as some of us think they do, it is not a peculiarity of this house. It is something which is characteristic of the relations between governments and democratic assemblies practically everywhere they exist. The quotation I wish to read is as follows:
The cabinet is the modern crown. And it is rapidly assuming a more powerful place than the Stuarts ever had, and also a more intrinsically irresponsible one.
I put that on Hansard because I think it is a matter of interest and one which should concern us, but I do not propose to dwell further on it. I want to say, as I have said before- and having said it before I shall try to be very brief-that these delegated powers and controls that we accepted first of all as war measures and that we confirmed four years ago as what we hoped would be a rather shortlived peace measure; these things that came to us and were accepted first as temporary and abnormal now I think are in great danger of becoming perhaps not permanent, because nothing is really permanent, but at any rate of indefinite duration as far as we can see, and considered perfectly normal. It is the fact that they are regarded as perfectly normal that often disturbs me more than anything else. That is true not only of those who operate them but, I regret to say, of a very large number of the public as well.
With regard to those who operate them- and I say here, as I shall probably say again, that as to their individual capacity there is no question and that I have the highest regard for them-the only objection I have to them is that I think they have been set to perform tasks which no one should be asked to do, because I think they are beyond individual competence. I was going on to say, however, that with regard to a good many of those who have been responsible for the administration of these controls I think they would feel that the end of the world was coming if we told them we could get along without controls. I think they have come to feel, perhaps inescapably and probably quite naturally, that what they are doing is necessary, that there is no sign of any end to it, and that they have been doing a very good job indeed. I do not propose to mention names, but the other day when we were voting on what some of us thought was the institution of arbitrary power, I was struck by the fact that some people

who constantly speak about free institutions do not seem to bat an eyelash when what we thought was such arbitrary power is extended.
Now I want to say a few words in particular reference to foreign exchange control. During the war we permitted the institution of control over a very wide range of prices. We did that because we thought it was an emergency; and of course we included the fixing of the price of money. I must give credit to the government for the fact that since then a great many of those controls have been thrown overboard, but what I regard as the most important of all, the one that enters into all other things, has been retained. I refer to the power to fix the price of our money in terms of the money of other countries. I invite hon. members to think in very plain, rather simple and, if you like, naive terms of what it really means when we have foreign exchange control. It means that thirteen million people have handed over to the minister and his advisers the power to fix the value of our money in terms of other moneys, and of course directly and indirectly that affects a very large number of other prices. Perhaps if you use the word "indirectly" only it affects all other prices. So we have this extraordinary measure of control.
Let me say again that in my remarks I am not questioning the capacity or the sense of public service of those administering this control. My objection is far different. In passing I would remind hon. members that for decades, I suppose I might say for generations, the value of our money in terms of other money was fixed as all other values were fixed; that is, by buying and selling. You then had a price which was realistic and which, contrary to what we are sometimes told, on the whole was pretty steady. Now that price, which as I say was arrived at by the acid test of the judgment of tens of thousands of buyers and sellers, is fixed by the judgment of a few men sitting here in Ottawa.
As I mentioned earlier, a few years ago, when this legislation was passed; it was hoped that it would be of rather short duration. We felt then that after the upheaval of the war we were in what I suppose might be termed the almost equal upheaval of peace, so we agreed to the legislation and it started on what I might term its peacetime career. At that time, of course, it was in the minds of most of those who were discussing it that the whole question of foreign control had a bad background; that it was invented by the notorious Schacht. There was a feeling that it was perhaps necessary but that it was an evil, a necessary evil if you will. What disturbs me most of all is that I find very little
Supply-Finance
sign now of its being regarded as an evil at all. Not only does it seem to have become normal, but it is regarded, I think, as a good thing. It is considered to have produced far more benefits than evils; and on that I shall have a word to say later. To put it differently, the abnormal has become the normal, and this is now almost regarded as an ordinary instrument of policy.
If you reflect upon it, Mr. Chairman, it is strange that this should have happened in a democratic country, because after all it is a most undemocratic thing. I believe the Prime Minister said that socialists were Liberals in a hurry. Sometimes one wonders if the Liberals are not fast catching up with them, judging by some of the measures they are now putting forward. Indeed, I could go further and say that the other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in referring to arguments advanced against a certain type of control we were criticizing, said that he agreed with the general line taken by the leader of the opposition. He will not agree with me today-


Major James William Coldwell: Just wait a minute; you can't teH.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought the hon. member was going to contradict me. I fear he will not agree with me today, because I am going to argue that whether we like it or not these measures are definitely hurrying us toward the collective state which a good many of us in this house do not want. I say that because surely anyone who reflects upon the origin and use of this control system as it appeared and was used will realize that it was one of the great instruments of Hitlerism. What is more, it was one of the chief instruments he used in bending the surrounding countries to his will. In other words it was the very nub of national socialism,
Some will say:	even supposing that is
true, even supposing there are what you consider to be objections in principle, is that not a little theoretical, and after all should we not be very thankful to the foreign exchange control board for what it has done during these years? I think I have said before, and if not I will say now, that I believe there was a case for it during the war, and there was even some case for it in the immediate post-war period. But I come now to consider the argument advanced, and the view which I think is very largely accepted, that there has been a kind of almost divine wisdom in what has been done by the foreign exchange control board; that their proceedings have been wise, and that even if it offends against some of the theoretical principles on which old-fashioned people

Supply-Finance
were brought up, nevertheless the benefits are so great that we should overlook any objections.
I want to make this point. When people come along and advise the scrapping of old, tested methods, when they say that things which have worked for decades or centuries must be abandoned and we must accept their new system, then I think it is perfectly fair for us to say that if they are going to take that line they must be right. If they are going to pretend to have powers that none of the rest of us think we have; if they are going to assume responsibilities and powers never assumed before, they must be right. If the family doctor tells us that we are not to use a remedy that has always worked in the past, that he has something new which is going to be better in the future, I think he has to be right. If it turns out that we do not get the benefit we expect, then I think we are perfectly entitled to criticize. Someone may say: oh, this is all wisdom after the event. I admit quite frankly it is partly wisdom after the event. But I repeat that when these powers are assumed, when people purport to exercise these great powers which I say should not be in the hands of any individuals but should be left to the tens of thousands of people matching their transactions against each other, when we come to examine what they have done then they have to be right.
Let us see what has really happened. I pass over the war period and come to 1946, when our dollar was put back at par with the United States dollar. First of all on reading the statement made at the time by Mr. Ilsley and still more perhaps on reading the annual report of the Bank of Canada of the following year, it is perfectly clear that that was done on what proved to be an absolutely unsound hypothesis. It was done really as a price control measure. It was done because it was expected that United States prices, after a short rise, were going to start coming down; and it was thought that we, by increasing the value of our dollar, would keep our prices down and that we would avoid this hump; that by taking the low road and letting the Americans take the high road, we would so to speak meet with them later and we would have avoided this rise in prices. Of course that all proved to be wrong. I am not criticizing them for not being able to predict. I am criticizing them for attempting to predict at all.
What happened? We all remember what happened. American investment in Canada shrank rapidly. Canadian purchases in the United States of course were stimulated, and to make matters worse the government,
I Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
during the early months of 1947, rather warned people that they might be doing something later on and as a result they practically created a run on American dollars. We all remember that. That went on and on until in the autumn of 1947 we had lost something like 1,150 million, if my memory serves me rightly, of American dollars. Then of course we remember what was done. The government then in rather a hurry announced certain measures by radio. I will not dispute with the minister-because we have done it often before and there is really no dividend in it-as to whether or not that was legislation. I will compromise by saying that I think everyone except the minister and his group thought it was legislation, and the minister said it was not. At any rate, it had a great effect on people's lives and it looked a great deal like legislation to them.
That was the end of 1947. As I say, the fixing of the dollar at par undoubtedly had these results which I have just indicated. Of course one artificial control will produce other controls. Controls are like rabbits; they breed. As a result, we had the various controls we remember so well. We remember the wretched importers who had no warning, of course, of this kind of thing happening. The importer found he was not up against a law, that he was not up against a tariff but that he was up against the edict of a man. He just could not import. I am sure the minister was sorry about that. Indeed I remember a moving communication sent on the minister's behalf to some poor fellow in this plight; and I do not doubt the minister's sincerity at all. What I am pointing out is that one arbitrary measure produces others, and that we have these controls which operated and continue to operate. I often picture the minister as really holding a tap and he turns on and off the lettuce and tomatoes and other things just as one would turn a tap on and off. Incidentally, some of us have had letters just in the last day or two from a gentleman who is complaining because he cannot import a school bus. Apparently he cannot get any foreign exchange in order to import a school bus. I do not know anything about the details of his complaint, but I sympathize with him in running into one of these man-made controls. As I say, if it was a tariff, he could make up his mind whether or not he could pay the tariff price. But here he has no option at all. He is just told:	No foreign
exchange for you.
I need not take much more of the time of the committee on this matter. I should just like to follow through the intervening months. We all remember how controls

flourished during the year 1948; sometimes you have more and sometimes you have less. The minister sits there with his advisers and they survey the scene; and we have more controls or less controls, in their wisdom. Then you come to 1949 and you have the use of that fine, expansive word, "chaos" by the Prime Minister. If I remember rightly the Prime Minister said that any tampering with the rate of exchange-and this was during the election-would bring chaos; and he was extremely critical of anyone who suggested that there was any possibility of changing the rate of exchange.
Then we come to September. And of course I sympathize with the minister just as I sympathize with Sir Stafford Cripps, that great model of-what shall I say- verbal accuracy and intellectual accuracy- I am referring now to Sir Stafford Cripps- who over the course of many months was forced to say that the British pound would never be devalued; never, never, never. Then of course he finally had to say: Hardly ever. Some people are extremely critical of him for that. I do not see what else he could say. Even so fine a man as the minister, I am perfectly sure if I were unwise enough to ask him,-and I would not be unwise enough to ask him-on the day before he had determined to alter the rate of exchange-I am sure he would have to resort to some kind of evasion, if I may use that word in this committee. I hope the minister will not take the slightest offence from it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not the slightest.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is a word that is sometimes not received in good part; but the minister does not seem to mind. What I am saying is that last September we came to another devaluation. The minister of course will say, and with some force, that he had to join in with the rest of the boys; that when Cripps was devaluing and the others, he had to devalue.
We now come 'down to the present stage. The other day there happened an incident which I think people would do well to bear in mind. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here, and I am sorry we have to refer to him so often. But the Minister of Finance is here, and I know he will not disagree with me in this. After we weave our way through the tangled labyrinth of division of duties among the cabinet, when we come out we nearly always meet the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There therefore must be no complaint if I refer to him at this time. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce after all deals with wheat, national research and
Supply-Finance
other things. This day, if I remember rightly, he was dealing with wheat. The Minister of Trade and Commerce never likes to confine himself within narrow limitations. This day he took a little fling in the realm of finance, and he made some cryptic reference to the course of exchange. He said it might be longer or shorter. It was really a good deal like the old nursery rhyme: This year, next year, sometimes, never. He was extremely vague. But the point is that by reason of those particular words I know that he caused a great deal of mental uneasiness in the business world. I know of cases where importers and exporters met to consider their exchange position and what they should do by reason of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said. I suggest that that just shows the absurdity, the abnormality and the utter artificiality of this situation which we allow to continue and which to my great regret I see no sign of any disposition even to begin to lessen.
At the moment there is, as I said, a considerable amount of jitters as to whether something is going to happen to the rate again. Yet the benefit which is supposed to come to us, and of which we have been told so often, is that we ought to be thankful because of the steadiness which the exchange control produces for us.
Now I want to spend just a moment in referring to what we on this side have advocated in the past. We have not advocated any sudden or violent step. We have not advocated a disregard of the fact that we have obligations under the Bretton Woods agreement. But what we have advocated is an approach to realism. Incidentally we believe -as I am sure the minister does also-that the course of events has put us in a strong position; our dollar is in a strong position, we believe, and could warrant the minister in stepping much further forward on the course of freedom than he ever has. Just in passing let me say that we all got a tremendous shot in the arm from the extravagant American boom. Certain of our industries here are booming because of the tremendous development in the states. The same is true in the United Kingdom; the same is true in western Europe; but nevertheless the great problem of many-sided trade and of convertibility of exchanges remains unsolved. If this extravagant boom should subside we would find ourselves facing difficulties again. Our farmers would know it without being told, and other poeple would know it too.
At the present time we seem to be facing both ways. We are trying to make the best of both worlds. We have a little control, but not too much, and we have a little freedom but not too much. That seems to be the sort of line we are following. I do not believe

Supply-Finance
we can remain there. I think we have to go in one direction or the other. Therefore I leave this by expressing the hope that even today the minister may be able to say something to indicate at least a desire. While I say "a desire" I do not mean just a vague desire. I should say a desire plus some kind of indication that we will not rest where we are; that we feel that this is something that should be proceeded with; that we feel that we have a strong position and could do something to give a lead to others.
There is one other point I wish to make before I take my seat. The minister has already referred to it briefly in his opening remarks. He said that he was not going to review our position again, as he had done it during the budget speech. I would say this to the minister:	Things have happened
since the budget speech. I think it is perfectly clear that the small surplus which the minister disclosed at that time is all gobbled up by now, and that we will face something of a deficit when the supplementaries come down. I am not going to spend a moment at this stage of debate in offering any comments on that. I just want to ask the minister whether it is not possible that while we are on these estimates and before the house prorogues he might be able to say something to us as to our position; that he might do something in the way of stocktaking, having regard to what has happened in the last few months. Are we going to have a substantial deficit? If so, what are we going to do about it? Are we faced with higher taxation in the near future, or are we going to be content with the deficit financing which the minister assured us years ago we certainly should not have in good times.
Now, Mr. Chairman, other points will arise when we reach the other items but I need not cover them now.


Mr. Thatcher:: I have only a few comments to make on these estimates. I think I can agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, when he says that our budget now is bordering upon a deficit. I suppose any change in our economic climate could put the country "in the red". For that reason I think it is of great importance that hon. members should be examining public expenditures with greater care.
I was particularly interested in the opening remarks of the minister when he said that he was delighted with the job which the public accounts committee had done this year. As a member of that committee I think they may have done some valuable work, but I do not think they have done the job that was expected of them. I do not

think that they have done the job which the minister told us in the last budget speech that we could expect.
In his 1949 speech, I remember that the Minister of Finance said that the government was practising-and I am going to quote his own words-"the most careful economy and efficiency in all departments". Then he went on to say that the government had decided "on the general policy of limiting expenditures". Many Canadians wish that the minister would tell parliament exactly where these economies have been practised, because a lot of people think there has not been any real economy practised in Canada for about ten years. I do not ask the minister to take my own word for that. In an editorial on May 23, the Winnipeg Free Press said:
There has been no real attempt at economy in Ottawa since the beginning of the war more than ten years ago.
That may be a broad statement but, as I say, many people are inclined to agree with it. What worries me is this:	By some kind
of twisted reasoning some Liberal members, and particularly the Minister of Finance, are trying to throw the blame for this fact upon opposition members. For instance at page 1992 of Hansard the minister said:
I believe that the public of Canada have the right to expect parliament itself, the members of parliament itself, to exercise a constant and vigilant scrutiny over the conduct of administration, to search for waste and duplication. I think that the members of the opposition have fallen down on that job.
The Minister of Finance has repeatedly, in parliament and out of parliament, challenged opposition members to show where substantial savings could be made. Speaking again about the opposition he said this very disdainfully, as reported at page 1992 of Hansard:
They have not got down to brass tacks in the public accounts committee, or in this house, to scrutinize the details of expenditures in any single government department.
On April 28 the leader of the opposition moved that a royal commission be appointed to make recommendations for the reducing of public expenditures. The Minister of Finance turned down the request, and his reason for doing so was this, as found at page 1991 of Hansard:
The primary reason why the government feels that we would not be justified in accepting the suggestion ... is that . . . we have a good many existing vehicles on hand.
He proceeded:
We talk about failure to be able to examine officials of the department directly. Let me point out to the house that the public accounts committee is a standing committee of this house . . .
There is opportunity in the public accounts committee for any member, and in particular for hon. members of the opposition, to ask that any deputy

minister, or any official of any department, be brought before that committee, and to examine him to their heart's content as to the details of the particular services of the department.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this year hon. members did "ask" in the public accounts committee. They asked for specific departments. They asked for witnesses; they asked for information; but above all, they asked for the public accounts. They asked for a good many things, but they did not get very much satisfaction. As far as I am concerned as an opposition member I say this advisedly. I do not think that on the public accounts committee this year the opposition members received the co-operation to which they were entitled. That lack of co-operation makes some of the statements which the minister used a few months ago appear a little hollow. Repeatedly we were overruled in seeking information. Time and again we were refused witnesses, and consistently we were refused public accounts in the committee. Here we have a committee which has sat for almost three months, a public accounts committee, yet the public accounts have never been before it. It was just like a railroad committee examining the flag question, or a banking committee examining civil liberties. The public accounts committee examined a lot of things, but it did not examine public accounts.
Why was that committee called? It was called at the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, specifically to examine defence expenditures. But in the whole of the three months, the defence expenditures were not brought up despite repeated requests.
The committee first met on April 25. I ask hon. members to note the terms of reference. They were these:
That the standing committee on public accounts be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house:
That the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949, which were tabled in the house on October 31, 1949, be referred to the said committee.
I ask you to note that, Mr. Chairman:
That the public accounts of Canada ... be referred to the said committee.
Obviously the main duty of the committee was to examine public expenditures and to see if there were ways in which savings could be made, and to show it from these public accounts. Therefore I say when the minister challenged the opposition members of the house to use this public accounts committee as a vehicle for showing where savings could be made, he must have forgotten to tell the chairman of the committee
Supply-Finance
and the Liberal members on it, because certainly they did not carry out what he suggested. We spent weeks examining the form of estimates. Probably that was needed. Probably it was a valuable service, but it was not the job that we were given to do.
Next year, if the minister is sincere in wanting opposition members to show where savings can be made, let that committee be called early, let that committee examine public accounts and public expenditures.
I understand that over in England the chairman is a member of the opposition. I think that would be advantageous in this country, because if the chairman were a member of the opposition then perhaps the opposition parties would be permitted to inquire into these expenditures in more detail than they can at the present time.
Year after year when this committee is called, the report of the Auditor General has come up. That report is important, but I hope that next year, first of all, the public accounts will be brought in. Let every department-let each one of the twenty departments, or whatever number there are -know that they may be called in front of that committee to explain their expenditures.
It is conceivable that the committee could consider only one or two of the departments in one year. But we could devise some method-perhaps pick them out of a hat, as one member has suggested-whereby departments would be examined and required to explain every five cent piece they have spent. I think if that were done economies might be effected.
I have not much more to say, except that I as an opposition member not only charge the government with apathy and disinterest in seeing that public expenditures were examined, but say it has been guilty of using its overwhelming majority deliberately to obstruct opposition members from obtaining pertinent information in the public accounts committee.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I regret the
Minister of Finance was not able to bring his estimates down earlier in the session. I recall that last year he did say he would attempt this year to bring them down at an early stage. On the other hand I am not going to be overcritical, because I do realize that the government has had a great deal of difficulty in getting into supply during the session.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Greenwood in asking or suggesting that the foreign exchange control board be done away with. Because I feel that in a country such

Supply-Finance
as Canada, situated between the sterling and the dollar blocs, it is essential that we have fairly rigid control of foreign exchange, especially when one realizes that we have always had difficulty in meeting our payments in the United States.
It would appear to me that if we had not had control of foreign exchange in this country we might have had chaotic conditions in the post-war years. Whenever the Minister of Trade and Commerce has spoken in the house he has invariably exuded optimism. I am not going to criticize him for that, because I like a man who is optimistic if he has good grounds for his optimism. I am not going to say that at this time he has not those grounds. I think at times however the basis of his optimism has been questionable.
I would say however that the Minister of Finance is in an entirely different category. The only time he really exudes optimism is in a year just prior to an election. At other times he invariably sounds a pessimistic note -or, if he does not like that term, let us say a note of extreme caution. Since he has been Minister of Finance he has continually warned the country and the House of Commons that we cannot expect the present high level of production, employment and income to continue indefinitely.
I believe this has had an adverse effect upon the people of this country. They have reached a frame of mind where they look upon a depression as inevitable, as just a question of time-next year, the year after or some time later. They have reached the point where they think that a depression or recession is bound to come, because they know the Minister of Finance has been warning them for the last four years. For that reason they have been busily engaged in tucking away their savings for a rainy day which, they feel, is bound to come.
Not only that, but in view of the fact that they feel a recession is certain, they are hesitant about investing money in the development of the country. They feel that if they do so they may very well lose their investments. I cannot feel that there are any grounds for that pessimism. Is it because our resources are becoming depleted? Surely no one would argue that for one moment. Is it because we are running short of skilled labour? There, again, there is no question of a shortage of skilled labour. Is it because our production has reached such a high level that it may be greater than is necessary to meet the needs of the people of Canada or the people in other parts of the world? Well, certainly that cannot be argued so far as Canada is concerned, because in Canada

we have a large number of low income groups including old age pensioners, incurables, recipients of war veterans allowances and may other low-wage groups which, in themselves. constitute a large potential market for increased production in this country.
In addition there are today a large number of national projects which should be executed at the earliest possible date. They are national projects for the purpose of conserving the resources of this country-water conservation, flood control, irrigation, reforestation. Those are things which may be regarded as self-liquidating projects, and projects which will help to increase the production of the country and the general standard of living of the people.
Someone may ask: What about wheat? I was interested in a statement made by the chairman of the wheat board when he was before the committee on agriculture and stated that even in regard to wheat he did not feel that, so far as the world was concerned, there was any real surplus. That is to say, he agreed that if the people of the world were able to buy the wheat they required there would not be enough to go round. We have a surplus only in so far as the people's ability to buy that wheat is concerned, and after considering the mpans of payment which we in this country are willing to accept.
I do not think any of those are the reasons why the Minister of Finance feels there is a danger of recession in the not far distant future. I think the minister fears a recession because of a lack of effective demand. Effective demand means money in the hands of those people requiring goods. I should say that problem is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and his department, because it is that department which advises the government in matters of financial policy, and which is largely responsible for adjusting the supply of money as well as its distribution among the people.
So when the Minister of Finance expresses fear regarding the future he actually expresses a lack of confidence in the policy of his own department.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not recall that I have ever expressed any fear as to the future. I do not want the hon. member to overstate it. I am not a pessimist.


Victor Quelch: The minister's memory must be short because in every budget speech he has made he has warned that we cannot expect the present high level to continue. Let me refresh his memory. He is reported, at page 2553 of Hansard for 1947, as follows.
We must expect, I believe, that at times when our employment, production and incomes are below

satisfactory levels, our revenues will fall short of our expenditures.
And then as reported at page 4063 of Hansard for 1948:
We must bear in mind that times are exceptionally good at present, economically and financially, and it would not be prudent to rely on such conditions continuing indefinitely. We should now be preparing for times when markets and employment are not so favourable . . . We should, therefore, be putting away what we can for a rainy day.
That is what all the people of Canada are trying to do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But that is not expressing fear or pessimism.


Victor Quelch: Then, in October, 1949, as reported at page 972 of Hansard:
Nevertheless some declines in' our overseas export markets have already occurred and some further declines can hardly be avoided ... It is with these possibilities in mind that the government is actively reviewing measures to counteract any serious downturn that might develop in our export markets and in the economic activity at home.
In every speech he warned as to the danger in connection with our present high level of income, and that it may not continue in the future. The people, listening to that, have felt that it is their duty to start tucking away a certain amount of their savings to meet that rainy day the minister has talked about in his budget speeches. Not only is there no justification to consider a future recession as inevitable; I believe the people of this country have a right to expect that there shall be registered an annual increase in the amount of the production of the nation, apart of course from any serious calamity that might befall the country such as severe drought or flood. Surely with an expanding population, with expanding efficiency of production and with great undeveloped resources such as we have in Canada, our people have a right to expect a steadily expanding economy, that is, an expansion of production with a corresponding increase in the standard of living. In his budget speech this year the minister said, as reported on page 1210 of Hansard, that during 1950 we might not reach a position where our resources would be fully developed and that employment might not catch up with the growth in total labour supply.
I think the minister will agree that the increased production that could be made available as a result of full employment is urgently needed both in Canada and in the world at large. I should like to say a few words about the domestic market because that is our most important market; as a matter of fact we might say that it is the only market we have because international trade is simply the exchanging of our surplus
Supply-Finance
goods for the surplus goods of other nations which must be consumed in the domestic market.
The last time I spoke on the motion to go into supply, and the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I referred to a speech that had been made by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). I quoted at some length from that speech so I shall not take up time to deal with the matter today. However, the substance of that speech was that today people were putting a large amount of their income in savings and that consequently demand was falling off, or might fall off, with consequent falling off of production and increase in unemployment which might well lead us into a depression. The minister advised the people to spend more freely. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance agreed with that speech, because I think he will admit that it is a complete reversal of the propaganda that has been put out by governments and officials of the 'Department of Finance in the past. In the past people have always been urged to be more thrifty and put away their money in savings to take care of the future.
We in this group have always pointed out that while the practice of saving was necessary from the point of view of the individual, nevertheless the effect of large-scale saving by the people would be detrimental to the economy of the country. In view of the speech made by the Minister of Resources and Development I should like to know what the government is going to do if the situation he outlined should develop; that is, if as a result of large-scale saving on the part of the people a recession should develop will the government be prepared to step in and take up the slack created as a result of that over-saving, or is it the intention of the government to just sit by and let the depression develop?
The minister will recall that back in 1943 the governor of the Bank of Canada made a broadcast in which he pointed out that if such a situation developed after the war where the people were not spending freely and unemployment increased the government would be justified in going ahead with national projects and not meet the full cost from taxation or by borrowing the savings of the people but by credit expansion. I am wondering whether the government will be prepared to take that action if necessary.
The minister himself admits that employment may not catch up with the growth in the labour supply. I should like to ask the minister, if that situation develops, whether he will proceed with sound projects financed

Supply-Finance
in part by credit expansion as suggested by Graham Towers in his speech in 1943, or is he prepared to allow a situation to develop such as was envisaged by the Minister of Resources and Development?
I can recall that when the committee on reconstruction met it drew up a long list of what it considered were worth-while national projects for forest conservation, soil conservation, water conservation and so on. It was understood that those would be held as a shelf of projects to be used by the government to take care of unemployment or a falling off in demand. If credit expansion is used to finance the national projects in part, would the minister be prepared to finance in part by using money from the Bank of Canada rather than from the chartered banks, or does he consider himself obliged to take such action as will still further swell the profits of the chartered banks and increase the interestbearing debt of Canada?
I know it will be argued that action of that kind would penalize the chartered banks, but when you consider the recorded profits of the chartered banks since the war you realize that they have increased every year and are quite substantial today. If a certain amount of money were issued through the Bank of Canada which the chartered banks would have to service without any payment, I do not think that that would impose any undue burden upon them.
It is also often argued that to finance through the Bank of Canada rather than borrow from the chartered banks would be more inflationary. I know that in the past ministers of finance have argued that the reason it would be more inflationary would be the fact that the chartered banks would be in a position to expand their credit facilities by ten to one on the basis of their increased cash reserve. I am not sure whether the present Minister of Finance has ever taken that stand, but it has been taken by his predecessors.
I do not think the minister will find that the officials of the Bank of Canada take that attitude. The attitude of the Bank of Canada has been that there is the closest cooperation between the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada and that, if money were issued in that way, under the advice of the Bank of Canada the chartered banks would not expand their loans if the Bank of Canada considered it detrimental. As a matter of fact, anyone who has read the reports of the Bank of Canada of recent years will find that time and again advice has been given to the chartered banks regarding their loan policy and invariably the chartered banks
[Mr. Quelch.l
have acted upon it without any further pressure. On the other hand, if the chartered banks were not prepared to co-operate with the Bank of Canada it would be a simple matter to amend the Bank Act to increase the reserve requirements of the chartered banks so as to offset any tendency toward inflation. Apparently there is a good deal of concern being felt today regarding the lack of Canadian venture capital. I read a press report of a speech delivered by the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, to the Quebec branch of the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association. He is reported as saying that thrifty Canadians have saved over $3 billion over the last four years, that they are increasing their savings at the rate of $400 million a year, and that while these savings would be sufficient to meet Canadian investment needs, Canada is still getting much of her investment requirements from foreign sources. He is also reported as saying that the trouble is that Canadians are not eager to get into the risky field of developing resources, and that one-half of all dividends of all Canadian corporations are paid to nonresidents.
Another speech, in many ways similar, was made by the president of the Canadian Bankers Association recently in which he also emphasized the fact that people were placing a large amount of their income in savings. Both Mr. Coyne and the president of the Canadian Bankers Association emphasized the need for venture capital in Canada, and that Canadians are hesitant to take the risk. Consequently the United States is stepping into the picture and now 50 per cent of all dividends of all Canadian corporations are paid to non-residents. In other words, we may say that we are fast becoming a nation of hewers of wood and dlrawers of water for other nations.
We in this group have always deplored1 the large-scale utilization of foreign capital to develop our Canadian resources. We have emphasized, the fact that during the war we tripled our production without the utilization of foreign capital, and that therefore it should be possible today to carry on the development of Canadian resources without using capital from other nations. As a result of the utilization of foreign capital our foreign obligations are greatly increased, and while I quite realize that the utilization of foreign capital may facilitate the balancing of our payments with the United States at the present time, nevertheless it is bound to aggravate the situation in later years.
We hear a lot of discussion as to what might be done to encourage the people of

Canada to invest more freely in the development of their resources. I think it is well to remember that for many years, and especially during the war-and I am not criticizing the action-we encouraged people in every way possible to invest as much money as they possibly could in dominion bonds. There is no doubt that the people of the country have become very bond conscious. It is also well to remember that if people who are not accustomed to investing money, and are therefore hesitant about taking the chance of losing what little capital they have, go to the banks the only advice they can get from the manager of a chartered bank is to invest their money in dominion bonds. The chartered banks will not advise people to invest their money in industry. Mind you, I am not criticizing the chartered banks for the position they take because I realize that it probably would not be a safe position for any bank manager to act as an adviser to an individual who was asking how he should invest his capital. The situation is that they will only advise people to invest their money in dominion bonds.
It seems only natural that as long as people can buy gilt-edged securities in the form of dominion bonds at a rate of interest of 3 per cent as in the past, and with a slightly reduced rate today, they will probably continue to do so and will not enter the industrial development field. On the other hand, if people could not so readily buy dominion bonds they would be more apt to purchase industrial securities. Therefore I suggest to the government that they might give consideration to refunding maturing government bonds in part through the Bank of Canada instead of by public subscription. That would accomplish two things. It would provide additional investment funds, and at the same time it would reduce the national debt owed to the public. Consequently it would provide for reduction in taxation by reducing the debt charges and thereby encouraging investment.
Of course the question will be asked whether a policy of that kind would not be inflationary. I think the answer to that is definitely no. People who hold bonds today hold them voluntarily because they want them as an investment. If the people who hold these bonds wanted to spend the money they have tied up in them they could take the bonds to a bank tomorrow and sell them at a premium. The very fact that people are not selling bonds proves that they would sooner hold their money in them than spend it on goods. Therefore if the government would refund a certain portion of the bonds upon maturity through the Bank of Canada the people receiving payment would immediately seek other sources of investment.
Supply-Finance
I think there is another step that might be taken by the government to encourage people to invest their money in the development of the country. I think the government could very well give consideration to the setting up of a securities commission or advisory investment board operating on a voluntary basis. Companies seeking capital from the public could voluntarily make application to the commission for a licence, and reports on such companies could be made available to the people. It would at least help to give the small investor an idea of the soundness of the proposition and would guard against what might be called fly-by-night concerns. I believe there are many people in the country who would like to make investments in its development if they could be assured that they would have an even break. They do not mind taking a normal risk, but so many people have passed through the painful experience of losing their capital, especially in>
the early days of oil development in the west, that they are not prepared to take a second chance. If we set up an advisory board on investment with representation possibly from the Bank of Canada, industry and agriculture, for the purpose of making a thorough investigation, of industrial enterprises upon applications by companies, then I think the statements they would issue would help to assure people as to the soundness of the propositions.
I want to say a few words in closing about our external trade situation. I think it is quite clear from recent speeches that have been made by a number of ministers of the government and other prominent officials that they feel a good deal of concern regarding the effects that government financial policies are having upon Canada's international trade. For example, in the speech to which we listened a few weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries certainly implied that things were not as they should be. I recall he said that international trade was not a financial problem. I believe he should have said that international trade should not be a financial problem; but no one who has listened to the Minister of Agriculture deploring the situation with respect to our food products can escape the conclusion that today our international trade problem is very definitely and primarily a financial problem. Time and again the Minister of Finance himself has said that our trade problem with respect to Britain is a monetary question. On June 13 the Minister of Agriculture stated, at page 3552 of Hansard:
I do not think there is any dollar-sterling question in the world or any dollar-sterling problem as

Supply-Finance
between Canada and Great Britain that is more important than the maintenance of good relationships between those two areas.
The statement was made as a result of the loss of our markets in Britain, and I recall that the minister was very critical of Britain for having reduced her purchases of food from Canada. I do not think we are being fair when we criticize Britain for having reduced her purchases in this country. Let us not forget that when Britain and the countries of Europe reduced their purchases from Canada and the United States they were doing the very thing they were advised to do by the international monetary fund. Last year I quoted from the report of that fund in which European nations had been advised that, in order to establish a better balance in their trade, they cut down their purchases from the dollar area and increase them from the sterling area. That is the very thing Britain and the European countries are doing today. Therefore it does not come with very good grace on our part when we criticize them for doing the very things they have been advised to do by the institutions we helped set up.
Even if we were able to increase our imports from Britain over a period of time to the point where they would be able to pay for our exports, and the same thing in regard to the United States, I do not think we could hope to solve the dollar-sterling difficulty, owing to the fact that today Britain has very large obligations in the form of sterling balances held by India, Pakistan, Egypt and other countries. I believe it is the obligation of Canada and the United States to help Britain meet those obligations, because those sterling balances originated as the result of meeting the costs of war. Britain's war effort, of course, was put forth on behalf of all the allies. Last year I complimented the Minister of Finance on the stand he had taken at the Washington conference, when he urged that action should be taken by Canada and the United States to relieve the strain on Britain caused by these large sterling balances. So during this discussion of his estimates I would like the minister to give us a report on what progress has been made in dealing with the matter of the large sterling balances held by India, Pakistan and Egypt.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
IMr. Quelch.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Breithaupt.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for the second reading of Bill No. 267, respecting Indians.
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that I may be permitted to make a few observations in connection with this bill, for two reasons. One is that I represent the constituency of Essex West which comprises the city of Windsor and one township, both south of the city of Detroit. I say "south" because that is geographically correct. The city of Windsor is one of the oldest settled portions of Ontario, if not the oldest. In 1701 the city of Detroit was settled at that time and there was erected a palisade fort. The church of Ste. Anne was one of the first buildings. A few years later the Indians and the white people crossed to the south side of the river and there they formed a settlement which is now called the city of Windsor. In that area there was formed the parish of the Assumption under Father Richardi. It is interesting to note that within the last few days an historical site in that area has been declared; I refer to the home of Francois Baby, brother of Hon. Jacques Baby whose portrait adorns one of the corridors of this building. It is over on the Senate side of this building. At that time he was one of the speakers of the legislative council.
As the minister stated in his opening remarks, in that area we had the Wyandot Indians on the reserve in Anderdon township, a few miles south of my constituency, now in the constituency of Essex South. I think the assimilation of that band of Indians is certainly a pattern which we can well copy throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. I think it is a pattern which could well be used and the goal at which we could aim. Those Indians became assimilated as a group. The residents of that reserve received their final commutation I believe in 1911. They were an intelligent and an industrious people. They have taken their place in the social life of the city of Detroit and of the city of Windsor

I think in a way far above the average of most people whose origin was other than the Anglo-Saxons.
To give an illustration, the descendants of many of those people who were on the reserve, and their descendants, have taken a prominent place in the city of Detroit. One person in the city of Windsor, who was a lawyer, followed his profession successfully for many years and became a member of the provincial legislature. He represented that constituency with distinction in the provincial house. His name was Sol White. His descendants have carried on in the city of Windsor, taking a prominent part in the social and the civic life of that community.
I think that is about the goal that we are aiming at. We want the Indians to be assimilated economically. I do not say that they should be assimilated as to blood, but they should be economically assimilated. We can only have them so assimilated if we are convinced in our own minds that we were born equal.
I should like to take up some of the time of the house on this bill, Mr. Speaker, for another reason. In 1946 the government set up a committee not to deal with lands, buildings, transport lines or trade, but to deal with human beings; with the lives and the hopes of those human beings numbering over 130,000. The Indian committee was set up, comprising twelve members of the other place and twenty-two members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, or probably fortunately, a great many of the members of the House of Commons who were on that committee are not here today, mostly by reason of appointments to the other place, other appointments as in the case of our distinguished Clerk of the House, and others by the fortunes of election. I think there are today left in the house about ten members who were on that committee. The whole theme of the committee was to help the Indian to help himself. Time alone will tell whether that was successful. Time alone will tell whether we were able to sow any seed. I hope so. I have no hesitation in saying that this committee operated regardless of political affiliation, regardless of partisanship, in an honest desire to be of service.
At this time I should like to pay my respects to one who was of great service to this committee, the late Senator Fred Johnston of Saskatchewan, who was the first co-chairman of the committee. It is also appropriate at this time to mention with reverence the late John R. MacNicol who was always interested not only in Indian affairs, but particularly in Indian affairs. He travelled extensively to
Indian Act
see the Indian population of this country. He was very regular in his attendance in the committee and he was very conscientious. I am sure he will be missed by many of the Indians in Canada today.
On that committee we were fortunate in having the services of a lawyer who was a full-blooded Indian. Norman Lickers was a member of the Six Nations tribe and was Indian by descent. He was trained in the profession of law in Ontario. Mr. Lickers was of great assistance not only to the committee during the hearings which it held in Ottawa, but also in drafting the report made to this house.
I might say that the committee was of one mind. It presented a unanimous report. It was willing to bury any partisanship; it was willing to keep the high goal of service before it. For that reason, I think, more than all others it was possible to bring in a unanimous report, which was concurred in by this house.
A part of the committee was formed into a commission which went down to the maritime provinces and viewed the conditions of the Indians there, their method of living, their homes, their industries, their schools, and their hospitals throughout Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia, also going up into Quebec. It took us three weeks. The ten members of the commission derived a great deal of profit from that visit. On a subsequent occasion I myself went out to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Regina, and as far west as Port Alberni to see the fishing Indians at the end of the Alberni canal in British Columbia.
In referring to the committee on another occasion I think the minister said that 129 meetings were held. I am not sure as to that. It is possible. Of course that does not include the meetings of four subcommittees which dealt with various subjects, under the chairmanship of various members of the committee. They met at regular intervals. Therefore I suppose one could say that the committee met far more often than is indicated by the number of formal meetings. However, I do not think that it is the number of meetings that really count. The committee was endeavouring to give everybody an opportunity of presenting their viewpoints on the subject. We heard Indians from the maritimes, from Quebec, from the west, including British Columbia, and from the far north. We heard persons not of Indian descent, who had some knowledge of Indian matters and Indian affairs, from all over

Indian Act
Canada, and the result has been this bill. Whether or not we can recognize the child we are not too certain.
However, I do believe that we should endeavour to take what we can of this bill that is of value and then strive, and strive hard1, both within, and without this chamber, to bring about the assimilation of the Indians as I have described in my own area.
I do not quite agree with the bon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), who was a member of the committee, that we should delay passage of this bill. I have not as yet been convinced of that. If there is anything of value in this bill we should proceed with it at once. It may not be to our satisfaction, but it is at least something. It is something better than what we have today. Of course some may not agree with that. I am convinced that it is better than what we have today. Many of the recommendations of the committee have been implemented by the government; others have not. But I do not think that any good would come from having this matter put over indefinitely. I say, take what you can get today, and then fight for the rest.
One of the loudest complaints of the Indians throughout the three years in which we were hearing evidence, hearing the witnesses and1 discussing the matter with the Indians and with other people, was the interminable delays by the department in all of the administrative activities. For instance, an Indian might rent a piece of property on a reserve. The money for the rent could not be paid directly. The lessee therefore would have to pay it to the Indian agent, now known as the Indian superintendent. In due course he would forward it to Ottawa. Ottawa in turn would put it into the consolidated revenue fund or in some other branch. In due course the money would be applied for and would be paid out, but the delays were so intolerable to the Indian that he became rebellious, and I think righteously so.
In the liquidation of an estate upon the death of an Indian possessed of property the matter would be handled so slowly, in such a cumbersome way and with such long delays, that it is reasonable to assume the Indian was quite right in rebelling strenuously against such delays, which were intolerable. He had no way whatsoever of making any plans for the use of funds that were his in any way.
I will agree that since the committee has been set up, since the administration has been aroused to the need, and by force of public opinion, these delays have to a large extent been eliminated. I am sure that so long as

we have ministers such as the Hon. James Glen, or our present minister, those conditions will not be tolerated in the department.
I think at this time it might be appropriate for me to pay my respects to the minister, because this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I know he has taken a great interest in this work, because on occasion he has kept me after hours discussing the matter. I am sure that so long as he is in charge of the department we will have efficient and sincere administration. However, we are not certain that he will always remain in that position. Mind you, I think he will be there for many years; but, after all, time passes on and successions do take place, even in the ministry. However, I congratulate him upon having done an excellent job. While I may or may not like the bill, I am sure he has done the best he could with the material at hand.
I note that one of the recommendations of the committee was that a claims commission should be set up. Such a commission would consist of three or four members who would take care of the various claims that have been made for many years by the Indians, and settle them once and for all. The argument is now offered that such claims can now be made to the exchequer court. That may or may not be the solution. But I doubt very much that it would have the psychological' effect that a claims commission would have. The United States has set the pattern because over there they have set up a commission which has worked most efficiently. It has been their experience that when a justifiable claim is made by an Indian it is disposed of, and that is the end of it.
Many claims were made to the committee by Indian organizations. I have a list of them here. They said they had been promised certain things at certain times by different officials or governments, both provincial and federal. Such claims as sores have a tendency to fester. They have a tendency to grow from a small beginning to great proportions. I should think that a claims commission would be a valuable addition, and not only would its value be apparent to the Indians, who would have their say and their day in court, but it would eliminate many of the grievances now being taken care of, so far as possible, by the administration.
Provincial rights may have been infringed. I remember one occasion in New Brunswick when Indians had gone on to public property -or it may have been private property-and had taken off black ash. It may be that some departmental head or government official at some time or other had said that black ash was public property and that they had the

right to take it. In any event a claims commission could settle a claim of that kind once and for all. If the Indians had the right to that black ash they could be given it, or a supply could be made available. Otherwise the Indian would be subject to provincial law. Perhaps I might explain that black ash is used in the making of baskets, and is greatly in demand in some quarters.
While the matter of voting may not be pertinent to this bill, yet I think there are some provisions which have reference to that matter. It is my view that the vote should have been given to the Indians, without any strings attached. However, we have the bill before us, and I am content to have this seed sown now, although I think it was a mistake not to give the Indians the vote. I believe it would have been better to have taken the long-range view and to have given them the vote, and for these two reasons: The first is that it makes the Indian more conscious of government and, secondly, it makes the government and politicians more conscious of the Indian. That condition is desirable, because if we are going to assimilate the Indian into the economic life of Canada, and Into our social life, he cannot be assimilated by a process of segregation.
In New Zealand they have a system whereby they elect a certain number of Maoris who sit in their parliament. I do not approve of that system, because I believe that is a process of segregation, pure and simple. There the Maoris vote for their own representatives. In my view that would not be acceptable in Canadian political life. We certainly do not want to have any one section of our country stand as a festering sore; rather we want the people to be assimilated so that they will join as one. It may be that they may hold different views and different opinions, but socially they are one.
In South Africa they have a system whereby the blacks elect a certain number of whites to represent them. I do not favour that system, either. In my view the Canadian system of representation is the proper way of selecting governments for this country. While I will not say I was disappointed, I do believe a mistake has been made in this connection. However, in due time that will be corrected. Time will show whether we are right.
I was most interested in the announcement made a few days ago by the minister that a form of pension would be paid to aged Indians. Not only are these Indians in need of this assistance, but the granting of such a pension will boost the morale of the Indians and also of the Canadian people when they realize that these people who are
Indian Act
so greatly in need are being given the necessary assistance. I would think that this pension of $25 per month would be better under the administration of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It should be placed on the same basis as other pensions. I hope also that the recommendations made to the committee on old age security will also bear fruit and I am hopeful that all the people of Canada will be placed on the same basis so far as pensions are concerned.
It was recommended by the Indian affairs committee that the administration of Indian affairs be headed by a commissioner with two assistants, one of whom should be an Indian. Eventually that will have to be done and I am sorry that the government has not seen fit to implement that recommendation. Some may say that there are no Indians qualified for that position, but that is not correct. There are many Indians in Canada who are highly educated, who possess great cultural qualities. There are many Indians who are doctors, lawyers, magistrates, legislators and they are to be found in many other professions. As I say, eventually I think the government will realize that at least one Indian should be on such a commission. It would lift the morale of the Indian and make him feel that he was part of the Canadian life. It would give a spiritual boost that would last through the centuries if he knew that one of his brethren was at the head of the administration of Indian affairs.
I would not like to conclude my remarks without making some comment on the parliamentary inquiry that was made. As the minister said in his opening remarks, the Indian Act was last amended in 1880, about 70 years ago. If it is not provided in the bill, I think it should be announced that a parliamentary inquiry into Indian affairs will take place every five years to begin with, and then perhaps, later on, every ten years. A matter like this should not be left for 70 years before being reviewed. We are not dealing with material things, we are dealing with the lives and habits of 130,000 people, a people whose numbers are increasing at the rate of five per cent per annum.
While this might be more properly discussed on the minister's estimates, I think a larger allowance should be made for departmental travel. One of the curses of Indian administration is the fact that by force of circumstances the administrators are required to sit at their desks in Ottawa without the advantage of having firsthand contact with the matters they are administering. In my own case I know I have gained great benefit by going to see the things I was dealing with;

Indian Act
it has given me an entirely different viewpoint. It has broadened my outlook considerably with respect to the Indian question.
Finally I would recommend that there be set up among the white people advisory committees to bring about greater intercourse, socially and educationally, between the Indians and the white people. We provide aid for crippled children, we provide aid for the blind, we provide aid for this and that, but here we have 130,000 needy people in our midst and we do nothing whatsoever to assist them to become good Canadian citizens. Much could be accomplished along these lines.
Before closing I should like to pay my respects to the department for setting up the homemakers' clubs which might be likened to the women's institutes throughout Canada. Through these clubs the women on the Indian reserves learn to do things in and about their homes, things that are artistic and things that are necessary. They are being encouraged by the department and are doing a magnificent job. I repeat that there should be set up advisory councils or committees or auxiliaries, call them what you like, to assist these people. Let us help ourselves in getting their viewpoint and let us help them in getting our viewpoint for the betterment of all Canada.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brani-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in making the few remarks I have to make on the second reading of Bill No. 267, respecting Indians, I should first like to congratulate the minister on having finally brought forward this legislation. I had the privilege of sitting on the committee in 1946, 1947 and 1948. After three years of deliberation by that committee and after having waited some 70 years to revise this act, I am disappointed in the provisions of the bill that has been brought forward. I believe many more people across Canada are disappointed in what is contained in the bill to amend the Indian Act. For too many years our Indians have been governed by antiquated legislation. Having waited so long, I am very sorry that the new bill is apparently being pushed through in the dying days of the session, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said on May 5, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), as recorded at page 2205 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the representations made by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the spirit in which he made them. Nevertheless it is our understanding that the Indians are anxious to have this legislation brought before parliament. This matter has been discussed. The department felt it had all the information required for the drafting of the legislation, and that it
[Mr. Brown (Essex West) .1
would be desirable that the bill be given first reading and be distributed, and then that a sufficient lapse of time be allowed so that interested chiefs and other members of their bands may see what it contains and make representations. Of course it is legislation in the interests of the Canadian nation, but more particularly for the Indians themselves. If it appeared from their reaction to the bill that they would prefer not to have it adopted at this session but rather to have further discussions with them and further consideration of the legislation, their views would be given sympathetic consideration.
If the Prime Minister meant what he said at that time, surely sympathetic consideration means more than forcing the bill through at this late stage after giving the Indians at the most two weeks to study the bill from the time it received first reading. I know in many cases they have not even seen the bill yet.
The statement has been made on several occasions that it is the desire of the government to gradually assimilate all Indians. The minister used a different term this afternoon and said that the desire was for an integration of all Indians into the general life and economy of the country. This statement is borne out by the interpretation in a number of newspaper articles. In the Ottawa Journal of June 1, 1950, there is an article with the heading:
Canadian Indians to get full citizenship in few years
The article reads in part:
Canadian Indians in a few years will enjoy full citizenship rights, including the franchise, it was predicted in informed quarters today.
In the Globe and Mail of June 8, 1950, there is an article with the heading:
Offer vote, liquor in new Indian bill
The article reads in part:
Provision for enfranchisement of Indian bands at the discretion of the government where more than 50 per cent of the band has voted for the franchise is laid down in the long awaited Indian Act amendments introduced in the commons today. Such action, however, automatically wipes out the reservation and establishes it either as a municipality or part of a municipality.
Why the bill is being rushed through at this time the government alone knows. Certainly such a procedure is not in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister on May 5. Surely sympathetic consideration should mean more than that. I have certain editorials indicating public opinion as to Bill No. 267. In the London Free Press of June 9, 1950, there is an editorial headed:
Is Government "Indian Giver" in New Bill?
The editorial reads:
Government action to help Indians in Canada attain full citizenship rights is long overdue. The new bill which is being introduced by Hon. Walter E. Harris is based on long and careful study. There

Indian Act
are indications that it may not be as far-reaching as many people hoped. Apparently it aims at a gradual evolution from the present position of wardship.
In the Vancouver News-Herald of June 17, 1950, there is an editorial headed:
Betrayal of the Indians
The editorial reads in part:
Who is responsible for the shamefully inadequate piece of legislation that has been offered to the commons as a new Indian act?
The North Shore Review of Friday, June 16, 1950, in an editorial headed "Governmental hypocrisy", has this to say in the first paragraph:
If federal government plans to rush through its inept revision of the Indian Act are not checked, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent will go down in history as an inglorious traitor to our native citizens.


Walter Edward Harris: Do you believe
that?


John Alpheus Charlton: In the Vancouver Sun of
June 19, 1950, there is an editorial headed: "Not Good Enough", and the first paragraph reads:
The bill introduced into parliament by the government to revise the Indian Act is a vast disappointment to friends of the Indians. It should be withdrawn and given further consideration before it is submitted to the next session of parliament.
These editorials represent the views of some of those who have taken a kindly interest in the troubles of the Indians. Surely, Mr. Speaker, our first citizens deserve better treatment. They pay most of the taxes we pay. They willingly fought beside their white brothers in two world wars. I was rather amazed at a statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) a few days ago which appears at page 3815 of Hansard. It reads:
It has often been said-and I think some of the hon. members opposite and perhaps some on this side have said it-that the Indian was a second-grade citizen at the moment. Without admitting that, I hope the house will understand that we are trying to make him an equal citizen; but I do not think we should go one step further and make him a preferred citizen as against all others in the community.
I think most Indians will resent the statement that anyone has rated them as second-grade citizens. Certainly they have taken their part in most of our activities. As I said previously, in two world wars they fought beside their white brothers and gave their lives. Surely after the treatment they have had in the last seventy-four years they deserve a little extra consideration at the present time. In endeavouring to express the feelings of the members of the Six Nations reservation at Brantford, I think I can do no better than to quote from the brief which they presented
at the time of the sittings of the special committee. The final portion thereof reads as follows:
Finally, apart from the preceding brief which deals almost entirely with matters affecting the revision of the Indian Act, we would draw your attention to certain remarks of various witnesses who have appeared before you, whose statements we have read with considerable interest and with astonished amazement. To refer to one in particular your witness was speaking of the reserve at Brantford, our own Six Nations-"I think we must look forward to their gradual assimilation." We very much resent those remarks as we are proud of being Six Nations Indians. We are thankful we have sons and daughters, and we hope that they, like ourselves, will grow up with pride in the fact that they are first Six Nations Indians, and secondly good Canadians.
We as a people bitterly resent these suggestions of assimilation or absorption, and cannot accept such as inevitable.
We remember well the words which appear on Chief Red-Jacket's monument in Buffalo:	"When
I am gone, and my voice is no longer heard, the avarice and guile of the white man will prevail. My heart fails me when I think of my people, so soon to be scattered and forgotten."
What possible justification can there be for it to be so frequently urged that Indian reserves must be broken up before the Indian can attain his rightful place in equal partnership with his fellow Canadians?
That is signed by the secretary and chief councillor of the Six Nations reserve. I have taken the stand previously in the house as well as in the committee that it is not the desire of most Indians, certainly not those of the Six Nations at Brantford, to be assimilated fully and completely into Canadian citizenship if that will mean they must give up all the rights they have so well earned and so well deserve. That they must give up the right of exemption from personal income tax in order to get the vote is just one thing. No wonder for the past few years the Indians have been pessimistic, sceptical, distrustful and suspicious of their white brothers and what they have done. They have been pushed aside on small sections of land, in some cases not very good land, and left to get along as best they could, with very little say in their own affairs.
In conclusion I would ask the minister to reconsider the advisability of rushing this bill through at this time.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the Indian Act because of the fact that near my home there are two reserves, the Munceys and the Oneidas, and in addition I have had the privilege of visiting the Cree Indians at Moose Factory and also the Indians on the Pacific coast at Alert Bay and Kingcome Inlet.
I do not suppose it would be possible within the immediate future to right all the wrongs that have been done the Indians in

Indian Act
this country in the last couple of hundred years, and particularly since 1867. I do not intend this evening to go into all the things that could and should be done to improve the Indian Act, but I want to point out a few things that I believe are apparent to every Canadian who has given any thought to the problem now before us. Through the years mistake has followed error, so that today the Indian, still a ward of the government, has not taken his rightful place in the councils or the economic life of the country. Any plans we make here should take that fact into consideration.
One of the first steps along that line should be to provide education that, as far as may be possible, is equal to that which is available to our own children. Certainly it will not help solve the problem to continue into the future a system that has proved a failure ever since 1867. The original citizens of this country deserve a better deal than they have had so far. Let us not propose to prolong these injustices. In many attempts to deal with the Indian affairs branch I must confess that while I was courteously received, actually the problems were not attacked as I felt they should be. I had the impression that I was being given a bit of a run-around, and that they were dealing with me as they have dealt with the Indians for the past seventy or eighty years. When any information was desired, instead of taking the word of the Indians or their neighbours they referred to the officials administering the act, and of course they got the answer you would expect; that everything was all right and no change should be made. That, I think, is the wrong approach. They more or less exhibited toward me the feeling that I also was a ward of the government.
I mentioned that education was the first great step toward bringing these citizens fully into the economic and political life of the nation. I had an opportunity to visit one of the Indian schools at Moose Factory. Something was said about many of these Indian schools being operated by one or other of the religious organizations of this country. I must say the one I had the pleasure of visiting was in my opinion very efficiently operated. They were trying to do the best possible job with very limited finances. I believe that has been one of the handicaps that have beset those concerned with the education of Indians throughout the country. While at Moose Factory-and I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will appreciate this-I also had the opportunity of visiting the new hospital

being built there. It is a fine building, though at the moment I am saying nothing as to its cost.
Many of the problems that seem almost insurmountable today will fade into insignificance when equal educational opportunities are provided for all citizens. The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) just mentioned the part played by the Indians in two world wars, when they proved they were at least our equals. I believe they can do the same thing in every other field of endeavour if given the proper opportunity. I would not want to guess how many million dollars we have spent to rehabilitate Europe, though all that Europe ever gave us was a headache. Let us spend a small fraction of that amount on the first Canadians in this country.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.h Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate this evening because I have been following the work of the Indian affairs committee for the past three years. That is because there is an Indian band and reserve in my riding. Previous speakers have said their bands were the best. They are all wrong; I represent the best band of Indians in Canada. In taking part in this debate I do not want to take advantage of a privilege I enjoyed last evening, when I was one of the Indians representing that band at an interview with the minister. I want to congratulate him and to thank him for the courteous treatment he accorded us in listening to our requests and arguments for over two hours of his time. We know that he is busy, particularly at this time at the end of the session, with his estimates and this bill coming down.
I have had a great deal to do with Indians. I have not any letters, excerpts or extracts from papers to read to you because I have had a personal interview with my Indians from time to time, and I think I understand what they require. I think they should be treated in the same way as any other Canadian citizens. I have seen these Indians in uniform; I have seen them on their farms on the reserve; and I have seen them in many other places. With regard to my band, I want to say this. The chief was not here last night, and that is the reason I was in at that interview; but he arrived this morning. He is eighty-one years of age, and is smarter than most of us at fifty. He enlisted in 1914 and he took into the service with him at that time every young Indian who was eligible in that band. I think that is a record. He himself came out at the end of the war with a D.C.M. and an M.M. He also has a personal coin which was presented to him by the late General Sir Sam Hughes, on his return home.

This band of Indians that I represent, in Rama, Ontario, are just about as intelligent as any other group of citizens that I know about. They have their own Indian village. They have good farms. They have their own village hall. They have their own schools. I want to say that out of that school have come teachers with second class permanent certificates and I think one or two-one in particular-ministers of the gospel have left the reserve and gone to work in other parts.
I do not speak now because I think this bill is all bad or that the Indian legislation is all bad. There is some good in it. I think the time is over-ripe for giving the Indian the vote. That is one thing that has come about recently. He should have had it before. It is, however, a start in the right direction. He may have to be subjected to the income tax in order to receive that privilege, but I do not think that will affect him greatly because there are few who ever come within the category of paying income tax. In this band in particular, apart from the farmers, quite a number of the younger men work at the chemical plant within a mile and a half of the reserve; another group work in Orillia in the factories. Of course they are subjected to income tax at their place of work each and every pay day, so they will not be affected by that provision in that respect. Nor will it affect the Indian who was a veteran of either of the great wars. All in all, I think the minister can take it up with his officials, take it a little bit further and give them a free vote the same as everybody else.
Out of this band, as well as teachers and ministers, have come great athletes. We have good ball players, good hockey players, and good lacrosse players. One thing we must not forget is that if the Indians have deteriorated in any respect, it is not their fault. It is our fault for the treatment we have given them. Looking back a few years, I can quite well remember that the greatest long distance runner of all time was Tom Longboat, a full-blooded Indian.
There is in this bill one piece of legislation that I do not just like. Probably it is a move in the direction of freedom, but it has gone either too far or not far enough. I refer to the rights or privileges of an Indian to have alcohol or alcoholic drinks. At page 34 the bill goes on to say what happens to the Indian or to set out the penalty he will get if he is caught in possession of intoxicants off the reserve. Then down a little farther it deals with the penalty he will get if he is caught in possession of intoxicants on the reserve; so whether he is on the reserve or off the reserve he is subject to fine and imprisonment in any
Indian Act
case. Then the bill goes on to provide for certificates of analysis as evidence and the section reads:
In every prosecution under this act a certificate of analysis furnished by an analyst employed by the government of Canada or by a province shall be accepted . . .
I do not think that is really the law with regard to a white person.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We are not in
committee, and the hon. member may not refer to any particular clause of the bill. He must confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


Mr. Hodgson:: Very well, Mr. Speaker,
That part of the act fines him if he is caught, with liquor on the reserve or off the reserve. But a few lines farther on the act goes on tot say that he can consume liquor in a beer parlour or cocktail lounge or other public place. That provision allows the Indian to go. in and have a few bottles of beer. He knows that he cannot take any home. He knows that he cannot have any at home when he gets home, so therefore he is going to gulp down five or six bottles of beer, get half or three parts drunk and then go out. Then he is the victim of every bootlegger he knows, the same as any white man would be who was dealt with under the same circumstances. We should either allow these people to go into, the liquor store, buy their liquor and take it home or they should not be allowed to have it at all. We should do either one thing or the other. There is no half-way method of handling liquor, whether you are dealing with Indians or Canadians of any other description.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The voice of
experience.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, the voice of experience. I was in the army with some of these Indians, and they did) not get drunk any oftener than any of the rest of us nor were they any wilder than any of the rest of us when they did get drunk. Because their great-greatgrandfather killed somebody with a tomahawk when he was full of firewater, there is no reason why that fact should be held over their heads for a hundred years afterwards. Probably if we looked back at what some of our ancestors have done, we might find that it was something just a little bit worse than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is one point at least on which I think this bill should be held over until the provincial conference has been held, because we all know that the administration of the liquor control act must be by the.

Indian Act
provinces. There must therefore be some acceptance of this act by the provinces before anything can be done about it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not occupy your time for more than a few minutes. I want to make it plain that I do not speak as an expert. But I was born in a place called Assiniboia, which is now called Regina, Saskatchewan. In fact, the town did not even have that name. It was called "Pile of Bones". They had a legislature called the northwest legislature before the provinces were born. But the first job that paid any money-that is, aside from 25 cents a week for washing dishes and doing the dusting in my mother's house

was selling cloth at the treaty meeting time of the Indians on the Piapot reserve when they got their $5 a year. We had an industrial school there. We played a game called football. It was not described as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) describes football. He is a younger man, and he and other people invented a stupid name, which they brought from England, called soccer. Therefore I do have some considerable knowledge of these people.
A few moments ago I heard an hon. member mention the name of Tom Longboat. I went to Osgoode hall in Toronto in the winter of 1906-07 or 1907-08. I got to know Tam Longboat very well. That was when Lou Marsh took him over to London, and he was so far ahead in the Olympic race at that time that he lost all his opponents. The Italian won out that year. I remember Lou telling me how he tried to revive Tom. Tom was so far ahead that the judges did not know where he was. He went down. This was the first time I had ever heard the expression: "I even bit his ear in order to bring him back into running form." However, that failed. After that he went down to Montreal and took part in the road race of that year, which was only a matter of six miles and something. I do not think his opponents have finished yet.
But in any event I speak not with authority. I do not claim that at all. But I do claim to have some knowledge of these people which I have gained in a humble way. I think I have some knowledge not of their capabilities which we get in statistics, but of other things, remembering as I do Tom Longboat, and the fine characters whom I have known from my school football days, or soccer, as this great coach called it who spoke in California the other day. However, it is a game that you play with a leather thing that contains a rubber bladder filled with wind. Frankly I am not expressing my view

of the speech he made down there. I was merely describing the football regardless of what shape it may take.
I want to confine my remarks to one thing and one thing only. I present these remarks to the minister who has charge of this bill. In my constituency, entirely within my constituency, there is a reserve called the Stony Indians. May I say this for them. Search the annals of the criminal courts of Alberta as you will and you will not find one Stony who has ever been convicted of any crime, no matter how minor.
I know some of these fellows. They have never made me a chief. The answer to that is simply this:	I have never been a chief
publicity seeker. That is the only reason I have not been made a chief of that tribe. Let any of the great people, such as the governor general, come in there from the outside and we will get them made a chief in one of the two tribes we have, the Sarcees or the Stonies, without any trouble. We will give them a ten-gallon hat and hope they will have fun wearing it. I happen to know these people pretty well. I remember when Mr. Glen was in charge of this department. He sent for the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and myself with respect to spending some money to buy some ranching country. He said: "Of course I cannot do it if there is going to be trouble." I have never had that kind of a call from the present minister. In any event, I assured him, as did the hon. member for Calgary East, that there would be no trouble.
The Stonies are a hunting tribe. They never were farmers, as were the Blackfeet and some of the other people we have in that province. They bought the ranches. They paid plenty of money because the Stonies, being hunters, were interested in animals. They had bad luck in those very bad winters we have had. The hon, member for Calgary East and I agreed most heartily with Mr. Glen, and it went through this house without any difficulty. I mention that, Mr. Speaker, only for this reason. The request came from them. It got consideration, and all anyone had to do was what Mr. Glen did, speak to us, who were the only people interested because it was right near our home city. The thing went through quickly. I am quite sure it was a charge on the funds of the band, because they did have considerable funds at that time.
Here is the question I want to put to the minister: Why in the world does he want to put this thing through the house in the closing days of the session? I assume

Indian Act
that he will answer. I listened to his opening statement, but I failed to find anything in it which justifies the urgency of doing it at this time. You can correct me, sir, or anyone else can, but I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this house some time ago. I cannot quote him accurately, but I gathered from what he said that the bill would come down. I remember his words. He said that plenty of time would be left for representations with respect to the bill. Perhaps I am not word perfect in what I have said, but, sir, I give you my word of honour that I took what he said to mean this: we would get the bill this year, we would find out what was in it and that plenty of time would be given to interested persons to make representations.
Now, speaking only for the little territory that I represent, I know the bill has not been distributed in time to permit these people to make representations. It is no answer to them to say that they will not agree; that they did not agree before the committee which sat on Indian affairs, and was followed by the commission on Indian affairs. That is no answer. My whole point is this: They are entitled to be heard. I put this, sir, as one of the bases of law in this country. First, that no man shall be condemned without being heard, without being given the opportunity of putting his position forward. I use the word "condemned" first because of its narrow interpretation in the basic law of this country. I add to that this thought, that no person shall have his rights taken from him, added to or subtracted from, unless he has the opportunity of being heard. I believe the minister will agree as to our personal friendship. He knows of my admiration for him as an individual. However, as a minister of Indian affairs I hope I may be forgiven if I withhold my praise.
I- have not been active in the practice of law for some time, but I do remember an instance where the charter of a corporation was cancelled. It was within my knowledge that they were a gambling outfit-and that is all they were. I have acted for lots of gamblers, and I know how they operate. They got themselveS incorporated, and gave themselves a name-I have forgotten just what it was. The authorities in my province cancelled their charter, and the case went to the courts.
Someone may say that the final decision was morally wrong, but the fact is that the cancellation was set aside on the broad basis that they had not been notified, that they had not been heard, or given an opportunity to advance their position, whatever it might have been.
So I say to the minister now that he will avoid infinite trouble if he will just allow these people to be heard. In doing so he will be following the finest precedents in British and Canadian jurisprudence. I make no effort to discuss this or that section, but I do say this, that it is no answer to say that the Indian population will not agree. I do not think they will, and I do not know why they should. They have recently shown an independence of mind which I suggest permits me to make that statement, and with justification. But never let it be said that the parliament of Canada passed an act dealing with the whole Indian population of our country without first having heard them.
That is my real point. Let us suppose we do not do that. Let us suppose we put this thing through now, as the minister has suggested-at least I think he suggested it. What would it mean? It would mean that we have dealt with a portion of our population who are bound together toy their ethnic origin, a people who were here long before we were, and that we are saying to these people, "This is the law."
I know the answer can toe made that all the Indians in Canada were invited to attend before the committee. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I spent a good deal of time there, although I was not a member of the committee. So we come to two courses of action. The first is that we will put this thing through and, as the minister has said, let it be amended next year or the year after. I compliment the minister and all the members of that committee upon having done a fine job in endeavouring to produce, perhaps not a Magna Carta but at least a charter for the Indians of Canada. The second course would be that, having placed the bill before the house, he would not insist upon proceeding with it.
Second thought is sometimes better. In dealing with this numerically small section of our population let us never forget that we are dealing with a whole race of people who have been here infinitely longer than we have. It would seem that in this instance we are telling people who happen to have different coloured skins, "Thus and so is the law. That you will do, and without a hearing."
I come back, not to British law but to British jurisprudence under which no one shall be condemned and no rights shall be taken way except he be heard. I could cover the French law, if hon. members wished. I admit it comes from an entirely different origin, namely from the early Roman law. However the development in French civil law was after the absolute monarchs of France gave way, and after the intendants in this

Indian Act
country ceased to have absolute authority. From both of these has developed the principle that there must be no interference with the rights of anyone without first having given him the opportunity to be heard.
Someone will readily say, "If you bring the Indians here, they will not agree." No one can help that; that is democracy itself. If all the people in west Calgary had agreed I would not be here-I would be a long way off, and someone would have taken my place. So I put it on this solid basis, that there is no rush about this matter. I gathered from the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that all summer would be given to those of us who assume we are entitled to be called legislators, and to this government who assume that they are God Almighty above, and a dozen or two of the apostles-[DOT] they do not stop at the twelve. I had understood that there would be that opportunity given.
It is no answer to say that the Indians would not agree. We may not agree, but. the majority opinion rules in a democracy.
I know the minister's intentions are good. But, if he will hear these people, either agreeing or disagreeing with them, and despite differences of opinion on this or that section of the bill, he will have no trouble with an Indian charter. Let it never be said that, in dealing with an entire group whose skin happens to be a bit different in colour, we have said, "This way thou shalt go, and no other; there shalt thou lie"-and I am spelling that word in its proper way.
I do not think I can be accused of being political when I ask the minister to delay this legislation. There are no benefits that anyone could imagine, let alone think of, to be derived from hurrying this through at this time. The minister has nothing to lose by delay; he has everything to gain by waiting until next year before presenting this new charter under which we shall welcome our Indians to brotherhood. This charter should not be put through until we have had a chance to hear what they think of it.
I repeat that there is nothing to be gained by hurrying and there is everything to be gained by waiting. This is not an emergency. If I were sitting where the minister sits I probably would take the same view. He has taken on a new job and it is characteristic of him that he wants to get it started. But impatience has never been a virtue. No matter how idealistic the minister may be, he should not rush through this legislation until the people who are opposed to it or who are in favour of it have been heard.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this debate were it not for the fact there are some 3,000
[Mr. Smith (Calgary West),11
Indians within the riding of Cariboo, and among those Indians are some educated, wide-awake and progressive young men and women. They are not like the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and who has been so long in southern Alberta among the Stonies and the Blackfeet that he has got into the habit of putting off things until tomorrow-


Arthur Leroy Smith: At their request.


George Matheson Murray: -or next week.


Arthur Leroy Smith: At their request. Do not let us be silly.


George Matheson Murray: I recall one experience I had which illustrates the position here. On a hot day I was travelling along the Cariboo road. The United States tourists were rushing up into that very favoured part of western Canada. The dust was thick and, as I say, it was very hot. I came along to where there was a beautiful waterfall and under a tree there lay a young Indian. He had tethered his horse, unsaddled it and had the saddle under his head. There he was lying pleasantly and happily about four o'clock in the afternoon. I stopped to fill my radiator and I said to this young Indian, "What are you doing here?" He said, "George, I am waiting for the sun to go down." That was a very wise thing to do on a hot day on the Cariboo road. That is what our Conservative friends are waiting for tonight. They are waiting for the discussion to die down and for someone to come along with a new charter, a new amendment or something at some time in the future. I submit that we should go ahead with this legislation introduced by the splendid young minister who is so representative of young Canada and who wishes to make a contribution toward his country.
There are just as many different kinds of Indians in Canada as there are different kinds of members in this House of Commons. I know the Indians from one end of the country to the other. When I go to Montreal and see some of these steel workers I realize that they are just as smart and clever, that they have just as much money in their pockets as any of the white wage earners around Montreal. Then I go up into Brant county and I can see no difference between the farms of the old Canadian stock and those of the Indians. The Indians are just as progressive, they have just as fine houses and barns, their fences are in as good repair and they look after the cultivation of their land as well as the other inhabitants.
Then you pass on into the west and you get into the Cariboo country which stretches 700 miles from north to south. There are

Indian Act
many types of Indians in that region. Some years ago at Williams Lake there used to be an Indian known as Eagle Lake Henry. He would come into Williams Lake in the fall of the year with 500 head of cattle and sell them in competition with the other ranchers. He was not particularly educated but he knew his arithmetic. I often think how splendid it is that some men are well educated in arithmetic. After selling his cattle he would buy tractors, machinery, combines and so forth. Yet he was an outcast; he was not one of us although he was one of the big operators in the country.
Then as you go north up around Prince George you find the Beaver and the Cree, a different type of Indian. In my youth 1 knew Pauline Johnson, the great poetess, whose verses are as beautiful as any ever written by any Canadian poet. I did not know Oronhyatekha, who was known as Old Iron Teakettle, who in his early days was one of the leading financiers of the country. A bronze statue of him stands in Toronto. He was a full-blooded Indian with great culture and ability.
I think also of the sisters of a certain religious order who are operating a hospital and school at Williams Lake with a standard equal to anything in our country. Then there are teachers and others.
The legislation before us is a start. It is not perfect because man, whether white or otherwise, with all his ingenuity and gifts is not perfect and his legislation is never perfect. But this is a start toward establishing the Indians of Canada in their proper position as Canadian people.
Without quibbling and without splitting hairs this legislation should be passed. Later on amendments can be made. The laws that we make today are not final. I call upon all members in the house to give the minister support at this time in making a start in establishing a true democracy in Canada where there will be no division of colour or of race or of religion, where all Canadians will be equal under the law.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with the concluding words of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) I am in entire agreement, and it is just for that reason that I am going to speak in opposition to the bill. I was one of those who believed that out of the Indian committee would indeed come a charter that would be beneficial to the Indians of Canada. On May 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) -and I am not going to read it now because it has been read before-whether an opportunity would be given to the Indian population to consider the bill to be introduced. I 55946-25 li
did that in no partisan way. This is one subject that we can and will deal with in a non-partisan manner for the reason that the bill in its present form affects the political future of none of us.
The Prime Minister said that he appreciated the tone of the representations I had made and that the matter would receive the consideration of the Indians across this country. I listened this afternoon to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who was chairman of the committee on Indian affairs. He earned for himself as chairman of the committee a reputation for a willingness and desire to contribute something to the welfare of the Indians. His statement, his observations and his conclusion regarding the bill were a miracle in terminology. I cannot repeat word for word what he said but it was to the effect that as far as it went, whether or not he agreed with it, he believed that the minister had done as much as he could. Whatever he meant, one thing stands out, that he as chairman of that committee was disappointed with the bill.
It is a mirage, Mr. Speaker. It is no charter. It is merely an alteration of some of the provisions of the Indian Act intensified in so far as administrative officials are concerned to make them more powerful than they have ever been before under the Indian Act as it has existed since 1880. The hon. member for Cariboo says: Let us have equality under the law; let us maintain freedom; and the minister brings to the house a bill that is a negation of freedom, a denial of equality under the law. Indeed it provides that Indians can have no recourse to the courts unless they have the permission of the minister to proceed. When I compare the report that the special committee on Indian affairs made on June 22, 1948, with the bill now before the house, it is obvious that the master hands of the administrative officials of the Indian affairs branch have wrought changes that parliament never thought of. After speaking of the purposes of the amendments to the act the report of the special committee reads as follows:
In order to achieve these objectives, your committee recommends, in addition to other recommendations hereinafter set out (a) that the revised act contain provisions to protect from injustice and exploitation such Indians as are not sufficiently advanced to manage their own affairs.
When the minister replies let him say what new section of the bill implements protection of the Indians from exploitation. Other recommendations were:
That greater responsibility and more progressive measures of self-government of reserve and band affairs be granted to band councils to assume and carry out such responsibilities;

Indian Act	.
That the offence and penalty sections of the Indian Act be made equitable and brought into conformity with similar sections in the Criminal Code . . .
That the Indians be accorded the same rights and be liable to the same penalties as others with regard to the consumption of intoxicating beverages on licensed premises, but there shall be no manufacture, sale or consumption, in or on a reserve, of "intoxicants" within the meaning of the Indian Act;
That it be the duty and responsibility of all officials dealing with Indians to assist them to attain the full rights and to assume the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
Then these recommendations are m.ade:
Your committee recommends that rules of the House of Commons be amended to provide for the appointment of a select standing committee on Indian affairs.
Your committee recommends that a commission in the nature of a claims commission be set up, with the least possible delay, to inquire into the terms of all Indian treaties in order to discover and determine, definitely and finally, such rights and obligations as are therein involved and, further, to assess and settle finally and in a just and equitable manner all claims for grievances which have arisen thereunder.
The bill in its present form simply places the Indian in a position where he will have no equality under the law, where he will be at the beck and control of officials on the various reserves. Rights? He cannot take a case to court when there is wrongdoing unless he has the permission of the minister. Appeals provided for? There is an appeal from the official in charge of the reserve to the minister, from the hired man to the hired man's boss.


Mr. Mitchell:: May I ask my hon. friend a simple question?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Humphrey Mitchell: You' say he has no right to appeal without the permission of the minister?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what it says.


Humphrey Mitchell: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister asked that because there is no greater exponent of the abiding principles of British freedom than the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


John George Diefenbaker: I knew the fact that those provisions were in there would shock his British sensibilities. I feel sure that the minister will now join the rest of us.


Humphrey Mitchell: Sing your Christmas carol and get it over with.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, I love to hear the minister expatiate on British traditions and principles and read parliament these

wonderful lectures on parliamentary government. Nevertheless he is a member of a government that brings before the house a bill that denies to the individual Indian that freedom and equality referred to by the hon. member for Cariboo. When an Indian commits an offence under the proposed act or is alleged to have committed an offence, who tries him? Is it the ordinary courts of law? No; those who try him will be the Indian agent, or an official of the Indian department, or appointees of the minister who will act as justices of the peace. I cannot understand the reason for these provisions. Why should an Indian be tried for a criminal offence before an appointee of the department of Indian affairs? Why should he not be tried by the ordinary courts of law? Why the denial of those principles for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) speaks so volubly on so many occasions?
In its present form this bill is a travesty on the representations made by members of both houses of parliament. Members of this house and of the other place met togethe' for three years, and then brought in recommendations. Those recommendations, except with respect to administrative difficulties which have existed over the years, did not result in material changes which would benefit the Indians of this country. I point to something else that is not being done. Why has no action been taken on the recommendation that a commission be set up, so that the Indians may not continue to feel that have been unjustly treated, as they have? In 1931 or 1932 the department permitted one action to be brought; it allowed one petition of right to an Indian band in Saskatchewan, and what happened? The action was tried; the Indian department and its officials were shown to have wrongfully applied some $20,000 belonging to that band and held in trust. Have they been granted the right to sue since? I know several solicitors who have endeavoured to obtain petitions of right and failed. That was prior to the appointment of the present minister, but I know of no change that has taken place in that regard since. These Indians, deprived of their rights under treaty, have to ask leave in order to sue, and that leave is not granted. Fiat after fiat has been refused by the Department of Justice to Indians who desire to assert their rights in the courts of law.


Walter Edward Harris: What bands are you referring to?


John George Diefenbaker: I refer to the bands in northern Saskatchewan. The action I mentioned had to do with the band at Mistawasis. The minister will remember it; the department lost the action, and wrongdoing was

established before the court. Since that day no Indian band in Saskatchewan has received permission to sue the department for wrongdoing. Matters like this are embalmed in this bill, and these are the things that will be perpetuated if this bill becomes law.
I could go on and refer to various other matters, but suffice it to say that there has been a serious endeavour to solve the difficulty in relation to citizenship. I know that difficulty. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) mentioned that the Indians might not agree on many matters if they were given the opportunity to appear here. Some want citizenship; others do not. As a result a novel plan has been adopted. How it will work out I do not know, but as far as the plan for citizenship is concerned it does represent a serious attempt to do something to solve the almost impossible situation that prevails today. As far as giving the Indian an opportunity to benefit himself is concerned, or to raise his standard, in its present form this bill is nothing but a perpetuation of bureaucracy and bureaucratic control over the Indians on the reserves. If it is passed the rights of the Indians will not be increased in any way, while the power of the officials on the reserves will be just as great as in the past, if not greater.
This act was passed originally in 1880, before the rebellion of 1885. Conditions were different then. A few amendments have been brought in since. Two committees of parliament have met and discussed the matter, prior to the appointment of the last committee two or three years ago. The law respecting Indians is a denial of the principles we accept under the United Nations. As it is now drawn this bill places these people in a position of wardship, making it impossible for the individual Indian to preserve and protect his rights against the tyranny of officials. Why those terms? Why not place the Indian in a position equal to that of other people in this land as far as the law is concerned? Why place him in the position that when he is charged with an offence he must be tried by the person who prosecutes him? On the one hand the Indian agent on the reserve says this man committed an offence. The trial will take place before another official appointed by the department, often a junior official on the reserve. Will you get justice that way? Will you preserve the rights of the individual? By legislation such as this, dealing with people who are operating under the difficulties that have been theirs for generations, will you lessen the intensity of their feeling? All this will do is emphasize their feeling that parliament is not regarding
Indian Act
them seriously, that parliament has failed to carry out what was recommended by a parliamentary committee.
Why the rush? The hon. member for Calgary West made a powerful, meaningful plea in that regard. What changes are in this bill that cannot be brought in after the Indians have had an opportunity of considering it? While the hon. member for Calgary West was speaking I received my mail. Here is a letter from an outstanding clergyman in the city of Calgary, who says:
I must confess that I know very little about It-


George Matheson Murray: On a matter of
privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is out of order. It was so ruled this afternoon by Mr. Speaker, and I believe the same rule should apply now.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a question of order at all.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He rose on a
question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I presume I may
continue?


George Matheson Murray: After that legal
advice I will raise a point of order and ask that this be ruled out. The reading of a document, a letter or telegram, was ruled out of order this afternoon by Mr. Speaker, and this therefore should be ruled out of order as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In some circumstances it is permitted. The hon. member may continue.


John George Diefenbaker: I will give the name of
this clergyman if the minister wants it, or if the hon. gentleman wants to interview him. He is Rev. William Bonney, of Calgary, who says:
They feel that the bill is not fair to the Indian and therefore they are protesting to the minister and others not to rush the bill through until the Indians themselves have had a chance to study and make recommendations.
That is the attitude of Indians throughout the province of Saskatchewan. I have representations from Indians in six reserves in northern Saskatchewan. They are asking why it is that the representatives of the great white father, the Prime Minister of Canada, indicated we were going to have this opportunity. The minister will say that the bill has been sent to the Indian agents. All I can say is this, Mr. Speaker. The Indian agents have been studying the bill but those affected by it, the Indians themselves, have had no opportunity of studying it and considering it.


Mr. Casselman:: The same as the members of the house.

Indian Act


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Indians are asking parliament not to lay on their shoulders burdens beyond what they already have. They are asking why it is that the recommendations which were made by the committee are not being carried out. They are asking why it is that, while we give high-sounding support to their claims under treaties, we deny them the opportunity, except with the permission of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or of the minister, of proceeding in order to establish their claims. Indee.d one section, which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), denies the Indian the right, without the consent of the minister, to raise any funds with a view to asserting his rights, protecting his privileges or taking proceedings on behalf of his band. The minister indicates that such is not the case. I refer him, if I may do so, Mr. Speaker, to section 100. Without the consent of the minister the Indian cannot assert his rights if he is alleged to have committed a wrong-


Walter Edward Harris: That is a wholly incorrect interpretation of section 100; but let us leave it to the period when we can discuss it in committee.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, I will. I am referring the minister to section 100, and I leave it for discussion when we get to the committee. Section 100, which I will read without observation, provides as follows:
A person who without the consent in writing of the minister receives, obtains, solicits or requests from an Indian or a band any payment or contribution or promise of payment or contribution for the purpose of raising a fund or providing money to advance any claim that the Indian or the band has or is represented to have, or to recover money for the benefit of the Indian or the band, is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction to a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


Mr. Fraser:: That is as plain as the nose on your face.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, at a time when throughout the world freedom is being challenged, when the very nature of democracy is being challenged, we have before us a bill that places shackles on a large part of the population of our country, numbering about 125,000. For three years that committee sat. Now the mountain brings forth a mouse. Here we have not what was recommended by the committee but what apparently meets the desires and the wishes of the administrative officials. In its present form this bill is a perpetuation of bureaucracy over the Indian. It is a denial of his rights. It places him in the position of being a second-class

citizen under law. It denies him freedom except with the consent of the minister or with the consent of some officials of the Indian department.
Magna Carta for the Indians! As I read this bill and re-read it-and I have read every line of it-I ask myself this question: What advantages that he has not today will this bill give to the Indian, except to provide for the opportunity of enfranchisement? There are changes in routine and in procedure but the Indian remains a second-class individual, not equal before the law- and parliament is asked to place its approval on that fact-controlled by the desires of a bureaucracy administering the act, when and if members of that bureaucracy decide that any Indian within the reserve shall be denied his rights or his privileges.
I care not what others may do about this bill. Some say there are worth-while provisions in it, and there are. In certain sections there are changes that are beneficial. But in order to secure those two or three advantages I personally will not vote for the second reading of that bill. I will take no part in the passing of a bill that goes contrary to the desires, the wishes, and the recommendations of a committee of this parliament. A Magna Carta for Indians! There is a redrafting of some sections, and a change in their numbers: but behind it all and through it all runs the thread of a subservience which I for one, knowing Indians and having acted for them on several occasions, will not join in supporting in this house, no matter what other members may do.
On three or four occasions I have had the privilege of acting for Indians and of carrying their cases to the court of appeal. I have done that because I believe that a counsel's duty is to represent these people who are denied many of our privileges. I have done it, as would any other counsel, without any consideration of payment. I would be false and recreant to the trust they have placed in me over the years if, in the dying days of a session, I were to join in the passing of a bill that will impose on these people the subservience of a second-class citizenship and a lower grade of right than the rest of us have. That type of legislation has no part in a world in which freedom is challenged and in which nations today, in order to maintain freedom, realize that you cannot build and preserve democracy on the basis of the inequality of any person before the law.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to make one or two observations and possibly a suggestion. One hon. gentleman mentioned the fact that we are dealing not with a subservient people or with slaves but with a nation. I fully realize that we

are dealing with a nation. But fortunately it is a kindly nation, and one that is tolerant and patient. The Indians have been tolerant and patient with white people for many generations; and they have been particularly tolerant of our reluctance to give them full freedom and to make them full Canadians. If the Indians were given an equal opportunity with all other Canadians, I am satisfied that they would hold their own with the best. In my riding, in the Inkaneep district, there is a small group of Indians. They were taken in hand some years ago by a teacher, and he was quite keen as he wanted to prove, as he did, that Indians could respond to a little bit of tolerance and patience in their education, with the result that he has in that district now a cultural group which sets a standard that could be attained by all Indians throughout Canada, given the same patient, tolerant education.
The British people have prided themselves for generations on their attitude toward minorities, and I take it we Canadians follow their steps. We have always fought for minorities, for fairness and justice to minorities. England has gone to war on the principle that minority rights were being violated in certain countries, but at home we are reluctant to do that. We are prepared to go to war with other nations for doing what we are doing.
Other nations have challenged our sincerity in regard to our own racial problems at some of the international conventions that have taken place in recent years. Our failure to accept our own Indians as full citizens has been thrown in our faces and will be thrown in our faces until we accept them as full citizens.
On the other hand, I would compliment the minister for bringing this bill down. It is a step in the right direction, but I do think it is a hasty step. It is a step which has been foisted upon the Indians without consultation with them, and on the house without proper opportunity to discuss the bill. I would appeal to his fairness, to his sense of justice, to hold this bill back until next session in order to give both the Indians and the members of the house an opportunity to consider it, particularly the members who go back to their ridings in which Indians reside. They can visit the tribes or settlements and discuss their problems and the bill with them. It would take a little time, but I am satisfied that every hon. member is interested enough in the problem to devote that time freely.
I would suggest to the minister that the bill be now turned over to a representative body of Indians, selected by the Indians themselves from each tribe or from each
Indian Act
province to form a body composed of all of their different branches, whether farmers or artisans, it does not matter. They would be the representatives of the Indians in Canada.
I know we have paid tributes to their advances in education, and to their ability to govern. Let us act on that. Let them feel that we mean what we say. Turn this bill over to them and say to them: This is our attempt to place you in a higher status of society so far as Canada is concerned. What do you think of it? Mull it over. Come back with suggestions and let us know what your proposals are. Otherwise it is an imposition on people, whether Indians or whoever they may be, to say:	Here is our bill; take it or
leave it. This is what you have to live under for the next generation, or maybe longer, because it has been a long time since the existing act has been changed.
By that method we deny them the right of self-government, or a part in the government of the dominion of which they are the original members. Indians governed this country long before we came here, and they governed it pretty well. They conserved more of our natural resources, particularly wildlife, than we are capable of doing. They also governed their own people through their own courts, their own tribal courts. Probably they were rough, but they were fair. Here we are assuming the right to set up separate white judges to try the Indians, without giving them the opportunity-which they always had before we came here-to try their own people in their own way. I believe they could still set up their own courts of justice and give justice to their own people.
The modern Indian is quite capable of determining his own economic future if given an opportunity. I suggest that when this bill is turned over, if it is turned over to them, they be asked to send back recommendations. If they would prefer to prepare a totally new bill, giving their own point of view and their desires for their future, let us accept that bill and discuss it around the table and come to some definite conclusion that we are going to be honest and decent with the Indian, and that we are going to make him a full-fledged Canadian as quickly as we can in all sincerity.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house long-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I notice that the rookery on the opposite side has begun to caw, as I have begun to speak. I am in a unique position in this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I represent one reservation and one Indian.

Indian Act


Mr.   Coie@Matapedia-Maiane: You mean to say you are half and half.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is another tribe in my riding, known as the bareskin tribe, which is composed of about 1,500 people who are commonly known as the sons of freedom. I shall not discuss them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We will have a full dress debate on them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that where that one Indian resides today a few years ago hundreds of Indians resided and led a happy life. They have departed because of the coming of the white man.
When we are considering this bill tonight, Mr. Speaker, we should recognize that this legislation-springing, shall I say, or supposed to spring, out of recommendations of the parliamentary committee of 1946, 1947 and 1948 *-is our opportunity to do in this parliament the justice that has been so long delayed.
In opposing the passage of this bill at this time and in supporting the remarks made by the previous speakers, particularly the eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I do so because I believe that if we pass this bill we are failing to carry out our moral duty toward the Indians of this country.
I have had a limited experience with Indians. I have only had what you might call a book knowledge of the Indians of Canada except for those who lived in my own district. I remember when I first came from England, some 45 years ago, there was a small tribe of Indians living on the Upper Arrow lakes known as the Arrow Lake Indian band. There were twenty-four members in the band at that time. It had declined greatly in numbers since the first coming of the whites after the discovery of the Columbia river by David Thompson. But research by the Smithsonian Institution in the district indicated that prior to the coming of the white man hundreds and possibly thousands of Indians lived contented lives in that area. They were a peaceful people; they hunted, they fished, they grew a little corn. After we came what did we do for them?
History records that these people offered a friendly welcome to the white man. They assisted David Thompson in the discovery of the Columbia; they trapped for the Hudson's Bay Company many years and produced hundreds and thousands of dollars for that company. They acted as pilots on the first river steamers on the Columbia in Canadian

territory. In fact they were the ones who guided those first steamers through the narrows and through the swift waters.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, in my boyhood days these twenty-four Indians. They lived in wigwams. As a boy I played with them. I went to the first primitive school established in that district. The students of that school were eight or nine Indian children and eighteen or nineteen white children. I saw those boys and girls grow up and take their places in the community. I saw the boys begin to work on the steamers as young men. I saw the women begin to work in various houses as young women, and on the farms in the district, and so on. Then the first war came on. What was my experience in that connection? During the first great war I was a member of the 54th Kootenay battalion. I would be failing in my duty tonight if I did not oppose the bill. I remember one occasion at St. Eloi in 1916, when a platoon was taking part in a raid and was likely to be completely wiped out. The reason the majority of the members of the platoon were able to retire, and their lives saved, was that one Indian member in that platoon volunteered to stay in a German trench and hold the German attackers back, single-handed. That has been my experience with Indians.
Since that time one by one those Indians have died of tuberculosis. Some years after they became of age, on the advice of the Indian affairs branch they entered small frame shacks. These shacks were very poorly constructed, and the result was that after entering them tuberculosis became prevalent, and they died one by one. Today there is only one survivor of the Arrow Lake Indian band, one old Indian squaw. We, the white men, have destroyed that peaceful band of Indians. That is an illustration of the effect of white civilization on a small group of Indians in a limited sphere or district.
To a certain extent that has happened in other parts of Canada. Surely our knowledge of the past, and our treatment of the people who owned this country originally, should cause us to take this opportunity, not to pass the bill but to draft one that would remedy to some extent the injustices of the past and be a credit to the members in this parliament who profess to believe in democracy.
The Indians are opposed to the passage of this bill. I believe that is evident from communications which have reached hon. members, and from the general information available at this time. Not only are the Indians opposed to the measure, but large

and representative bodies in Canada are opposed to it. I am convinced that the great majority of right-thinking Canadians, on being truly informed of the facts, would be opposed to the house passing this measure at this time.
I received a communication today from the Vancouver civil liberties union. I shall not take the time to quote it, but I believe a copy was sent to the minister, and I see he nods his head in agreement. I hope he will study it closely, because it indicates a close study of the bill and an understanding of its deficiencies. It is sufficient to say that in the brief time I have had to read the memorandum I have found that the bill fails completely to give consideration to at least fourteen of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee that studied the Indian question in 1946, 1947 and 1948.
Therefore, like previous speakers, I am opposed to the consideration of the bill at this time, and shall vote against its passage. Surely in view of the attitude of the Indians, in view of the history of the past, and in view of our moral obligation to these people who have suffered injustices since the white man came to Canada, this parliament can defer passage of the bill until the next session, and then pass one which would be a credit to all.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay the house long, nor shall I delay the minister in making his reply. I understand however that no member from Newfoundland has spoken in the matter thus far.
I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that, as he is no doubt already aware, we have Indians in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are two tribes, the Montagnais of Labrador and the Micmacs of Newfoundland. However they are not the original Indians who were in that country. The original Indians, who might be described as the first owners of the country, were the Beothucks. They were a very fine tribe of Indians, indeed. The history of the Beothucks reflects no credit upon the white man, because there is not a single Beothuck alive today-indeed, there is very little trace of them.
It is on that theme that I address my few remarks to the house this evening. So far as I know this bill has not been given study. Unfortunately there are no Indians in my own riding, and it might be said that I have no business joining in the debate. The only Indians, I believe, in Newfoundland proper are in the riding of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). The other
Indian Act
Indians, namely, the Montagnais, are in the riding of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne), in Labrador.
After all, we have an obligation to these people. They were there long before we were in the province of Newfoundland, and we do not want to have happen to the Indians who are now there that which happened to their predecessors. This bill may be the best that could be devised; I am not prepared to say it is not. But, speaking for myself, until I have had an opportunity of reading it and digesting it properly I am not prepared to vote for it as it stands. I would prefer, of course, to have the views of hon. members from both the districts I have mentioned. They are now in the house, and they represent the Indian populations in their district.
However I would make the plea at the present time that there is no great urgency in this matter. From what I have heard, listening to the speeches of hon. members in whose constituencies there are Indians, it would appear that all kinds of representations have been made to them not to have the bill passed at this time. I cannot see anything to be lost by deferring the matter so as to give hon. members an opportunity really to understand what the bill means.
It is because of what has happened to the Indians in Newfoundland that I now ask that the passage of this bill be deferred until all hon. members understand the measure presented to them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house is entitled an act respecting Indians. I feel that in that title we find the only respect that the government seems to be paying the Indians, because the bill itself does far less than justice to those people who were the first inhabitants of Canada. It does far less than justice to the recommendations of the committee which worked so hard for three years and whose recommendations have been laid before the House of Commons.
In my constituency are a large number of Indians. I do not know exactly what their collective attitude is toward the bill. I know they have not had an opportunity to let me know how they feel about it. The wide dispersal of the Indian bands and the difficulties presented by the terrain have made it quite impossible for them to have had any joint deliberations in connection with studying this bill. I have too much respect for the Indian people who live in that part of the country, and the other Indians throughout Canada, to be willing to pass a measure which is as ill considered as this one.
3980

Indian Act
The Indians of this country are worthy of more respect and of more consideration than the government is permitting the house to give, when we are asked to pass this legislation at this stage of the session.
I do not claim to have an intimate or thorough knowledge of Indian lore and tradition, but I do know of many of the fine characteristics of these people. I recall a former chief of the Douglas Lake tribe, now dead, who had an outstanding reputation as a great Canadian. Chillihitchie was presented to His Majesty the King, George V, at Buckingham Palace, to whom he presented a thoroughbred horse. That was only one incident in his lifetime. Anyone who achieved that recognition does not deserve the short shrift that is being given to these people in this legislation.
Many detailed criticisms of the bill have been made already and I shall not delay the house by repeating them. I might mention that in my constituency is the largest residential school in Canada and I should like to pay a tribute to the work being done by the churches on behalf of the Indians. There are those who think that religious residential schools are not the answer to the Indian problem. I believe that whatever educational system is devised the Indian must be given full opportunity to obtain religious as well as other education. The Indian must be given the opportunity to prepare himself for citizenship; he must be granted equality with the other citizens of Canada and not condemned to a permanent second-class position.
An educational system must be devised which will enable the Indian to compete on a basis of equality with the white citizens of this country. I believe they can do that. If we have a proper educational system to include the Indians I have no doubt that they will be able to compete and equal, if not in many cases to outstrip, the white citizen. Like the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), recall the contribution made by Indians in the armed services during the war just concluded. They were our equals then in every respect. We did not ask them to assume a secondary role or undertake obligations of a lesser nature than we assumed ourselves. We did not have to ask them to do what they did. They assumed obligations and duties equal to if not greater than those assumed by the white soldier. I fail to see why they should be asked by this legislation to assume a permanent role of inferiority as second-class citizens with lesser privileges than those granted to white Canadians.

I am not saying that they should be placed on an equal footing or asked to compete on an equal basis immediately or overnight. I do not think that would be possible or proper, but our legislation should lay the groundwork for a program which will enable them in a measurable space of time to assume the place which I know all hon. members and all Canadians would want them to assume. It is because I find in this legislation no provision for such a program that I am opposed to it.
Most of those who have spoken this afternoon have said that we should be given an opportunity to study this legislation and that the Indians should have time in which to make their representations. It is urged by the government that this legislation is an advance over what we have had in the past and therefore government supporters perhaps will find themselves unable to vote against the bill on a straight vote yes or no. This bill has been four years in the making. The committee sat first in 1946 but the bill was not brought in until a week or ten days ago. It would be improper for us to pass this bill at this time with the limited consideration that can be given to it.
In order to meet the views of those who feel that they cannot vote against the bill on a straight yes or no basis and in order that more time may be given to the Indians, to other interested parties and to the members of this house to consider the legislation adequately, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness):
That the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Gardiner:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I was paired with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons.) Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I call it eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I move the adjournment of the debate and call it eleven o'clock?
Canadian Citizenship Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there are two Indian reserves in my riding, and I consider them very fine reserves. Someone has said it is a very fine riding, and I heartily agree. I will not say it is the best riding in the country. I do not need to say it; you all know it. We have the Hiawatha reservation on Rice lake and the Mud lake reservation.
It is one minute to eleven, Mr. Speaker, and because of the noise coming from the other side of the chamber I know you cannot hear a word I say. Therefore I move the adjournment of the debate and ask you to call it eleven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Eleven o'clock.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 315 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
He said: This bill has just been sent over from the Senate, and I was hoping it might be given first reading tonight, by unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the pleasure of the house we can proceed with first reading. I understand it is with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Certainly not; when they would not call it eleven o'clock they cannot expect us to co-operate.


Walter Edward Harris: I must say I spoke to the respective leaders at eight o'clock, or shortly after.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I apologize.


Arza Clair Casselman: To whom did you speak on this side?


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall proceed with the bill amending the Indian Act, which was under consideration at eleven o'clock. Then we shall take up the legislation standing in the name of the
55946-252J

Business of the House
Minister of Justice, concerning amendments to the Judges Act and the Official Secrets Act. Then there is the shipping act, which has been reported from the committee tonight and will be considered in committee of the whole. Then we shall take up the bill to which the house was kind enough to give first reading a moment ago, and any other legislation there may be.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What does that mean?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not sure whether there is another bill coming from the Senate, and I must apologize for not being specific about this. Then we will go into supply taking the estimates of Secretary of State, post office, resources and development, and justice.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 22, 1950