1956-08-07

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has as yet summoned the courage to call a by-election in York South so that the people may have an opportunity to be represented in the house, instead of having a vacancy that has continued now since last March?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It is not a question of courage; it is, as I stated the other day, the question of the convenience of the public about an election. There could not be an election held -at least I do not think there could be an election held-that would enable that constituency to be represented at this session of parliament, and there will be plenty of time to have it represented at the next session of parliament.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Eglinton, I would like to ask him if his statement to the effect that there will be plenty of time for the by-election in York South before the next session means that we will not have a general election before the next session?
Mr. Si. Lauren! (Quebec East): Mr. Speaker, if there is a general election it will be announced in due course.



REPORTED ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, on August 1 the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) asked me the following question:
Have the returning officers been instructed to send out notices to members to get their enumerators in within 30 days?
I am informed that no instructions have been sent to returning officers by the chief electoral officer to obtain within 30 days the lists of names of persons to be nominated to act as urban enumerators.
The names of persons nominated to act as urban enumerators need not be given to returning officers until after the writs ordering an election are issued.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I have not previously sent him. Has the minister noted that in the letter to which I referred in my question yesterday Mr. Holber-ton, giving reasons, suggests that the minister postpone the closing of the Lethbridge income tax office until after the minister will have caused a thorough investigation of the whole situation in the Lethbridge area, including contiguous areas in southern British Columbia, such investigation to be conducted by persons other than income tax officials?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I checked up this morning and I have not yet received the letter from the gentleman in Lethbridge. The matter has been fully investigated. A decision has been made to close that office at the end of August, and I see no reason for further consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to send the minister a copy of my copy of the letter.

Indian Act



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I would like to ask the minister when the notice of motion for production of papers, No. 80, passed as an order for return on May 21, will be tabled. It was for a copy of the original agreement with the province of Ontario or other authorities regarding the maintenance of a low level vehicular and pedestrian bridge over the Burlington channel.
I might add that in referring to the original agreement I mean the agreement for the original and first bridge that was put over that channel years ago.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said there is no record of any written agreement. There is a return that has gone forward to the Secretary of State, and I presume he will table it in due course.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickers-gill for the second reading of Bill No. 439, to amend the Indian Act.
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has already had considerable discussion on the resolution stage and the minister has made a fairly extensive statement on the motion for second reading, so it should not be necessary to cover a lot of ground at this point. I would like to make it clear at once that we are opposed to the second reading of this bill because we do not consider that it meets the desires of the Indians or the requirements of the situation. There are three main grounds on which we think the bill falls short of what is desirable.
The first of these is with respect to its handling of the liquor situation in so far as the rights of Indians to obtain liquor are concerned. Our objection here in the main is that the dominion government appears to be avoiding its responsibility for a decision as to whether or not the franchise with respect to liquor should be extended to Indians. I have read carefully the minister's statement as reported at page 6408 of Hansard, and I refer particularly to the passage reading:
We are providing for a provincial initiative which would make it possible for the Indians in
[Mr. Blackmore.l
a province to be brought under all the liquor laws of the province, but the initiative would have to be taken by the provincial government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. That is only one of two alternatives.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I shall now complete the paragraph in order that there will be no suggestion of unfairness. I continue:
There is this further proviso, that any band which by a majority of its membership decides not to come under the general law could establish a form of local option on the reserve.
The minister went on to mention this second proposal which would allow the band on a particular reserve to take the initiative. We realize, of course, that there must be consultation with the provincial governments because I think without exception the provincial governments have liquor legislation of their own laying down the circumstances under which residents of the province may obtain liquor.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the dominion government should pass legislation with respect to the right of access of Indians to liquor without consultation with the provinces, but we do suggest that this government must accept the responsibility, without seeking to pass it on or evade it, for deciding whether or not Indians are to have access to liquor. Once having made that decision then of course it must be implemented, whichever is the decision, in a manner agreeable to the provinces. But we do not consider it is sound in principle that while Indians are the wards and responsibility of the government of the Dominion of Canada, the main responsibility for the decision as to whether or not they should have the right of access to liquor should be passed on to some other government. For that reason we think the provision in the present legislation is undesirable.
The second main ground of criticism of the legislation is that once again the government has allowed the opportunity to pass for making provision for appeals by Indians from decisions of the minister or of the governor in council affecting Indian rights. This is a matter to which the Indians attach a great deal of importance. Indian associations, as well as associations of white persons having particular interest in Indian welfare all across Canada, have for years been urging that the act should be amended to provide that where a decision is made which affects an Indian with respect to his status as an Indian or which affects an Indian with respect to his

right to or interest in property on the reserve, whether it be real or personal, that decision should be subject to the right of appeal to the courts of the land.
In the past we have expressed our agreement with the principle now sought to be followed by the department, that is that Indians should gradually be brought to a level where they are admitted to citizenship. This is an educational process; this is a gradual process. One of the most outstanding fields in which Indians do not as yet have the same rights as white citizens is this question of the right of access to the courts. It does seem to us to be contradictory to the principle which the department states it is following to continue to deny to Indians that right of appeal.
Reference was made in the discussion on the resolution stage to a submission by the Indian association of Alberta dated January, 1956. I think special importance should be attached to this submission. The submission was thoroughly reviewed by a solicitor who acts in the capacity of friend and adviser to this association and to the Indians. This is a well-considered and well-reasoned brief, one of the opening passages of which is as follows:
We are strongly advised also to work to get this appeal clause added.
"In any section of the Indian Act where the minister's discretion or that of the governor in council is exercised in any manner which an Indian or band of Indians feels is inequitable, there shall be an appeal from that decision to a judge of the supreme court of the province where the Indian or band of Indians is located."
There has been widespread support for that principle. It is not, however, incorporated in the bill. The bill leaves unchanged the present situation, which denies Indians the right of access to courts. When changes as extensive as these are being made in the Indian Act we believe this one should also be included, and for that reason we intend to move an appropriate amendment in the committee stage.
I should also mention something that I omitted to say when dealing with the question of liquor and the way in which it is dealt with under the bill. This same Indian association of Alberta has made a very critical finding with respect to that matter. In paragraph 5 they say, with regard to the general question of liquor and the effect of the present legislation:
The Indian association of Alberta has asked good legal advice on this. We are told that Ottawa is now asking the Indians to break this rule. Ottawa is not willing to run the risk of doing its own breaking. You are being given the chance to do it against yourselves. Are you willing to start breaking the treaty?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman give the date of that submission?
Indian Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is dated January, 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is long before anybody had ever seen the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One of the criticisms we have heard and to which I was intending to refer in concluding is that there had not been adequate consultation with the Indians themselves as to the effect of the legislation and as to its contents, and what the minister has said seems to me to indicate that this is a well founded criticism.
The third ground on which we criticize the bill is that in many cases the act is being changed to provide that whereas formerly decisions affecting Indians were to be taken by the governor in council, they are now to be made by ministerial order. This subject was discussed in some detail by the minister last night, and he presented us an interesting summary of his views and of the history of the situation, the effect of which was that there are so many matters of small administrative detail that come before cabinet for decision that unless there is some review of the whole situation made and a conscious attempt to cut down on the number of decisions required by order in council, then in effect the administrative machinery of cabinet will bog down in a welter of detail.
It may well be that there is very real substance to what the minister has said, but with one item I was not particularly impressed: the argument about the time necessary to deal with this mass of orders in council. The minister read us a very interesting and very sound memorandum, it seemed to me, by Sir George Murray, based on a study he made in 1912, and he pointed out the growth in the number of orders in council since that day. I hope the minister will permit me to point out to him that the answer might also be advanced that the salaries of cabinet ministers have also been considerably increased since that day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The number of hours in a day has not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These gentlemen accept gladly the office to which they are called. Whilst no one would want them to carry on in a manner which is bound to be inefficient, it seems to me that the argument of the hardship imposed on ministers is perhaps not the strongest argument that could be advanced. The minister himself referred to the situation regarding treasury board. Many of those decisions which previously had to be taken by the full cabinet are now taken by treasury board, which is in effect a committee of cabinet.
This of course is a very sound administrative procedure. If it is found in fact that

Indian Act
the volume of orders in council is such that it is just not physically possible to deal with them in full cabinet, why not enlarge the system which resulted in the establishment of treasury board and have a committee of cabinet so that a committee, of whatever size might be convenient, would review the recommendation which must, of course, come first from the department, from the minister concerned, and if the committee were satisfied that the recommendation was sound it would then so report to the full cabinet, with the result that when these orders in council came before the cabinet the main question to be asked would be: Does the committee approve? If the committee approved, then I fancy it would follow automatically that the cabinet as a whole would approve the order in council.
But, sir, I realize that one who has had any firsthand knowledge of the problems of the cabinet must, in fairness, accept the word of the minister that this is a very real problem and that it is time that some serious consideration was given to it. I believe the suggestion I have just made would be one way of meeting it, at least partly. Whether or not the suggestion is sound, we believe that the Indian Act is the wrong act to begin with, the wrong act with which to start to take away responsibility for decisions from the governor in council and vest it in the minister.
The Indians are in a unique position, and this is probably true not only in Canada but throughout the world, in that they are the responsibility, the wards of the dominion government. Their whole situation and welfare, to a degree not equalled in any way by the white citizens of this country, are dependent upon the policy and administrative decisions taken by the government, and in many respects they are unable to defend themselves against injustices, real or fancied, which follow from those decisions.
Therefore I believe it is only proper to suggest, since the decisions made have a unique significance in their bearing on the welfare of the Indians who are the responsibility of the government, that these decisions be made and the responsibility for them be accepted in name as well as in fact by the governor in council, that is the government as a whole, instead of by one minister. This is a matter to which again the Indians attach particular importance, and if we are trying to gain their confidence, trust and respect in the efforts being made to bring them up gradually to full citizenship, then it does seem to me that it would be a seriously mistaken policy at one fell swoop and in an amendment to the Indian Act of this sort to provide against 
their own expressed wishes that these decisions shall be made at the ministerial level instead of at the level of the governor in council.
That is not the way to gain the confidence of the Indians. However inconvenient it might be, we submit in all seriousness that from the point of view of the larger interest and the larger picture the government should accept that inconvenience because of the good results which will flow in building up mutual trust, respect and confidence between the government and the Indians.
To summarize, we believe that provision for decision on Indian matters by the cabinet should be retained and that the additional step should be taken toward the equalization of the position of the Indians and white citizens of giving the Indians the right of appeal to the courts of this country from such executive decisions. Because the act does not meet these requirements and because in our view it seeks to impose on provincial governments a responsibility for decision with regard to the liquor question so far as the Indians are concerned, we intend to oppose the bill on second reading.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, last night the minister went into a lot of history dealing with orders in council, orders of the treasury board and going away back to 1912 when Sir Kobert Borden's government was in power. I do not know whether that was for the benefit of the hon. member for Kamloops or for whose benefit it was. However, the way in which the minister rattled off dates and data showed that he knew history, anyway.
What I should be interested in hearing from the minister is what progress his department has made in implementing the recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons relating to the Indian Act which were tabled on June 22, 1948. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that some of the recommendations-and I am going to mention a few of them-had to do with treaty rights and obligations. At that time the committee found that there was great difficulty in letting the Indians know that they were asking for things that could not possibly be given to them. I remember that at that time the hon. member for Lethbridge was a strong supporter of a clause that was incorporated in the report. I shall read it to you, as follows:
1. Treaty rights and obligations.
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.

Indian Act
further, to assess and settle finally and in a just and equitable manner all claims or grievances which have arisen thereunder.
I want the minister to look up these things again. I will not read them all, but there is one I should like to mention. With an election coming up, most hon. members will be interested in it. I refer to clause 5, which reads as follows:
5. Eligibility of Indians to vote at dominion elections.
As part of the education and preparation of the Indian to assume his place in the Canadian body politic, your committee recommend, on May 6 last, that "voting privileges for the purpose of dominion elections be granted to Indians on the same status as electors in urban centres". This is a matter which, in the opinion of your committee, should be referred to a special committee on the dominion elections act, with a view to early implementation of the recommendation.
It is realized that many Indians are not anxious to have or to use the franchise, under the misapprehension that, if they do exercise it, they will lose what they considered their rights and privileges.
Many Indians who do not have the right to vote at dominion elections do pay taxes on income earned away from the reserve, together with sales tax, gasoline tax, excise tax, et cetera. This is taxation without representation.
It is the opinion of your committee that it would encourage Indians, particularly the younger ones, to interest themselves in public affairs, if they were given the privilege already recommended Your committee is further of opinion that the public generally would be given a better appreciation of Indian affairs.
I have only one more recommendation that I am going to read, and it deals with the bill more specifically than anything else that I can see. I refer to clauses 9 and 10:
9. Indian administration in general.
In 1946 and again in 1947 the joint committee on the Indian Act made recommendations with regard to administrative improvements which could be effected without the revision of existing legislation and which, when put into effect, would remove some of the causes out of which arise grievances and complaints of many Indians.
There are still some "administrative improvements" which your committee deems advisable.
Your committee, therefore, again recommends that the administration of all aspects of Indian affairs be placed under one ministerial head.
Your committee reiterates the recommendation maae by the 1947 joint committee on the Indian Act, viz:
10 The director of the Indian affairs branch should be named a commissioner who shall have the rank of a deputy minister and shall have at least two assistant commissioners of whom one should be a Canadian of Indian descent.
I should like to go a little further with this, but it is so close to the end of the session that if you make a speech of any length you are apt to be frowned upon by your colleagues. I have quoted these three recommendations, and I want the minister to look into the matter and see just how far we have gone to meet the recommendations 67509-452i
of the committee. The committee sat for three years and held over 100 meetings. It was a large committee.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to deal with a problem that has been worrying the Indians in my riding for the last 36 years. The complaint is a common one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind my doing this. I am doing this in the most friendly way, and I rise on a point of order. If this matter is not related to the bill I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would leave it for my estimates. It seems to me that would be the proper place for it, and I would be very happy to have him bring it up at that time.


Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter that I should like to refer to. In this bill some change has been made respecting the use of liquor on Indian reserves and the use of liquor by Indians. I notice that by the legislation responsibility is now passed over to the provinces. The provinces enact that they are going to allow the Indians to use liquor under the provincial laws, and the bands decide they are going to allow liquor to be used on the Indian reserves, if it conforms with the provincial law. It seems to me that is a negation of the responsibility of the federal government in this respect, and I think it should be very carefully watched.
The federal government, operating under the Indian Act, undertakes to care for these people, the Indians of North America, who are basically a very fine people. Where are they today? They have degenerated during the white man's occupation of this part of the continent to a position where I do not think we can look with very much pride on their present status. However, I would say that in the past 15 years there has been some change in the attitude of the government and some change in the attitude of the people generally.
These people have very few rights; they have very little power of appeal. They surrendered this land under treaties which were signed in good faith from time to time by the representatives of the Indian groups with the representatives of Queen Victoria. In some of those treaties they asked to be protected against the evil influences of liquor.
In the treaties signed by the representatives of the Queen the government promised to take care of them and to see that they were not hurt by the evil influences of the white man's drink. It seems to me that in the present legislation the government, which is responsible for the administration

Indian Act
of Indian affairs, is passing that responsibility over to the provincial governments. Have the provincial governments any responsibility under the Indian treaties, or are those the responsibilities of the federal government?
From my study of the Indian Act, and from my watching of the administration of it, it seems to me one very salient point emerges; that is that the terms of the treaties are forgotten almost entirely and the rights of Indians under the treaties are not being fully recognized. The trend toward the recognition of their rights, or at any rate living up to the spirit of those treaties, is something that we should watch very carefully. When I look at what Canada has done for her Indians and compare it with what New Zealand has done for her Maori people it seems to me we have neglected those people far too much.
The conditions of health among those people have been very bad over the years. Recently, under the Department of National Health and Welfare, there has been a fine improvement in the tuberculosis rate, but economically in many parts of the country the Indians are in a very poor condition. [DOT]Certainly they are in no position to make very much progress. I know that is true so far as the education and training of those 'people are concerned. How can the Indian in this country, in the economic conditions under which he is forced to live on many of the reserves, possibly become a Canadian citizen? How can he advance?
The training of the Indian is of the utmost importance. In far too many instances the Indian is trained in the residential schools in such a way that he is not satisfied to go back and live on his reserve in the condition in which his parents lived. He is not trained to go out in the white man's world and make his living among white men. He is lost between two worlds when he comes out of school in the formative period of his life. He is unfit and untrained to take his place. So long as those conditions exist the Indians as a race and as a people cannot advance.
I believe the administration responsible for the care of those people should make basic changes in their education and training. My first suggestion would be that the basis of their economic life should be made sound so they can live. My second suggestion would be to make available to them educational facilities in line with their abilities to assimilate, and train them for the particular life which they are going to have to live and make it possible for them to advance as a race.
These people have done well in the roles they have played in our wars. The young
[Mr. Castleden.l
men who enlisted in the armed forces and received medical care, proper food and proper training, advanced tremendously. They are people of tremendous ability; they are people of very fine basic principles of religious life. The Indian believes that he should love and help his fellow man and look upon one another as brothers. I do suggest that under the act the minister should be careful to see that all the things that were promised to the Indians in their original treaties are fulfilled, and that they are not being violated by this legislation which passes over the responsibility for granting the right to use liquor on the reserves to the provincial governments, which certainly have signed no treaty and certainly have no responsibility in that regard.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the province of British Columbia we have had for the past several years a provincial advisory committee on Indian Affairs which has been doing admirable work. I have the 1955 report of this committee, and there are two observations on the very first page. The first is that during the past year there has been evidence of increasing interest on the part of the public relative to the conditions under which our Indian friends are living at the present time.
The other observation is that there is an awakening sense of responsible leadership among the Indians themselves which, in different communities, is prompting them to take a more vital part in the industrial and community life of the particular province in which this committee is working. I believe this is very significant, because sometimes we wonder just what the response of the Indian people may be to the efforts which are put forth on their behalf. There are some who think there is little appreciation of the efforts put forth. I am afraid some feel that little is accomplished, at least of a permanent nature. This committee does feel, however, that there is a very splendid response by the Indian people themselves to the efforts being put forth on their behalf.
As far as education is concerned, the young people are taking their places in the educational institutions of our province. A great many of them are now attending public schools, and they fit in very well with the life in those schools. Not only that, but with regard to vocational and apprenticeship training we find there is an increasing interest in this particular field. As a result of the provincial advisory committee's recommendations regarding vocational and apprenticeship training the director of apprenticeship has given thought to means by which

these Indians can be encouraged to take part to a greater extent in these activities.
A three-point program has been drawn up. First the Indian young people must be selected and training provided for them free of cost. Second, employment should be found for them and a close liaison maintained during the first year or so of their employment. Third, vocational training programs should be provided for them during each year of their apprenticeship until their training is completed.
In the second annual report dealing with public relations there is a brief paragraph to which I would like to call attention. It reads as follows:
Allied to the rising Indian population in this province is the fact that an increasing number of Indians are seeking integration into the social and industrial life of British Columbia. This move by the Indians toward the white man's way of life is placing a responsibility upon the rest of the inhabitants of this province to encourage and assist the process of integration.
I believe it is the desire and intention of the minister and his department to give assistance in every way possible to this particular movement, to encourage our Indian friends to integrate into community projects and in every way to encourage them to endeavour to take their place as citizens of this great country of ours.
There have been objections raised relative to the bill presently before us. I believe the hon. member for Prince Albert, speaking at the resolution stage, made the suggestion that this resolution was premature because of the fact that sufficient study had not been given to all the problems relating to Indian affairs and provisions were not made for remedial action in this particular measure.
I do not think we ought to wait until we have a perfect measure to discuss and pass, because if that were so I do not think we would ever do anything in this connection. There is a great difference of opinion even among the Indians themselves relative to what they want and what would be in the best interests of their people. There is also a wide variety of opinion among other citizens of Canada relative to the same matter, and if we are going to wait until we have something that is absolutely perfect then I suggest we will not have anything at any time.
I feel, therefore, that this legislation, despite the fact that there may be inadequacies and omissions as far as desirable features are concerned, is deserving of our support. Although there are many things we could criticize about it, I feel this legislation makes some headway. We are endeavouring to face the problem and find a solution for it, and
Indian Act
because we feel it is an improvement and a step in the right direction we intend to give it our support. The very fact that additional funds are being provided for loans is in itself a very admirable feature, and therefore we are going to support this bill.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but view some of the clauses of this bill with apprehension, particularly the one relating to liquor for Indians. The idea of turning over decisions on this matter to the provincial authorities, in the matter of delegating power and authority to the provinces to act with regard to liquor permits for Indians, strikes me as a rather retrograde step.
If one delegates one's power and authority to others and they take certain actions which one does not like, one finds oneself in the position of a minister who leaves it to some of his personnel to decide policy matters. The minister is then in the position of having to support the policy established by his officials. I think we may find ourselves in that position if we delegate the authority for allowing or disallowing liquor on Indian reserves to the provincial authorities.
Throughout history we as a federal government have had complete charge of Indians and their affairs, and I think a departure from that policy and the acceptance of a course of action which would delegate that authority to someone else is questionable, to say the least. Certainly we all know the effect of liquor on Indians.


Mr. Nicholson:: And on whites, too.


John Hornby Harrison: It is a most degrading thing so far as Indians are concerned, and it is a most objectionable thing to white people who are living in proximity to Indians. Several very valid complaints have been made to me from time to time concerning the antics of Indians who have been able to obtain liquor and have proceeded to terrorize some of the neighbouring towns.


Alexander Bell Patterson: What about the white people?


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. member for Fraser Valley says "What about the white people?" They are objectionable enough, too, under the influence of liquor but they do not compare in any degree with Indians who are under the influence of liquor.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: White people can make fools of themselves, too.


John Hornby Harrison: The majority of complaints that have been made to me from time to time concerning the conduct of Indians under the

Indian Act
influence of alcohol indicate that these occurrences develop when there has been a relaxing of R.C.M.P. supervision in the particular area. I recall one incident when the R.C.M.P. office was closed and relocated several miles away. The immediate result was that the Indians on the reserves located nearby the former R.C.M.P. post went more or less berserk. It was practically impossible for women to walk down the streets of those little towns at night. I made representations to the Department of Justice and my good friend the minister of that department took remedial action. The R.C.M.P. were put back in supervision in that area, and the situation was cleared up.
Once you remove this supervision the problems increase. Perhaps I do not understand this bill correctly, and I hope in his explanatory remarks the minister will deal with these points. I am not at all satisfied that this is not a retrograde step so far as the control of Indians is concerned. I think we are going to put the R.C.M.P. in a position where it is much harder for them to control the situation than it is now. I think I have said enough on that point.
When the minister is explaining this to the house I hope he will touch upon the matter of family allowances as it is handled here. I believe there is something in the *changes in this act which may amount to a change in the concept of the family allowance; that is, it has now become a premium for staying away from school. There has been some indication in my riding that they consider it a paying proposition as far as half-breed children are concerned to stay home. It must be remembered that it is hard to tell a half-breed child from an Indian child because the line of demarcation is so fine. In some families you will find two full brothers, one of whom is considered to be a half-breed and the other, considered to be an Indian.
Having had this unhappy example of children being able to stay away from school in order to get family allowances, I hope there will be something in this bill to make sure that Indian children go to school. Otherwise we are going to have many schools in my area rapidly becoming surplus. They are not too happy about going to school in the first place, and it is only such things as family allowances directed in a manner so as to act as an incentive for school attendance, that we can get these children to go to school. The missions in the north have had a tremendous influence in getting these people to take up education. They have finally reached the point where they realize

that they cannot subsist off the resources of the land and must seek other employment.
With these two reservations I shall wait for the minister's explanation. I hope he will be able to satisfy me on these two points; otherwise I shall have to vote against this bill.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much time but there are one or two things I should like to deal with. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake was dealing with the question of liquor I thought at first I would be in complete agreement with him. I think it is a rather dubious principle that we should have the implementation of certain parts of this act in the hands of provincial legislatures. After all, these provisions with regard to liquor do in some measure alter the status of the Indian as a Canadian citizen, and that is a responsibility which should be retained by this house.
I imagine that in my own province of British Columbia it may not make much difference, for the obvious reason that the Indians have a provincial vote and therefore the provincial government will base their action upon the wishes of their Indian citizens. I think the minister could well reconsider that particular provision. I intend to deal with it when we are in the committee stage.
There is another matter which I feel should have some study, and that is the question of the position of the Indian when enfranchised. As I have said, I realize it is extremely difficult to legislate for people with such a wide variety of development as the Indians in British Columbia. When I hear comments such as those made by the hon. member for Meadow Lake-I am quite sure he was quite sincerely reporting conditions as he had heard of them or seen them in his own area-I realize that they are quite ludicrously inapplicable to the Indians with whom I come in contact. Those Indians are advancing very rapidly, and I think that has been recognized. I believe in the next few years we will have to go much further than this bill. Therefore I am not too much concerned about the shortcomings I see in it or its inadequacy, because I believe with the rapid advancement of the Indian people we are probably going to have to amend this act almost every other year.
I am not too much concerned over the point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops with regard to the ostensible transfer of powers from the governor in council to the minister. I would not want the minister to take this as indicating unbounded confidence in him as minister, but I strongly

suspect that this is merely putting in legal form what actually takes place at the present time. I suspect that probably the governor in council does not examine too closely the recommendations of this minister or of other ministers when they come before council, and that what we are doing now is placing the responsibility upon the person who actually makes the decision. Of course in the final analysis the cabinet as a whole is responsible for the actions of any minister. I can see how this would step up the administrative work of the department, so for that reason, and I think I can speak for all my colleagues, I intend to support this measure as it is. We shall have some detailed criticism when it comes before the committee of the whole.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I happen to represent a riding in which an Indian band is located, and I am happy to be able to say that those Indians seem to be of a much higher calibre than the Indians referred by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. Indians from the Rama reserve have filled some important positions and portfolios within the boundaries of Canada in professional fields. They enlisted to a man in both the first and second world wars. Many of them brought back wives from Scotland and England and other parts of Europe. They live on the reserve and are considered as full-blooded Indians.
As far as those Indians are concerned I submit that they have the right to full Canadian citizenship, and that should be given to them as soon as legislation in that respect can be passed. We did not worry about them having the right to enter a beer parlor or to purchase liquor when they were enlisting in the Canadian army in both wars. For a short period I served with some of those Indians and they were not any worse so far as liquor was concerned than other Canadian soldiers. They were good soldiers and brave men.
I submit that this government should assume its responsibility and bring these Indians to full Canadian citizenship. They should have the vote. Before bringing in a bill of this kind the government and the minister and the department should have talked it over with the Indians to see what they would like to have. I feel that my Indians are quite capable of passing on legislation in their own behalf.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to cover briefly all the points raised this morning, and I should like to start by referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, because I find myself in
Indian Act
agreement with everything he said. I echo his approbation of the work of the provincial advisory committee of British Columbia. I should like to say one thing which perhaps may be regarded as an interference in the provincial field. We have found in the Indian affairs branch that as soon as Indians are given the vote provincially their situation improves. This has been most marked in British Columbia in the way of increased public interest, as the hon. member has said.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In Ontario, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member said also, there has been an increased and awakening sense of Indian leadership. I echo what the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) has just said. I happen to know quite well, I think, one of the people he has in mind, and I would say there is no finer citizen of Canada, if we are thinking of the same person.
With the hon. member for Selkirk I think the beginning of what has been a new orientation for the Indian population began with that joint committee on which, I believe, he served. I shall try, when my estimates come up, to say something about the progress made in carrying out some of those recommendations. I do not think I shall attempt today to say anything about giving the federal franchise to Indians generally. That is not provided in this bill. That is a subject that has some difficulties, for two reasons. In the first place, many of the Indians are still suspicious of it as a device to take away something they now have, and I think we must make sure that we disabuse most of them of that idea before we take this step.
There is also the fact-I have expressed this very frankly to the Indians, and I want to say the same thing in this house-that taxation without representation is certainly repugnant to us, and I think that representation without equality in taxation is also not a desirable thing. There is a problem there that has to be faced. But I should like to add that, so far as I am concerned, the day cannot come too soon when the Indians will be given the federal franchise and accept it willingly.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley also said something about integration, and I must say that this is the gospel I have tried to preach in and out of season since I became minister. It was dinned into me, when I succeeded the Minister of Finance in this portfolio, by the Minister of Finance; and it is my opinion-and I think that opinion is shared by most hon. members in this house -that in the four years the present Minister of Finance was in charge of the Indian affairs branch more progress was made than at any

Indian Act
time in the history of Canada in bringing the Indians along toward integration. I have not tried to change anything very much; I have just tried to follow along the path he laid down, and this bill is simply attempting to make minor improvements or clarifications here and there along the line he started.
The hon. member for Yorkton, who said a number of things with which I agreed, did use two phrases to which I must take some exception. I do not think the Indians have degenerated, and I do not think the hon. gentleman really meant to say that. Nor do I think it is desirable that they should advance as a race; I think it is desirable that they should advance as Canadians integrated with other Canadians. I am sure that is what he really meant, but sometimes when one uses these phrases one creates in people's minds the idea of a segregation, which we do not want to have, which we are trying to get away from, but from which we cannot get away all at once, for reasons also stated by the hon. member for Yorkton.
The Indian in western Canada and in parts of Ontario-and I use the term "western Canada" in the way in which we use it in Winnipeg, not including British Columbia- are protected by treaties, and these treaties establish for them special rights that other Canadian citizens do not have. We have an obligation to respect those rights, and we must respect them in letter and in spirit.
So far as respecting them in the letter is concerned, of course, we can be compelled to do so by action in the courts; but respecting them in spirit is much more important. I do not think there is any question of the desire of everyone in this parliament to see that they are fully respected in spirit, but I hope it will also be the desire of practically everyone in this parliament to see the day come when every Indian in this country will feel that his rights as a Canadian citizen are so much more valuable than any treaty rights he has that he will not be concerned at all about the treaty rights, and when reservations, treaties and all these concepts of segregation and discrimination will have disappeared. But that is not going to happen for a long time, and it must never happen unless Indians are willing to accept it quite voluntarily. There must be no pressure or coercion. I hope that in saying this I am expressing the views of every hon. member of the house.
Now I wish to say a word about the three points made by the hon. member for Kamloops, arid in doing so I think I can deal also with the points made by other hon. members, except the hon. member for Meadow Lake in his reference to family
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
allowances. I am not quite sure that I understood correctly what he was driving at. I think there may be possibly some difficulties on this subject, so far as rion-Indians are concerned, but I know of no problem whatsoever so far as persons of Indian status are concerned with respect to the administration of the Family Allowances Act. Indian children are required to attend school wherever there is a school for them to attend, and the law is carried out in that respect. The parents of Indian children do receive family allowances for the children they are caring for. If the children are in residential schools being cared for by the government, the parents do not receive the family allowances, and one would not expect that they would.
Of the three subjects mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops as reasons for voting against this bill, I think by all odds the most important one, iri substance, was the one relating to liquor legislation. I believe I shall wait and deal with it last, and deal with the other two first. I believe the !l t member for Kamloops had very little heart for his third point this morning. I think he was really convinced by what I said last night, and I do not intend to repeat it; but I can tell him that the suggestion he made about the making of orders in council was carried into effect by Mr. Mackenzie King in 1939. A committee of the cabinet does consider these recommendations to council, and it is in practice a very rare thing for the whole cabinet to spend much time considering any order in council; and that is as it should be. I understand that in the United Kingdom the full cabinet never considers any orders in council, and that orders in council there are passed by four ministers who meet with the Queen at the palace.
Our practice is a little different, arid we are by no means making a beginning here with the transfer of the apparent powers to the minister. I say "apparent" because the hon. member for Nanaimo is completely right in what he says, for the great majority of these orders in council that are of a routine nature. It is just a waste of many people's time to have them prepared in the form of recommendations to the council, to have them considered by several ministers and to have all this unnecessary paper work done and time consumed in producing something that is exactly what you start with.
I myself think there is a more important reason why these routine matters should not be dealt with by orders in council, and that is that orders in council should be important. The recommendations made to the governor

in council should deal with the matters to which ministers should give their full attention, but if you get a mixed bag, three-quarters or four-fifths of which is composed purely of routine matters, it makes it more difficult to find time to give proper consideration to the important matters. Hon. members will find, when we come to consider the clauses in the bill, that there is not one respect in which the minister is substituted for the governor in council that is of the importance required for consideration by a group of ministers. There is not one of them that touches anything that by any stretch of the imagination could be called rights. They merely deal with rather routine matters, or deal a second time with a matter that has to be dealt with by the governor in council or treasury board in another context.
I come to the second of the points mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops as a reason for voting against the bill, namely that it does not provide for appeals to the courts in matters affecting Indian rights. I think the real reason it does not is that I know of no Indian right about which there is not already an appeal to the courts. There may be some; but no specific right of Indians has ever been drawn to my attention about which they have not access to the courts. However, if there are, and if there is some effective way of remedying the situation, I would be very glad to consider on another occasion-I do not think at this stage of this session in this bill-doing something to remedy it.
As far as the status of Indians is concerned, that is certainly provided for. It was provided for in the act of 1951, and we are making a clarification of that here. I know of no property rights of Indians that could possibly be affected without due legal process. This matter was not raised at all at the conference of representative Indians from all over Canada which considered the suggestions on which the bill is based. When I drew the attention of the hon. member for Kamloops to the fact that the brief from the Alberta Indian association had come long before the bill had been published he said that indicated there had not been adequate consultation.
I think perhaps I ought to say a word about that and explain what did happen. We suggested a number of changes in the Indian Act, and we divided the country into electoral districts and by a process of nomination and election had Indians chosen representative of every part of Canada. They met here in December and considered all our suggestions. I told them at the time that, of course, it would be quite improper for me to show them what would be in the bill 67509-453
Indian Act
before it was shown to parliament. I think that is a proper principle. But I told them these were the things I was thinking of recommending to parliament. There were several things we suggested that they did not like and which we dropped. There was also a sharp division of opinion about some other points. But I think I can say that, without exception, where we went ahead with any of the clauses we proceeded only where an overwhelming majority of the Indians wanted us to go ahead.
The question of appeals to the courts in some general declarative sense was never raised at all, and to the best of my recollection it has never been raised since by anyone in a general form except by the Indian association of Alberta. While of course I have the greatest respect for the self-sacrificing and devoted people who give their time to the Indian association of Alberta, I think perhaps it is fair to say that they were not quite fully informed at the time these representations were made. Of course that applies perhaps with even more force to their representations with respect to the question of liquor, to which I now come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the minister leaves the matter of appeals, do I understand from what he has just said that he has not had representations regarding that matter from the North American Indian brotherhood? The correspondence I have had would indicate to me that for some years they have made very definite representations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I stand corrected. I believe it is correct that the North American Indian brotherhood have also made the same or similar representations. I am not quite sure that they meant quite the same thing. In neither case have I ever been able to comprehend precisely how these things could be translated into statutory form. I happen to be one of those old fashioned reactionary types who believe it is better to deal with specific problems than to make broad declarations of principle which it is very hard for the courts to interpret and apply, but then I do not have the benefit of being a lawyer.
I come now to the question of liquor, and I can assure hon. members that nothing that was said this morning by any hon. member was new to me. All viewpoints expressed here this morning, and several variations of them, have been expressed to me on other occasions, from the extreme position taken by the hon. member for Nanaimo, with which I confess I personally have a good deal of sympathy, the view that the Indians should be treated exactly like everybody else and that there should be no discrimination whatsoever, to the apprehension expressed by the hon.

Indian Act
member for Meadow Lake and the hon. member for Yorkton, who seemed to feel that it was the duty of the government to protect the Indians against themselves and particularly against the provincial governments. I confess this attitude surprised me a little in the case of the hon. member for Yorkton.


George Hugh Castleden: I never said any such thing. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I referred only to the fact that instead of the federal government taking the responsibility with regard to liquor and making the practice uniform across Canada, it has seen fit in this legislation to turn the matter over to the provincial governments. My apprehension had nothing to do with the good government of the province and what that government would do, but with the fact that the federal government was reneging on its responsibility accepted under the treaty signed with the Indians. I think it would be a good idea to treat them all the same and that there should be no discrimination, but the fact remains that the Indians have not been trained-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman has exhausted his question of privilege and is now making a second speech.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister made an accusation against me that I was reflecting on the provincial governments. I was doing no such thing. I think the provincial government would have a far better attitude than the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can perhaps cool off now.


George Hugh Castleden: I am quite cool, but when Indian matters of administration are involved I may get quite warm.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I did not understand the hon. gentleman correctly I of course apologize.


George Hugh Castleden: That is accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But if I did not understand him correctly then it is rather difficult for me to understand him at all. I can understand the position that we should do nothing, that we should leave the law just as it is, although that would not accomplish what the hon. member for Meadow Lake wants because he wants to go back to what the law was before the change was made in 1951. There is nothing in the proposed amendment that changes in principle what was done in 1951.
At that time a provincial initiative was established with respect to the question of giving Indians the right to drink in public places appointed for the purpose by provincial governments. We are not suggesting any new principle here at all. We are merely suggesting that

the same principle should be applied in the case of purchases of liquor in a province to be taken off the premises and consumed elsewhere in accordance with the laws of the province. I think it would be a grave invasion of provincial rights for us to attempt to legislate for Indians in this particular. Either we must have the prohibition which now exists or they must conform to the provincial law. I see no third possibility.
But we have also taken account of the fact, which I think is very well known to hon. members from all parts of Canada, that there is a feeling on many reserves on the part of the majority of the Indians that they do not want to have liquor brought on the reserves, and we are recommending a provision that in a case where the provincial law is to be applied to Indians generally, the Indians on any reserve may adopt a local option measure which would make it illegal for them to take liquor on that reserve.
It does not seem to me that this is any shifting of responsibility to anybody else except in one respect, namely that we are saying that we do not intend to give this regime to Indians generally unless the provincial authorities want it.
But in order not to deprive the Indians of the opportunity to make up their own minds in this matter, in those provinces where the provincial government does not wish to take the initiative, we are also recommending that where a band, by a vote, decide that they would like to be brought under the laws of the province instead of remaining under the Indian Act, we will consult the provincial authorities and if the provincial authorities express no objection to it-because they will have the onus of enforcing the law in such circumstances-then it will be possible to bring such a regime into existence in the particular reserve concerned.
Short of going the whole length which the hon. member for Nanaimo thinks would be desirable, though I do not think he is advocating it as an immediate measure, it does not seem to me that we could have done much better than this, except for those people who say we should have maintained the status quo. I recognize the fact that there will be strong differences of opinion in all parties in the house on this particular point. There are those who, like my friend the hon. member for Meadow Lake-and I hate to differ with him on this subject-seem to think that an Indian drunk is worse than another man drunk. I do not agree with that view at all. I think an Indian is a human being just like the rest of us. I have seen many non-Indians who were, in my opinion, just as unworthy as any Indian I have ever seen. As far as

I am concerned I do not agree with that view, but I do not challenge the right of any man to hold it. I know that my friend the hon. member for Meadow Lake holds it sincerely, and I know there are also other hon. members in the house who do so.
There are other hon. members who feel that all traces of discrimination should be done away with immediately. I believe that is the goal toward which we should aim. But I think in the meantime we must take account of the conditions of different parts of the country and of the views of different bands of Indians, and I think the latter is even more important. We know there are many of these bands of Indians who do not want a new regime, and I do not think one should be imposed upon them. Mr. Speaker, unless we want to go back beyond the act of 1951, right back to the situation which existed before that time, it does not seem to me that there is really much ground of principle on which to object to the present bill. I think I shall rest my case there for the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5

Admission to band and transfer of membership.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this seems to us to be one of the clauses which clearly proves the point we had in mind when objecting in general to the powers being given to the minister. This clause would amend section 13 of the act so that it would then read as follows:
13. Subject to the approval of the minister and, if the minister so directs, to the consent of the admitting band.
(a) a person whose name appears on a general list may be admitted into membership of a band with the consent of the council of the band; . . .
The effect of the amendment is to provide that if the minister so directs, a person can be admitted into the membership of the band without the consent of the band. Previously, as I read the existing section, the consent of the band was necessary in any event.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I believe the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. I think we could clear that point up quickly.
Indian Act
The previous provision was that it could be either the consent of the band or the council of the band.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the situation is now, if the minister feels that the council is not properly representing the views of the band, he may direct that the views of the band be obtained. It is just to make sure that the Indians really approve.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I submit that is not the effect of the legislation as drafted. The section as it was before the amendment reads as follows:
13. (1) Subject to the approval of the minister, a person whose name appears on a general list may be admitted into membership of a band with the consent of the band or the council of the band.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If all that was done here was to remove the words "or the council of the band" so as to provide that it had to be the consent of the band itself rather than that of the council, that would accomplish the object which the minister has just told us it was the intention to accomplish. But as the amendment is worded, the minister can direct that the consent of neither the band nor its council is necessary, and that this person shall be admitted without the consent of either of those bodies. That is the way the amendment reads. It gives the minister power to do that. If all he wants is provide that it is the band as a whole which must consent and not the council- which, as he says, may through some technicality not be in a position to consent-why does he not take out the words "or the council of the band" but leave in the words "with the consent of the band"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the reason is that the council represents the band in exactly the same way as this government represents the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But there are times when it is felt to be advisable to consult all the electors. The only change this amendment makes is to give the minister the right, if he feels that the council of the band does not in fact represent the views of the band, to have a referendum on the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not like these quarrels, but I am afraid this is a quarrel over wording. With the objective of the minister I think there could be no real disagreement. It is to the method of accomplishing it or at least to the wording he has chosen that we are objecting. We object to it because we

Indian Act
do not think it has only the effect he says it is intended to have. The amendment would read:
Subject to the approval of the minister and, if the minister so directs,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would read the amendment without the underlined words, it would be of assistance.
I think the whole thing would then become quite clear.	[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would then read as follows:
Subject to the approval of the minister . . .
(a)	a person whose name appears on a general list may be admitted into membership of a band with the consent of the council of the band: and
(b)	a member of a band may be admitted into membership of another band with the consent of the council of the latter band.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so. These other
words apply only if the minister feels that the consent of the council is not adequate and that the whole band should be consulted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may be the minister's intention as to the manner in which he will exercise this power. Of course we accept that as being his intention, but that intention might be lost sight of with a change of ministers. Policies have a way of being obscured. Some other minister, under different circumstances, might not follow that intention. I submit that it would be infinitely preferable, in order to accomplish the desired result which the minister has stated, in fact to leave the section as it stands; because then the consent of either the band or the council of the band is necessary, and if it is felt that the council is not properly representing the band, the consent of the band could be required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How would it be determined?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister now has power to suspend that consent altogether, leaving it with the-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstands the situation. The normal procedure at the present time, is to ask the views of the council, but on some occasions it does seem preferable to consult the whole band. The only purpose of this is to make it quite clear that somebody will decide when the whole band should be consulted.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, in that case that somebody generally would be the Indian agent. There is no doubt about it, the minister would take his direction from the Indian agent and not from the band.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Probably there is not much point in prolonging the argument. We have a difference of opinion as to the effect of the iMr. Fulton.]
words, and because we do not think they carry into effect the desire of the minister, as I said, we have no alternative but to oppose the section.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 52; nays, 20.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Division of reserves and funds. Mr. Fulton: I move:
That section 7 of the bill be amended by deleting subclause 2 thereof and renumbering subclause 3 as subclause 2.
The committee will appreciate that this is another instance where in the proposed subclause 2 the word "minister" is substituted for the words "governor in council". Perhaps I had better read it as it would be if we were to carry it as it is set out in the bill:
(2) Where pursuant to subsection 1 a new band has been established from an existing band or any part thereof, such portion of the reserve lands and funds of the existing band as the minister determines shall be held for the use and benefit of the new band.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, how important a decision of this nature would be. Let us assume there has been the division of a band. Then the question is going to arise, what portion of the assets of the old band is going to be devoted to the new band that has been created? The division of the reserve lands and funds is going to be of fundamental importance to both the continuing old body and the new body established by the division. Here is a case where I would state quite deliberately, because of the peculiar position of the Indians as wards of the government and of the government as trustee of the Indians, that the question of the division of band funds and lands as between bands is one that we are justified in requiring to be submitted to the decision of the cabinet and not to be decided only by the minister, particularly since there is no provision for appeal to the courts.
I shall have something to say on that question, to which the minister referred, later on when we move an amendment which would give the right to appeal. At present there is no right to appeal from the minister's decision. This is a question of such fundamental importance that it should be decided by the governor in council rather than by a minister. Therefore my amendment, if carried, would delete subclause 2 of clause 7 and thus restore the old wording, by which the decision was reserved for the governor in council.


Colin Cameron: Can the minister give us some information as to the procedure that is followed now when a band is divided? What steps are taken?

Indian Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, of course, sir, it is never done unless there is a general desire to have it done. A band would not be divided without the consent of the existing band. It is a rarity, and it is done for convenience only. There would have to be complete consent and agreement before it is done. All that is involved here is the ratification by somebody of something that has already been accomplished. It is a fairly routine operation, and for that reason I see no necessity to accept the hon. gentleman's amendment.


Mr. Churchill:: If it is a rare thing that occurs, what is wrong with continuing the present procedure? There is going to be no special burden placed on anybody.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing wrong with it, but I think the other procedure is better, and that is what the government is recommending.


George Hugh Castleden: This gives the minister complete power to deal with the lands and funds of the old band?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it does not.


George Hugh Castleden: I was just asking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All it does is give the minister power to set the seal of approval upon what has been agreed upon when the division takes place.


George Hugh Castleden: Agreed upon by whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the Indians.


George Hugh Castleden: The legislation reads:
Where pursuant to subsection 1 a new band has been established from an existing band or any part thereof, such portion of the reserve lands and funds of the existing band as the minister determines shall be held for the use and benefit of the new band.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


George Hugh Castleden: It gives the minister complete power to deal with the division, and the portion of the reserve lands and reserve funds which may be kept on hand shall be determined entirely by the minister. The minister says this is a decision which has already been made by the Indians. Under what section do they make the division as to how much of the funds they shall have and how much of the lands they shall have?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite apparent that a band would not agree to be divided unless both parties were satisfied. All that this involves is the ratification of something that has already been agreed upon by the existing band that is being divided. The government has no power to divide bands of its own volition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that point, I think we should leave section 17 as it stands at present. Let me read section 17 of the Indian Act as it appears at the present time. It reads:
The minister may, whenever he considers it desirable,
(a)	constitute new bands and establish band lists with respect thereto from existing band lists or general lists, or both, and
(b)	amalgamate bands that, by a vote of a majority of their electors, request to be amalgamated.
So under paragraph (a) of subsection 1 the minister can constitute new bands from existing band lists or general lists or both whenever he considers it desirable. Now, it is obvious that in the great majority of, if not in all, cases there will be some initiative taken by the band to make a request along these lines; but once the decision is made to do it the method of doing it and the allocation of funds and lands to the divided band are made by the minister. As one of my colleagues remarked here, we are supposed to be civilized, but we have had fights in churches on the division of church properties, and if there is any organization which should settle its affairs amicably it should be a church. They have had their disputes resolved by the courts.
It is most probable that disputes will arise between the Indians as to the division of band funds and lands in a situation such as this. The act gives full power to the governor in council to determine. Subsection 2 of the existing act says that this question shall be determined by the governor in council, and the bill provides that it will be determined by the minister. Our amendment would prevent that from being the case. We think a matter of such importance should be determined by the government as a whole.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, ii seems to me that the argument the hon. member for Kamloops presents does not really follow. I myself have a certain objection to the way this is worded at the present time, but not because "minister" is substituted for "governor in council"

as I say, I think that is largely fictional anyway

* but I think the minister might well consider amending this section in such a way as to leave the initiative to the Indians; to clearly spell out that the initiative is on the Indian band itself, and to empower the minister to act on recommendations from the Indian band. Although I have no doubt whatever that he actually does that, I think it might be an improvement if that were spelled out in the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, the same thing occurred to me. I must confess that technically the hon. member for Kamloops is

Indian Act
right. I think if he had taken exception to the word "minister" in the first part of clause 17 I would have been inclined to go along with him; but I was not a member of this house, as everyone knows, at the time the act was passed in 1951. I do think I would be quite prepared to give consideration-I do not think I want to do it now-but I would be prepared to give consideration at the next revision of the act to making some provision that no band can be divided without the express consent of the band.
I can assure hon. members that to the best of my knowledge this has always been the practice and I certainly would not do anything different, but I think it might well be spelled out in the act.


Mr. Barnett:: I think the point being discussed is well illustrated by the difference between subsections (a) and (b) of the existing section 17(1), where amalgamation of bands must take place by a vote of the majority of the electors but new bands can be constituted without any such reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, of course, might be the only way of doing it. I understand there are some Indians who are not in bands at all, and until there was a band it would be rather difficult to ask for their consent.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of the minister. In view of what he has just said, will the minister not now have one of his colleagues move an amendment in order to include it in the present revision? I mean, why wait until a further session? If he agrees, and he says he does, then why not have it done now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I think it would take some considerable time to draft the kind of provision that I would be prepared to take the responsibility of recommending, because this is a rather complicated matter.


Harold Edward Winch: But in view of what you have just said, with your staff of parliamentary officials to do the drafting, if they cannot do it in ten minutes they ought to be fired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman and I are not lawyers and I do not think we should go about firing lawyers with such light hearts. They are rather hard to come by these days.


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the minister has just agreed that he will give consideration to this, I do not see why we should wait for probably another year in order to make this change. The minister admits that in effect it is not good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, I didn't.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not understand why he is not willing to do anything about it now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. I believe I said that what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo recommended itself to me and that I was prepared to give some consideration to the possibility of doing this. I do not believe I said any more than that, and that is as far as I am prepared to take the responsibility of going at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: But you also said that it recommended itself to you so much that when a further revision is being made such an amendment should be brought in. Well, sir, if that is your intention, why not do it now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I really said what the hon. member for Vancouver East represents me as having said, but if I did say that I went further than I intended.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, it is now a quarter to one, and I wonder if the minister would be prepared to allow this clause to stand until one o'clock? He could have his officials redraft it and probably he could bring it in at 2.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I am not prepared to recommend any further changes in this section at this time. I think the matter is much too serious and requires much more consideration than it would be possible for me to give it at this time.


Mr. Palleli:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to give us an undertaking that he will be the minister concerned when the Indian Act next comes up for revision. That undertaking seems to be implicit in the minister's statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not prepared to give such an undertaking; but I am prepared to lay a little bet with the hon. member.


Mr. Bell:: You would not be allowed to under the Criminal Code.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 58.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Use of reserves for schools, etc.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in our efforts to retain "governor in council" in the act we are prepared to admit that this is a case where the change from "governor in council" to "the minister" is justified, because this is obviously administration and does not involve decisions affecting the allocation of funds or lands as

between Indians or bands. Therefore without compromising our position on the whole matter of principle we are prepared to say that this is a justifiable change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Minister may direct expenditure.
Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to subclause 2 we feel that the change from "governor in council" to "minister" is not justified for the reasons which have already been fully discussed, and I therefore move:
That section 16 be amended by deleting clause 2 thereof.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment for the same reason, sir. I feel that the governor in council would take the same view of noxious weeds as I do.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 60.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23-Coming into force of this section.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the clause which deals with the new provisions with regard to liquor, and the minister said he would leave his extended remarks until we came to this clause. I think it would be helpful if we could have an outline by the minister as to how this new legislation will affect the position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to give this outline in completely non-technical language and as clearly as I can. I hope hon. members will grant me their indulgence if I am not letter perfect, because it is a complicated matter.
Under the present law it is competent for a provincial authority to pass an order in council to make it possible for the Indians in that province to be exempted from the provisions of the Indian Act and to he permitted to enter places where intoxicating beverages are sold legally and consume them on those premises, but nowhere else. It is now proposed to extend that.
First, the province may extend the provisions to apply to the whole or any part of the provincial liquor law. That is to say, conceivably they could make it possible- I am not familiar with the laws of all the provinces-for Indians to buy liquor in liquor stores, carry it off and consume it elsewhere in public places. If there are other ways of consuming it I am not aware of them.
Indian Act
Then if desired the provincial authorities may divide the province. That is to say, they might not want to bring in these provisions in regard to the northern part of a province because of the difficulty of enforcing the law. In other words, we are trying to make this just as flexible as possible and ease whatever problems there may be for the provincial authorities in administering the law. There is also the provision that in any province where this is done, if the Indians so desire and express that desire through the council of the band a referendum shall be held on the reserve to determine whether or not the Indians shall be allowed to bring liquor on the reserve. That is one way of approaching this problem.
We understand that there are certain provinces which have indicated that they really do not wish to be put in the position of having to take the initiative in this matter, which they consider to be a federal matter and none of their concern. They do not want to be put in the position of having to do anything about it, and we cannot force them to do anything about it. But we feel that to be fair to the Indians we ought to have a provision where the initiative could be taken by the council band.
As I recall the procedure it would work something like this. The council would indicate that they wished to be brought under the provincial laws. A referendum would be held, and if it turned out that that was the view of the band the attorney general of the province would be advised. If he offered no objection within a stated period it would then be for the governor in council or the minister-I think it is the governor in council but I am not sure without looking at the bill-to bring that regime into effect. I would anticipate that that would be almost automatic. It was felt that in a case like that there ought to be a proclamation so that everybody would know the law. I am explaining the two clauses together.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the referendum require only a majority vote?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: In many cases where a local option vote is taken it requires a 70 per cent maj ority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government felt that we should follow the British North America Act.


George Hugh Castleden: Who would be permitted to vote in the referendum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Qualified electors of the band.

Indian Act


George Hugh Castleden: A straight majority would be sufficient even though the provincial law required something more?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This has nothing to do with provincial law; this is a referendum taken on the reserve.


George Hugh Castleden: It would then be left up to the province to do as they wished with regard to the passing of their own order in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the case of this second regime where the band takes the initiative the province does not need to do anything. All we are giving the province in that case is the right of veto after a referendum has been taken. If it is felt that this would create disorder and trouble in the community, the province may decide that they do not want it done. If that were so we would not proceed, but otherwise if the provincial government does nothing then it would be entirely a federal matter.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I find on looking at clause 23, section 96A, that I was wrong in the sequence of events I described in outlining what would happen under the second alternative. First there would be a resolution from the council of the band, and that resolution would be transmitted to the attorney general of the province. A referendum would only be held 60 days later if there had been no objection. I think the order that is suggested is much more sensible, because there is no point in having a referendum and then having the provincial government object.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What the minister said at one o'clock and what he has said just now seems to make it clear that there is a situation here under which the responsibility for deciding whether or not Indians are to have liquor is clearly placed on the province. Under the proposed section 95 (1) it is made clear that Indians will be permitted to be in lawful possession of liquor within a province if that province so decides, and also that for this federal law to be effective the province has to ask the dominion government to issue a proclamation, which the dominion government will then issue. In other words, instead of this government saying we are going to permit Indians to enjoy the right of access to liquor, they are saying the province will decide whether Indians shall have this right,

if it be a right, and then if they request us to give it to the Indians of a certain province we will get it. This seems to me to be the wrong approach.
I indicated earlier on second reading that our view is that the government here should decide whether the Indians of Canada are to be allowed access to liquor, and if they so decide then they should discuss with the provinces the rules and regulations under which that will be done. This seems to me to reverse the process. The other alternative, that is the alternative of whether or not Indians will be allowed liquor on the reserves, is one in which perhaps the dominion is accepting its proper responsibility. However, this situation creates other difficulties. I would like to ask the minister how he envisages these being dealt with. It is provided that if a reserve requests a referendum to decide whether or not they should have the right to have liquor on the reserve, then providing the provincial government does not object, that referendum may be held. What I want to ask is this. There is a situation, for instance, in my own area where there are two or three reserves that would be served, if they had the referendum and it was carried and there was no provincial objection, from the one liquor store.
What happens if one reserve carries the referendum in the affirmative and the other defeats it? You have one reserve saying yes, we will have liquor, and the other saying no. Those Indians then go into a liquor store to buy liquor. How is the manager of that liquor store to know whether this is an Indian who is entitled to take liquor back to a reserve? How do the law enforcement officers deal with that situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to try to answer that question. The hon. gentleman comes from British Columbia. I think it is not unreasonable to assume, in view of the past actions of the government of British Columbia-and in any case let us assume that they would take the first alternative-the province would ask us to bring the whole liquor law of British Columbia into effect for the Indians under proposed section 95. If that were done, then the only referendum that would be taken on the reserve would be as to whether liquor could be brought on to the reserve. The Indians who lived on that reserve would be enabled to buy liquor anywhere they liked in British Columbia, and the only possible prohibition upon them would be the taking of it on to the reserve; that is in the first alternative.
Now, let us suppose there is a province like Saskatchewan which has never taken

advantage of the present law-I am just taking Saskatchewan because they have never acted under the present law-and suppose they did not act under the new law, then in that province it is a referendum of a different character which would be taken on the reserve. What the Indians would ask for on that reserve is to have the laws of the province applied to the Indians of that reserve unreservedly, and the attorney general needs to do nothing in that case if he wants the thing to go forward. There is no provincial action of any kind required. If he objected we would not hold the referendum. In other words it is within the power of the province to keep the whole province dry, so far as Indians are concerned, if they want to do so. That is the present state of affairs.
I think I said earlier that the present situation is that Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and the Yukon have provisions enabling Indians to drink in public places, and those provisions have been brought into force by the action of the provincial government. I would expect that in most of those jurisdictions the whole of the provincial law would be brought into operation, and the only kind of action that would then be likely to be taken under this act would be to keep a particular reserve dry insofar as bringing liquor on to the reserve is concerned. This would not mean that Indians living on those reserves could not go to a liquor store and buy liquor and consume it some other place where it was legal, just as they can go into beverage rooms and buy a glass of beer and drink it there.
I do not know whether I have made it clear, but there are two distinct kinds of referendums envisaged. One is what I might call a referendum where a province is wet to make the reserve dry, and the other is in a dry province where the purpose is to bring that reserve under provincial liquor law.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If an Indian goes to buy liquor in the province of Ontario, his name and address is in his permit book.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I think we can work out the details of administration all right.


Mr. Campbell:: What has been the result of making liquor available to the Indians in those provinces that have done so?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The result has been somewhat mixed, sir, as one would expect. I am told that the general experience in each province-I do not know about Manitoba because the experience is so very recent I have not heard anything about it-was that for the first week or so after access was given to these places a certain number of Indians abused the privilege. When the matter was
Indian Act
drawn to the attention of the law enforcement authorities, the situation was very quickly changed. Of course, there are a certain number of these people, just as there are a certain number of other people, who spend a lot of time in beverage rooms.
In that context I may say that there is no one in the Indian affairs branch from the minister up or down, whichever way you would like to put it, who wants to see Indians do any more drinking. I would far rather see them use their money for other purposes than spending it on alcoholic beverages. But we do know, and it is our experience in the administration of the Indian affairs branch, that Indians do get liquor to drink. We do know that in the places where they cannot get it legally a good many of them get it illegally, and I think there are a great many more inducements offered to them to buy illegally than any provincial government would offer them to buy liquor legally.
In addition, there is in my mind no doubt that this is another badge of discrimination and that in the minds particularly of a lot of younger Indians it is a way in which we are saying they are an inferior people. There are a lot of them who do not really want to drink at all. The hon. member for Nanaimo and I know a very distinguished clergyman, himself an Indian, who I am sure has never had a drink in his life but who is very strongly in favour of removing this badge of discrimination. I say we are not going, as I might put it, the whole hog. We are trying to effect a compromise here which will meet the varying conditions in different parts of the country.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it the opinion of the officials of the department, medical and otherwise, that the Indian is affected more by the use of alcohol than the white man?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no medical officers in my department to give me an opinion but it certainly is not the opinion of any of the qualified administrative officers to whom I have ever talked. I do not think there is the slightest physiological evidence of that. I do think it is probably true that people who live in a rather primitive way, no matter whether they are Indians or otherwise, and who perhaps have never had a drink until they became adult, when they first encountered liquor, are rather more apt, other things being equal, to drink too much than other people who are perhaps more used to it, but of course that does not always follow.


George Hugh Castleden: I believe that in the evidence presented to the Indian affairs committee the opinion was expressed that the Indians, being an ancient people and not having had access to liquor, were affected far more than

Indian Act
the white man who, unfortunately, has used it for generations. I believe the recommendation to the department was that the Indians should be protected against this white man's evil. As a matter of fact the Indians asked for protection in all the treaties that were signed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on that.


George Hugh Castleden: -with the Queen's representative at the time. I refer to treaty No. 2, the Northwest Territories treaty. Under that treaty the Queen's representative promised at the time of the signing of the treaty that the Indians would be protected, whether on reserves or off reserves, against the evil influence of liquor. At that time the representatives of the Queen signed the treaty in good faith saying that they would protect them. Does the department give any consideration to that treaty? Do they believe that the treaty has any legal status and that they have an obligation to live up to its terms?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite, sir. I do not think the hon. gentleman can have read the treaty very recently. I read all the treaties very carefully to see just what the provisions were and to see if this legislation would transgress them in any way. I think it is quite obvious when one reads the treaties that the purpose of the treaties was to prevent the Indians from being besotted with liquor and having their property taken away from them while in that condition, as I am afraid happened rather often in the earlier years of the contact of the Europeans with the Indians on this continent.
The hon. gentleman says that the Indians have until recently been protected from liquor. I might remind the hon. gentleman that Columbus discovered America in 1492, and I am sure he had some brandy with him. From that day to this there have always been a few people who have been willing to engage in the liquor trade and to use it in order to take advantage of their Indian neighbours.
We do not think that will be done by the provincial liquor commission in any province. We think that is done-in fact, we are sure it is done-by a certain number of illicit traders at the present time, and we feel that this proposed regime will be conducive to the integration of the Indians into our society. After all the years of protection afforded by the prohibition in the old act up to 1951, and with the limited experience we have had since 1951 with the new regime, we feel that the new regime is better than the old one.


George Hugh Castleden: In reply to the minister's charge that I have not read the act very recently, I suggest that I have read it since he has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The treaty, I said.


George Hugh Castleden: The treaty. Does the minister know anything about the treaty of August 21, 1871?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read them all.


George Hugh Castleden: Does it not say that the Indians are to be protected? I happen to have a copy of the treaty here, and I want to disabuse the minister's mind of the idea that I have not read it recently. I shall read the exact words. What I am asking is that the federal government assume its responsibility in this regard and not slough it off on the provinces. The provinces have no responsibility under the treaties, but the federal government has. The members of the federal government are the heirs, shall I say, of the representatives of the Queen who signed the treaty of 1871 in good faith. This is what I find in the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Keewatin treaty No. 2, signed on August 21, 1871:
. .	. Her Majesty further agrees with her said
Indians, that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise enacted by the proper legislative authority, no intoxicating liquors shall be allowed to be introduced or sold; and all laws now in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve her Indian subjects inhabiting her Indian reserves or living elsewhere within her Northwest Territories, from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will read those words again slowly he will find that this legislation is in complete accord with that provision.


George Hugh Castleden: I do not think it is very complete compliance with it. You are passing off the matter to the provincial governments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind sending the treaty to me and I will read it.


George Hugh Castleden: The provincial government can exercise a veto and prohibit within the boundaries of their province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I have not been as clear as I should have been. I put it this way, that if the province takes the initiative to bring the laws of that province into effect, the Indians themselves may decide to have their reserves dry.


An hon. Member:: Or wet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or wet. The Indians themselves may decide. If, on the contrary, the province does not decide to bring the provincial law generally into effect the Indians

Indian Act
themselves may ask to have it brought into effect with respect to their particular reserve. We do allow the province a veto in that case. But in neither case is anything done to shuffle off responsibility to the province. We simply give the province, because it has the responsibility of enforcing the law, a certain initiative and a limited veto; that is all. We are taking our responsibility; I am taking the responsibility as a member of the government of recommending this regime which is in accordance with the provisions of the treaty the hon. gentleman read.


George Hugh Castleden: You are not protecting the Indian against the influence of liquor at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, that I am, and that is precisely why I am bringing this legislation before the committee. I think it is far better to allow the Indians to buy liquor legally from the properly constituted provincial authorities than it is to leave them to the devices they resort to now and which it does not seem to be possible to prevent them from resorting to.


George Hugh Castleden: Have you had any complaints or reports from those administering the department with regard to the making of liquor on the reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: With regard to what?


George Hugh Castleden: With regard to Indians
making intoxicating liquor on the reserves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, I have heard it suggested that that happens. I have heard it suggested much more frequently that there are other people who purvey liquor to Indians on the reserves illegally.


George Hugh Castleden: There is no doubt about that. I am asking you to prevent that sort of thing. I am asking you to take action against that kind of thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How?


George Hugh Castleden: By administering your act; by administering the department so these things do not happen. Surely you could ask the provincial police authorities to enforce the law in their own provinces. There have been cases of tragedy, where people have lost their lives as the result of drinking parties when people have become intoxicated on the reserves. That is something which should not occur. I am asking the government to enforce this law and to enforce the terms of this legislation by preventing these occurrences. I think this is widening it rather than restricting it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister what is the general consensus of the committee which sat and discussed the general terms
or provisions of the amending bill. I am sure he will tell me that, by and large, they agreed or else he would not have done what he has done. What were the differences of opinion expressed and what steps are being taken to respect the views of the minorities, on a geographical basis, where they disagree with the view of the majority?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am most grateful to the hon. member for asking me that most intelligent question, because I think it throws a flood of light on what really happened. I will tell the committee that when we started to discuss this matter with the Indians we intended to have a uniform regime for the whole country. However, at the conference we found that the overwhelming majority of the Indians from one province did not want the law changed at all.
I was faced with a very awkward dilemma of trying to decide whether I would go to my colleagues and recommend that we have one law for nine provinces and another law for a tenth province. I did not think that would be a very successful way of doing things. Then there was another province in which the opinion of the Indians was quite sharply divided, and it was obvious that it could not very well fit into either pattern. It was then, after a good deal of discussion with one or two of my colleagues and with a number of the officials, that we came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to follow the pattern which had been set in 1951, and which seems to have worked very well, and allow the provinces to take the initiative.
But then I remembered that at the conference there were Indians from one or two provinces which had not taken any initiative under the law, but who themselves were very anxious to have the law changed and to have the possibility of taking advantage of the new regime. That is why we devised this second alternative of allowing a band council to make a request and of referring it to the provincial authorities. In other words, these provisions were designed in order to try to meet these varying situations. But I might say that except for the Indians of one province, or the majority of those in one province and about half of those in the other, the overwhelming majority of the rest wanted the law changed.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister made this matter perfectly clear to most hon. members but it is not quite clear to me. I am thinking of a case in my own riding where the Hobbema reserve is concerned, where we have three bands of Indians, to all intends and purposes, on one reserve.

Indian Act
What would happen, let us say, if the Samson and Wolf bands wanted to be wet and the Louis Bull decided they wanted to be dry? Then you would have the case of two bands on one reserve being able to take liquor into the reserve and the other band would be dry.
A few moments ago the minister mentioned the fact that so many people were willing to take advantage of the Indians by bootlegging liquor to them. In a case like this, where you would have say two bands on the one reserve who were wet, bringing liquor in, then you would have bootlegging on a scale you never imagined before, because the Indians would be bootlegging to each other. I would think that would be an extremely difficult thing to decide because, even as far as employees of the liquor store or the distributors of liquor are concerned, they would not know which was which. But the most important thing to be considered would be that those in the bands which were wet would have the opportunity of bringing the liquor into the reserve, and I am afraid there would be bootlegging on a large scale among the Indians themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is in the bill a provision covering that matter. That was discussed at the Indian conference and we decided that, where two bands were on reserves contiguous to one another, it would have to be treated as a single reserve.


Ray Thomas: There would have to be a majority of Indians on the one reserve?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so. That is the only possible way of dealing with the matter.


John Hornby Harrison: A few minutes ago the minister clarified one thing for me that I certainly wanted to have clarified before I voted on this measure, particularly on this section. He made it clear that by our actions here today we shall accept responsibility for giving the Indians liquor. I think that was the reply to the hon. member for Yorkton, or at least that was the gist of it.
In the first place, I am definitely going to vote against this section because I am going to have no part of putting liquor in the hands of Indians in my particular area. I have had hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly the hon. member for Nanaimo, take issue with that view. Knowing as I do his particular area and the Indians in it, particularly those Indians around the riding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, if I happened to be the member representing that area I would take exactly the same stand they are taking. Those people already have come to the same

stage of advancement in civilization-if that is what you call it-as we have. In other words, they earn their living fairly well in the same way. If you look at the houses of the Indians around Comox, for instance, you will find that the Indians there are living in a very nice way.
To be fair with the minister I must say this, however. If I were in his position I would do exactly as he is now doing, for in that case I would be obliged to have the interest of the country as a whole at heart. But hon. members will appreciate the fact that I am not in the position of the minister, and that I represent a particular area. I am going to represent that area to the best of my ability. That being the case, I certainly will not vote for any liquor in that area. We have had the Oblate order working in that part of the country for some 160 years now to get these Indians educated and to bring improvement there. The very reason there is this difference of opinion among hon. members is the fact that there is a difference in integration of the Indians themselves with the white population in different parts of the country. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The hon. member for Victoria, Ontario.


John Hornby Harrison: -or rather the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, said that maybe the Indians were better there. I am not going along with that suggestion. There may be some difference in their development as to integration into the white man's way of life. That may be a debatable subject, as to whether they have gone ahead by doing so or have gone backward. Knowing these Indians in the remote areas in my part of the country who have not been touched by the white man so much, I would say that you will find that they are a more honest and reliable type of native than those who have come too much in contact with the white man.
That leads one to raise some question as to whether they have come forward or gone backward by so doing. But if I were in the place of other hon. members, such as members from down near Windsor Ontario, such as my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I certainly would not take the stand I am taking now. There you cannot tell the Indian from the white.


Mr. Martin:: You are not saying anything inimical to Windsor, of course.


John Hornby Harrison: I am being very complimentary to them. From the standpoint of my area, however, those Indians are not in a position to be so taken in by the liquor

situation. There are areas in my constituency where, if I represented just that part, I would agree with the minister that this is a good thing. But in my area as a whole they are not prepared for it any more than you should feed beefsteak to a baby who has no teeth. First things must come first. Before a baby takes on solid food it is necessary that he have something to handle it with.
From the standpoint of enforcement of this legislation, if it is enacted, it is going to be very difficult because you now have some teeth in the law as far as the R.C.M.P. are concerned, and they have been able to stop the bootleggers who operate in my area by plane. They have been able to stop them very effectively. But once this legislation is enacted the private plane business is going to be quite lucrative in my area. Having regard to the fact, that we have developed that we are taking the responsibility that Indians are to be given liquor, I am definitely going to vote against this section.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I just say a word. I have been up in the area to which my hon. friend has referred, and I take somewhat the same position as he does because of that. I do not know whether it is wise at all to extend the privilege of obtaining liquor any more than we have done in the past. I know there are difficulties. As he says, there are various developments among the Indians that make the problem a very difficult one indeed.
I do not know much about the Indian reserves in other parts, but I do know that some of the Indians I have in mind are up in the district that my hon. friend represents. When I was there, as a matter of fact, I was rather shocked at the amount of liquor that was going into that Indian area in the wrong way. It may be argued, of course, that because it was going in the wrong way it is better to let it go in the right way; but I do not like the business. If I were in my hon. friend's position I could do no other than take the stand he is taking. Incidentally, I am inclined to support him generally in the stand he has taken.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: should like to take just a moment to suggest that a good deal of the dubious attitude about Indians and liquor may well arise from some of the unfortunate concoctions that they were served with in earlier days. I ran into this situation when I was doing some research on the opening up of the Canadian west, particularly in connection with a place called Fort Whoop-Up, near Macleod, Alberta. It since has a different type of representative.
The fort was operated in partnership by two men on a non-partisan basis, one of whom was called Hamilton and the other
Indian Act
called Healy, who were trading with the Indians. Let me give you the recipe for the liquor which they were giving out at that time. It consisted of one quart of alcohol, one pound of rank, black chewing tobacco, one handful of red peppers, one bottle of Jamaica ginger, one quart of black molasses, and all of that was mixed well, boiled and then served to the Indians. The second alternative-they had only two types of this drink at that time-consisted of one keg of alcohol, Perry's painkiller, Hostetters bitters, red ink, castile soap, blackstrap chewing tobacco and water, all boiled together.
The reason for all the ingredients was that the Indians like firewater. They wanted something that burned, and I am sure this was very effective in that particular respect. They would trade for the mixture, one cup for a buffalo robe. I hope if the minister proceeds with this bill he will take reasonable care to see that the Indians get not only whisky, if they get it at all, but good whisky.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to disagree with my Saskatchewan colleagues, both in this party and in the government party, but I feel I must do so because it seems to me we are really arguing about the wrong thing when we are told that liquor affects Indians more than it does white people. I think possibly one could collect some statistical evidence to support that, but what the comparison really is between is one group of people who are economically depressed and living on a poor diet, and those who are living on an adequate diet. Really we should be turning our attention to creating conditions for the Indians whereby they will be in the position to handle liquor as well as the more intelligent members of our own race, and it is not by any means all of our own race, at that.
I do want to emphasize again the point of view expressed by the gentleman to whom the minister referred just now; but, like him, I am quite sure he has never had a drink in his life. He may have had it when he was a young man in his native village, but he is certainly a teetotaller now; but he is very firmly of the opinion that his people must no longer be protected, that they must learn to stand on their own feet and to handle this problem.
If we go on coddling them and trying to protect them we do two things. If we succeed, then we leave them open to falling by the wayside when they get out of their own primitive environment, or we encourage irresponsible and unethical people to come in and trade on their ignorance and supply them with liquor in an illegal way and under

Indian Act
such circumstances that it encourages the very sort of abuse that has been complained of here.
I think there comes a time in the life of every human individual when he reaches the age that he must be held accountable for his own actions and must be given an opportunity to develop a sense of responsibility. Our Indian people are in the same position, and I have no doubt whatever that every place where this act is going into effect one of the first effects will be a vast rise in Indian drunkenness, just as there was a vast rise in white drunkenness the moment it became easier to get liquor after the days of prohibition. But that situation has more or less corrected itself for our people, and I think we should look forward to it doing so for the Indians.
Certainly if our aim is to make of the Indians Canadian citizens rather than Indians, then this sort of restriction must be removed, and removed as quickly as possible. There is a safeguard in the bill for the Indians. When the Indians have doubts of the ability of their own people to handle this problem they can call a halt to it for the time being, and I think that should be a sufficient safeguard. I know among the Indians in my own constituency there is a divided opinion on it, and I am not sure that all of them will take advantage of this act. It is quite likely they will oppose it in some instances and in some bands, but that is an exercise of responsibility that is in line with the sort of responsibility we should expect from Canadian citizens of whatever race.


George Hugh Castleden: With respect to subclause 4,
I see that the governor general may make regulations:
(a)	respecting the taking of votes and the holding of a referendum for the purposes of this section.
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said in regard to the economic conditions of those people and the integration of the Indian race as Canadians. I do think they should take their responsibility here, and I am glad to see that a referendum and a vote are to be taken. As it stands at the present time the band council is the one which makes the first application.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: After that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should add-and this might reassure the hon. member for Meadow Lake-that in a case of the council of a band which was in a very primitive state and where we think the probability in the

immediate future of abuse is very great, the fact that the band council made such a request would not necessarily mean that it would be proceeded with.


George Hugh Castleden: I am glad to have that. In case you are going to proceed with a referendum the referendum would have to be taken first?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The referendum would have to be held before any action would be taken.


George Hugh Castleden: For the purposes of the referendum I would suggest that we might follow the example of a good many of the white man's communities. In deciding on the sale and possession of liquor it must be decided by a two-thirds majority. If the government have the responsibility they could help to keep their promise to protect the Indians by the taking of a 75 per cent vote in favour of the use of liquor by the band.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, sir, I can agree. I think one vote should be equal to another. I am afraid I believe in simple majorities.


George Hugh Castleden: In some communities they do not require that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 29.
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned in his statement earlier that he did not understand my reference to the family allowance, but I see it is covered here in clause 29. I had not noticed this before, and I think this covers the question I raised in that an Indian who has attained the age of six years is required to attend school. I want to express my approval of this particular clause because if the word "permit" were to be continued in the act many of the children would leave school in order to obtain the family allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to move an amendment to provide for an additional clause dealing with the question of the right of Indians to appeal to the courts. At an earlier stage of our discussion this morning the minister said that so far as he was aware there was no case in which the rights of Indians as Indians were involved where they did not have the right of appeal to the courts as would any Canadian citizen of the white race under similar circumstances.

I do not find myself able to agree with the minister. I could well be in error here and perhaps the minister can convince me that I am; but going through the act quickly after he made that statement in order to check my previous impression it would be my conclusion that in such matters as are dealt with under the provisions of section 15, particularly section 15(l)(b) which would be a vital matter with respect to Indian rights, sections 17, 18 and 19 and the whole group of sections from 20 to 29 inclusive which lay down the terms controlling the possession of the lands on the reserves, and section 42 as well as many other sections, there is no right of appeal to the court from the decision taken by the governor in council or as it will now be in many cases the decision of the minister alone.
I would refer particularly to section 42. This is the first section of the group running from section 42 to section 46 inclusive, dealing with the descent of property. Section 42 reads as follows:
Unless otherwise provided in this act, all jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters and causes testamentary, with respect to deceased Indians, is vested exclusively in the minister, and shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with regulations of the governor in council.
Section 44 (1) provides:
The court that would have jurisdiction if the deceased were not an Indian may, with the consent of the minister, exercise, in accordance with this act, the jurisdiction and authority conferred in relation to matters and causes testamentary-
And so on.
This is the provision that the minister may transfer jurisdiction to a court, and that can only be done with the consent of the minister. There is no right there on the part of the Indian to appeal to the court from a decision of the minister in these matters. It is my view, as I say subject to correction-and if I am wrong I shall try to be fair about this and admit it-that the other sections I mentioned, for instance those from 15 to 29 inclusive, contain no right on the part of the Indian to appeal from the decision to the courts although that decision may be affecting his fundamental rights and interests as an Indian.
To the minds of those in this group that is one of the gravest discriminations against Indians and one of the greatest bars in the way of persuading the Indians that we really want them to become integrated as full Canadian citizens. I therefore move that the following section be added as section 31:
"The said act is further amended by adding the following section as section 1X2 (a) :
With respect to any decision made by the minister or the governor in council under this act dealing with any of the following classes of subjects
Indian Act
(a)	the use, appropriation or disposition of band funds,
(b)	the use, appropriation or disposition of reserve lands or of the personal property of Indians situate thereon,
(c)	the use, appropriation or disposition of any other real or personal property belonging to or appropriated to the use of Indians either as bands or as individuals,
(d)	the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of Indians or bands,
the council of the band or the individual Indian affected by the decision shall have, in addition to any other rights conferred under this or any other act, the right to appeal the decision to a judge of the appropriate county or district court or of the supreme court of the province in which the band is situate or in which the individual resides, in accordance with the rules and laws applicable to legal proceedings in that province, or, in the province of Quebec, to a judge of the appropriate superior court in accordance with the rules and laws applicable to legal proceedings in the province of Quebec."
It will be noted, sir, that the amendment is so framed that if I am in error and the minister is correct when he says there is a right on the part of Indians then the amendment does no harm, because it says that the Indians shall have in addition to any other rights conferred under this or any other act the right to appeal the decision to a judge.
If the minister intends us to take the literal interpretation of his words when he said he felt there was a right of appeal or recourse to the courts; and if there was not and we could point it out, then I would suggest that in all fairness he must accept this amendment. As I said previously, if there is a right of appeal already the amendment does not do anything. If the minister is correct the amendment does no harm. If we are correct, however, in view of the minister's statement he should accept the amendment because it does what he said he would be willing to have done if such were not the case at present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman could hardly substantiate the very last statement he made. I did not indicate I would be willing to have any general declaratory clause put into the act if I prove to be in error in my assumption-that is all it was-that there is a right of appeal or an opportunity for appeal in the case of any substantive right. What I said was that I am an old fashioned reactionary type who believes in righting particular wrongs rather than making general declaratory provisions which it is often very difficult for the courts to enforce. I persist in that view, sir.
That is not the only reason I oppose this amendment. I oppose this motion to add this clause because I feel it is so sweeping in its character that I would wish to have more

Indian Act
advice and more consideration than is possible at this stage of our proceedings before I would be prepared to concur in recommending it as a part of the law of Canada affecting the Indians. I recognize that that is a very conservative position to take, but it is the only one I feel I can take.
Notwithstanding the fact that he is a lawyer and I am not, I cannot refrain from taking issue with the hon. gentleman about section 42. It would appear to me that the purpose of section 42 is to provide that the bequest and devising of property by Indians would not come under property and civil rights, but would be under the jurisdiction of parliament; and that the regulations made by the governor in council to provide for the devolution of property would be part of the law and that anyone whose property was dealt with under that law would have the same recourse to the courts as any other person who was acting in a testamentary way in a province. I may be quite wrong about that because, as I say, I am not a lawyer; but I would think that is the fact.


Harold Edward Winch: I am inclined to support the
amendment which has been moved, because for some time I have been quite disturbed at the way the sale of Indian property is handled by the department. I have made some study of some sales of Indian property in the province of British Columbia and I am convinced that the Indians were completely rooked, that the property was sold at far less than the market value. That could be done only by authority of the minister and the department.
I do not see why there should be any discrimination in right as between an Indian and his property and another person and his property. If an Indian as an individual or if the Indians as a band are of the opinion that a deal which has been made on their behalf by the department is not fair, is not in their interests, then they should have the right to appeal to the courts the same as anybody else. I shall not name the exact place, but I have in mind the sale of land from an Indian reserve on the north shore. I am completely conversant with that sale and the offers that were made and the estimates that were given by an unbiased real estate man as to the value of the property. I am certain that the Indian band lost out to the tune of thousands of dollars, yet they have no appeal.
I know there is under discussion the sale of additional property held by that same band, and if my information is correct they are not going to get a square deal in that case. As I say, that is just my impression

based on my knowledge of the facts as I have them. Whether I am right or wrong, I do say that when it comes to a matter of property rights an Indian should be in no different position from any other person. If he feels he has been discriminated against or has not had a square deal he should have the same right of appeal to the courts of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know
my hon. friend the hon. member for Vancouver East-I say "my hon. friend" advisedly because it is a term I do not think I have ever used before about any member of the opposition, since I believe in the old parliamentary practice of using the term "friends" only about political friends-wants to be completely fair about this. Perhaps he does not realize that it is impossible for the minister or the government or any other person to sell any part of any Indian reserve unless the band has approved the sale and made a formal surrender for that purpose.
I know that in connection with the sale of certain properties in Vancouver there are certain Indians who disapprove strongly of the action taken by certain bands, contending that the bands had made improvident deals and that we should have vetoed the deals. But the fact of the matter is that no land has been sold unless the band has previously approved the sale and approved the amount for which it was being sold. Is it suggested that the minority in a band should be allowed to go into the courts to prevent the majority of the band making a sale?
Whether parliament would want to have that kind of provision in the law I do not know. It is not the law now; the law is that no part of an Indian reserve can be sold by the minister or the government or anyone else without the consent of the band properly given under the act.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I understand that very well, and I do not think the minority should have the right to go into court to prevent a sale; but I do submit that if the minority thinks it is an improvident deal they should have the right to go to court and have a judge decide whether or not it is a square deal. Let us not forget that the Indian agent or somebody else may be able to exercise a great deal of influence over those who are in responsible positions in the band. As a matter of fact the law is not made for the majority, it is made for the protection of the minority.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. On the basis of the principle about which the minister has been

talking, equality and the lack of discrimination, I submit that if we are going to bring these people in as Canadian citizens surely one of the first things we should do is to make access to justice available to all. If we are to stop these people from having an appeal to the courts of this country in order to obtain justice, we could not be acting in a more discriminatory manner. If that is not available to them, what right have we to say that we are trying to make them into Canadian citizens?
You say that an Indian can always go to the courts and get justice, but one thing that prevents him quite often from doing that is his economic condition. The vast majority of Indians in this country have not the economic means to provide themselves with representation in the courts. In many cases the funds which the band might want to use are completely under the control of the government and are now to be under the control of the minister. That is one reason we have been opposing the extension of powers to the minister to the point where he has personal touch on everything. He could quite easily veto access to the courts through not allowing them to have access to band funds.
In the interests of justice and in the interests of what is good for future Canadians, recourse to justice should be one of the first things made available to them as Canadian citizens.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 41.
Bill reported.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
1.	That the sales tax on the following goods be repealed:
(a)	boxes for farm wagons, and articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture
thereof:
(b)	poisons used in agriculture or horticulture;
(c)	vermiculite;
(d)	material for use exclusively in the production of vaccine for prevention of poliomyelitis;
(e)	certain building materials which are in addition to those already exempted, viz:-additives for concrete; ceiling and acoustical material for buildings; hard surface composition yardage flooring for permanent bonding to floors; material for waterproofing and moisture proofing buildings; additional structural steel for buildings; soil pipe for buildings; tar and asphalt for roofing; skylights; ventilators and louvres, not motor operated;
(f)	certain machinery and apparatus for manufacturing or producing goods which are in addition
Excise Tax Act
to that already exempted, viz:-structures which are adjuncts to or provide access to the machinery and apparatus for manufacturing or producing goods; repair and maintenance equipment used by manufacturers or producers for servicing their machinery and apparatus for manufacturing or producing goods; safety devices and equipment for the prevention of accidents in the manufacturing or production of goods; systems installed by manufacturers or producers for exhausting dust and noxious fumes from their manufacturing operations; equipment used to carry refuse or waste from production machinery; equipment for hospitals and first aid stations in manufacturing establishments;
(g)	identification tags or labels for designating the grades or quality of meat, poultry, fish, eggs, fruit and vegetables, and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof;
(h)	goods enumerated in Customs Tariff items 409t, 409u and 409v, and articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof;
(i)	antiques, as enumerated in Customs Tariff item 693 (ii) and (iii);
(j)	national manufacturing, industrial or mercantile trade directories but excluding statistical, financial or biographical surveys, reports, year books Gr directories, and transportation, telephone, municipal or street directories, guides or rate books.
2.	That the excise tax on the following goods be repealed:
(a)	antiques, as enumerated in Customs Tariff item 693;
(b)	settlers' effects.
3.	(a) That the exemption from excise tax on the goods enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of item 12 of schedule I be repealed when the sale price is one dollar or less;
(b)	That the exemption from excise tax on the goods enumerated in sub-paragraph (c) of item 12 of Schedule I be repealed when the sale price is fifty cents or less.
4.	(a) That there be imposed, levied and collected in respect of each copy of a special edition of a non-Canadian periodical issued to the public in Canada a tax of twenty per cent of the value of the advertised material contained therein;
(b)	That for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) a "special edition of a non-Canadian periodical" means a periodical printed in or outside Canada for publication in Canada
(i)	containing editorial material at least twenty-five per cent of which is the same or substantially the same as editorial material contained in a non-Canadian periodical, whether in the same or in some other language, and
(ii)	containing any advertising material that is not contained in such non-Canadian periodical;
(c)	That any enactment founded upon this paragraph shall come into force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven.
5.	That any enactment founded upon paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this resolution be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six.
Mr. Harris:: I have one or two minor amendments which I shall move when we come to them.


Mr. Herridge:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is the resolution on the excise tax, I want to make one of my Lilliputian sessionending speeches on this subject. I am making these few suggestions as a result of conversations with a man who has had a great

Excise Tax Act
deal of experience in the tobacco business in the United Kingdom and in Canada. I am making them to the minister because I think there is some substance in them, and I should like him to consider them when he is perusing Hansard during his summer holidays. These suggestions of mine I feel are to the advantage of the tobacco producer, and particularly to the advantage of the smokers of pipes and cigarettes-that is about the only comfort a man has nowadays. They also result in no disadvantage to the treasury and no disadvantage to the manufacturers of tobacco, if the suggestions are properly applied. What I am suggesting is the perfect idea.
I was informed that 99-3 per cent of all tobacco used in the United Kingdom is imported. This tobacco is imported in hogsheads or bales, depending on the type and source of origin of the tobacco. It is then unloaded from the carriers and straightaway placed in bonded warehouses. As the tobacco manufacturers require supplies, they simply withdraw them from the warehouse, paying for the weight of the tobacco plus the duty. At the factory in Great Britain the tobacco is processed in the normal way, but all stems, stalk, dust and so on is carefully set aside and in due course that is weighed and shipped to the British Nicotine Company at Bootle, near Liverpool, to be manufactured into insecticides such as nicotine sulphate, black leaf 40, and so on.
I think, Mr. Chairman, from the foregoing it will be readily seen that there is no reason on earth why a British firm should ever want to turn out anything but the best so far as tobacco products are concerned, because there is simply no encouragement for it to do so. The British laws regarding adulteration are also much more strict than ours, and by the very simple means outlined their products have become renowned-I am speaking of tobacco products. Because of the present Canadian excise tax laws, the tobacco manufacturer is encouraged to put as much scrap in his products as the market will bear. This also limits the amount of tobacco to be grown and causes a waste of time and labour. The public suffers by reason of poor quality and the farmer suffers by reason of the reduced production of tobacco, and the government does not gain anything.
In this country, where the excise stamp system is used, we all pay on the finished product, be it good or bad, and we may rest assured that it is no better than it has to be or the manufacturer loses his profits. In England the duty is paid on the basic leaf only and then the manufacturers compete amongst themselves, each trying to turn out a better

product than the other, because the excise system prevailing over there encourages that. Personally, I feel that even the Canadian manufacturers would welcome some change in the form of excise taxation on tobacco.
I think the change would bring the following results: it would mean an increased acreage of tobacco cultivation for the farmer, because usually there is a cutback due to overstocks of the weed. This would increase his personal income, increase his tax and better the economy of the district concerned. The second result would be a better product for the consumer by virtue of the fact that no stem or stalk would be in his tobacco, and adulteration by the addition of harsh soothers, which so often in this country are sugar, honey, molasses and so on, would be cut to a minimum or at least reduced. The tobacco manufacturer would suffer in no way. Duty-wise, the government would suffer in no way, according to my understanding. Finally, the investment in machinery would be reduced, the time of machine operators would be saved as well as the time of customs officials, printers and others engaged in the administration of the present form of collecting excise as a result of the stamps on cigarettes and tobacco.
I mention this to the minister because the gentleman of whom I am speaking had a very good knowledge of the industry in both countries and I thought there was substance in his arguments. I just mention it at this time in the hope the minister will review both the system here and the other system to see if the other system would not be of advantage to the Canadian tobacco manufacturers, the Canadian tobacco consumers, without loss to the treasury.


Walter Edward Harris: I will take into consideration what my hon. friend has said. I think he would agree with me that I would not be in a position to make an answer at the moment.
I have to propose two amendments, and I think perhaps ought to do that for the benefit of the committee. The first one is to subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1. I move:
That subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1 of the excise tax resolution be amended by deleting therefrom the words "soil pipe for buildings" and that any enactment founded upon this amendment to the resolution come into force on today's date.
The second one is as follows:
That paragraph 2 of the excise tax resolution be amended by adding thereto a new subparagraph
(c)	to read as follows:
"Articles of cut glassware, crystal glassware, cut or not, etched glassware or metal decorated glassware, all the foregoing when sold for use in the preparation or serving of food or drink".
I will explain the real content if necessary now, but on the bill in any event.


William Earl Rowe: This resolution is a rather strange mixture, Mr. Chairman. It embodies a repeal of certain taxes and also the imposition of other taxes that are in no way related to each other. It seems to me that the minister might well have made two resolutions of this. With reference to the amendment proposed to the Excise Tax Act, as clauses 1, 2 and 3, the party for which I am speaking has, on many occasions in the past, criticized the present government for maintaining the sales tax on many of these articles. Indeed, when this party was in power we had the most vigorous opposition from those who are now in power because we had a sales tax which was only about one-quarter of what it is today. The party to your right, Mr. Chairman, criticized us for imposing a sales tax, even though we had reduced it from 6 per cent to 2 per cent, and yet they later raised it to 10 per cent, imposed it on articles which we felt should not be subject to a heavy sales tax and have kept that heavy tax for years. We might make better progress, Mr. Chairman, by taking the resolution clause by clause because there are certain provisions in connection with which we commend the government for relieving these articles of sales tax although what they have done is too late and too little. We believe that the sales tax is a terrible imposition on the general cost of living. So far as the items contained in the first three paragraphs of the resolution are concerned, and I am not going to take the time to name them, I do not believe there is anything there to which we would be very much opposed. However, when we come to the fourth paragraph it appears to me that is something entirely different.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Dufferin-Sim-coe would permit me to interrupt him for a moment. He himself has pointed out the wide coverage of the resolution, which is broken up into five separate parts, and my sole reason for interjecting at this time is perhaps to be of assistance to the committee. If we are going to have a discussion of paragraph 4, go back to paragraph 1 and then discuss paragraph 3 and so on, perhaps the debate will not be very consecutive. I am entirely in the hands of the committee. I wonder whether they would prefer to have an allembracing discussion or whether they would prefer me to call for discussion the five main paragraphs, in which case I would propose, when we reach paragraph 1, to put the amendment moved by the government, and the same when we reach paragraph 2. It is not my preference. It is just whatever the committee would prefer, and I should like to
Excise Tax Act
get an expression of opinion from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe because he has the floor at the moment.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, if it will expedite the business, I have nothing further to add on the first three paragraphs but I will have something to say on the fourth.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Paragraph 1 is before the committee for discussion and it has been moved by Mr. Pickersgill:
That subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1 of the excise tax resolution be amended by deleting therefrom the words "soil pipe for buildings" and that any enactment founded upon this amendment to the resolution come into force on today's date.
The first question is on the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks to make with regard to the excise tax and the resolution in general.
In the first place, sir, it is well that we should remember how heavy a burden the sales and excise taxes constitute on the Canadian people, and any reduction in that burden as proposed in this particular clause and the second and third clauses of the present resolution will, of course, be welcome.
But, sir, there are some features of this matter that deserve further emphasis. The first is that the sales tax is primarily a tax upon goods that are consumed by the Canadian people and the bulk of the tax is levied today upon the necessities of life. A very useful study has been made recently by the Canadian Tax Foundation. It showed that of the sales tax collections of this country about 58 per cent are on consumer goods and, by comparison, only about 24 per cent on industrial purchases. Sales tax collections have been running in the neighbourhood of $650 million a year and 15 per cent of that total is levied on clothing and personal effects alone. Ten per cent of the total is levied upon household appliances, furniture and furnishings. It will be seen, therefore, how heavily this tax bears upon the necessities of life and how much it contributes to raising the cost of living to the Canadian people.
The second fact that needs to be emphasized is that a reduction in the sales tax does not necessarily mean a reduction in the total revenue from the tax. We had a very good example of this last year. A year ago the government proposed and parliament approved a reduction from 15 per cent to 10 per cent in the excise tax levied on automobiles. The result of that reduction in the rate of tax was not a reduction in the total revenue yielded to the government from the remaining tax. Actually the government derived more revenue from the remaining 10 per cent excise tax than it had collected the previous year on the 15 per cent levy.

Excise Tax Act
There is another matter that does, I think, call for some comment on the part of the minister. It is the report submitted early this year by the Carter committee, a committee of experts headed by Mr. Kenneth Carter of Toronto. That report was distributed in the house on March 26, and its importance must be recognized. The minister in his budget speech, while making passing reference to it, did not indicate what the government proposed to do in respect of the extensive recommendations contained in the report of the committee on the four broad questions that were submitted to it by the minister. These are all important subjects, and I think it is time that the minister gave the house some indication of what action the government proposes to take in the light of these recommendations.
Sir, the recommendations have much intrinsic value and their value must also be reckoned in the terms of the yield of these taxes. For the fiscal year 1955-56 the minister collected, according to his budget statement, $640 million in sales tax and $260 million in other excise taxes for a total of $900 million. He indicated that he anticipated collecting in the present fiscal year $675 million from sales tax and $265 million from other excise taxes for a total of $940 million.
The report of the Carter committee is particularly relevant in relation to the question as to the level at which the sales tax is going to be collected in the future. Hitherto it has been a tax collected at the manufacturer's or producer's level where the tax is hidden and where it has the quality of collecting one mark-up after another as the goods proceed from the hands of the manufacturer to the wholesaler, to the jobber, to the retailer and finally to the consumer. Both the sales tax and the excise tax are hidden taxes. The consumer pays them without being aware of them, and they are popular with the government for that reason. The consumer is not aware that the goods he is purchasing are subject to this tax and to the series of mark-ups on the tax as the goods proceed from the original level into the consumer's hands. Therefore what the Carter committee has had to say as to the level at which taxes of this nature may be collected is very relevant to our discussion at this moment, and certainly a statement of government policy, in the light of the recommendations of the Carter committee, is overdue.
There is one other matter on which the minister should make comment now. It arises out of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of the proposed levy of sales tax on goods produced for a retailer under his own brand. The Supreme Court of Canada delivered its

judgment on June 11 on an appeal from the Exchequer Court of Canada on this point. The supreme court decided that the tariff board, before which the question had originally come, had acted beyond its powers in ruling on the question. This question was submitted by the Department of National Revenue to the tariff board and this matter proceeded on an appeal from the Tariff Board to the Exchequer Court of Canada and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the matter of jurisdiction of the tariff board originally to entertain the question but left the question of the tax still somewhat at large, and I ask the minister for a statement as to what the government now proposes to do in the light of this decision.
I have said that we welcome the elimination of sales tax on the list of goods that are enumerated in the first three clauses of the present resolution. We are only sorry that the elimination does not proceed further. There are many examples that one could bring before this committee to establish that the minister should go much further in withdrawing the imposition of the sales tax upon commodities that should not be regarded as luxuries or indeed as anything but necessities. But I am going to deal with one subject in particular and I shall do so briefly.
The subject is by no means a new one but I think that urgency is attached to it in the light of the fact that taxes continue to be imposed upon chocolate candy, and confectionery products. The sales tax on these goods is 10 per cent. During the war, in 1942, a special excise tax of 30 per cent was applied to these goods. That tax was removed in March, 1949 but was reimposed in September, 1950, at the former rate of 30 per cent. The rate was reduced in April, 1951, to 15 per cent and, in April, 1954, to 10 percent and it continues at that rate at the present time. The industry has had to face the burden of a substantial rise in material costs, and the burden is becoming more acute because of the discriminatory effects of the tax upon Canadian producers.
In the maritime provinces there are two large plants which have not a large local market to draw upon but which are geographically favourably situated to engage in the export trade. But, Mr. Chairman, the effect of these taxes is to place those industries in an inferior position in respect of their former export trade. High tariffs in European and South American markets have restricted their exports; and in attempting to export to the United States they have been met with import duties based on Canadian home market prices which include the sales

and excise taxes aggregating, as I have indicated, 20 per cent. Recently the United states government ruled that the sales tax of 10 per cent might be deducted for customs purposes on exports into that country but that the 10 per cent excise tax must be included. This has been an important factor in preventing these Canadian industries from exporting to the United States. At the same time they have been faced with competition from overseas producers. I think it would interest the house to have one or two statistics on this subject.
Since 1942 when the excise tax was first imposed upon the candy and confectionery industry, the federal treasury has collected in excise tax from that industry over $150 million and in sales tax over $50 million. Let us look at the position created in relation to competition with importations. In 1949 the importation of candy and confectionery into Canada amounted to 5 million pounds. I just give the house round figures. In 1955 that total had increased to 25 million pounds. That is a five-fold increase in the short period of six years. It is not simply a matter of increase in population or of the Canadian people developing a sweet tooth. In 1940, when the population was 11,500,000 the per capita annual consumption of candy and confectionery in Canada was 12.17 pounds. By 1955, when our population had increased by over 4 million, the per capita consumption was 11.82 pounds of candy. Hence we can see that the Canadian producers are not holding their former share of the Canadian market.
One reason-and in my submission it is the principal reason-why they are not retaining their former share of the Canadian market is that they are being subjected to heavy and discriminatory taxes. It seems to me that this type of tax is supported, in the mind of the government, on the theory that chocolate is a luxury and not a food. To most Canadians I think that chocolate is a food and not merely a luxury.
I submit that the time has come when the government ought to take resolute measures to reduce the taxes that are being imposed today upon this product. In particular, in my submission, the excise tax ought to be removed forthwith. While the minister has not made such a proposal in his budget this year, I hope he will recognize that this matter is one of great urgency and that it requires immediate redress.


Mr. Leboe:: I do not intend to make a speech, Mr. Chairman. I just want to enlarge upon one matter that was raised previously in connection with this department. It has to do with the sales tax on
Excise Tax Act
finance charges on manufactured goods. If I recall the matter correctly, the tax is levied on finance charges where a subsidiary or an associate company does the financing. It is my view that the word "finance" in the act refers to the financing of the operation and not the financing of the sale. I think a distinction should be made in respect of the financing of the operation of manufacturing an article and the financing of the sale of that article. It is my view that the tax on the financing of the sale of an article is not right. I do not think it is right in principle. Where the finance charges are part of the operation in the manufacturing of the article, I think it is quite legitimate to consider them as part of the sale price; but I do not agree that the financing of a sale even through an associated company should be part of the taxable price of the article. When a company finances the sale through ordinary finance companies and other channels beyond arm's length as it were, the money thus involved in the finance charges is not a taxable item. I would ask the minister to consider that whole matter again, and I would also like him, if possible to give me some idea of the discussion which took place in respect of the matter when it was brought before the committee.


Mr. Green:: There is one other point that I should like to place before the minister and that has to do with the fact that sales tax is levied against work being done by the city archivist in Vancouver. There we have a very keen archivist, Major J. S. Matthews, who has made the building up of the city archives his life's work. He has run into this difficulty. Whenever he has an old photo reprinted or pictures taken of some old documents and binding done, in all work of that kind he has to pay sales tax-I think it is 10 per cent. Now, the provincial archives do not pay any tax at all-I presume because the federal government cannot tax provincial governments. But it does seem to me that in a case of this kind, where work is being done as a service to the community and not in any way for profit or for advertising but purely as a matter of preserving the records of the city, there should be exemption from the sales tax. The copies that are produced are given away; in fact, in some cases are given to the parliamentary library. I know that Major Matthews presented four or six volumes having to do with the history of Vancouver to the parliamentary library; and, of course, on all of the material that went into those volumes a sales tax had to be paid. I do suggest that where archives of this kind are kept by a municipality, or by any other public body, encouragement should be given by way of exempting them from the payment of this sales tax. We have all too little of this type of activity in

Excise Tax Act
Canada, and I know it would be of great help if some provision could be made in the law so that work of that nature could be exempted from the sales tax.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the suggestions that have been made on the first three clauses of the bill. May I say briefly that every one of those suggestions will receive careful consideration.
Perhaps the hon. member for Eglinton would expect me to say a little more with respect to the sales tax committee report. As I indicated in the budget, we received this report late last fall, and I asked my staff and the staff of the Department of National Revenue to make study of it in preparation for consideration at this session. However, it was clear that the minor points that were pretty obviously desirable to deal with could be dealt with, and so we suggested to them that we should concentrate on those and dispose of them in the course of the excise tax amendments. There are one or two here that follow up on the report.
On the main points, however, it was not possible to prepare any paper for the house or any discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of some of the recommendations, and I postponed consideration of them until summer when I thought I could do some of the work on them. I assure my hon. friend that what part of the summer is left will be devoted to them because there are very few things we have not been able to keep abreast of, but this is one of them.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister say something about this question of taxation on archives?


Walter Edward Harris: I meant to cover that. The work of public-spirited citizens of this kind is to be commended, of course. The question always arises, however, as to whether they ought to have tax exemption, having in mind the fact that commercial firms that do that kind of work are subject to taxation, and this is the principle involved. It is a matter of judgment, perhaps, in any particular case, but in general the feeling is that a body of this kind which indulges in work on its own should not be unfairly competing with commercial ventures that are doing work that would be subject to taxation. Nevertheless,
I have had representations of this kind made and I am glad to know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has added one more. We are looking into the matter to see whether it would be proper for the federal government to recognize activities of this kind in the tax laws.


Howard Charles Green: These archives are not kept by an individual.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that.


Howard Charles Green: They are official archives of the city of Vancouver, with the office right in the city hall. It is a municipal undertaking. I am not arguing that records preserved by private individuals should be exempt. This is the case of a municipal organization.


Walter Edward Harris: I recognize that, and we shall continue to consider it; but when my hon. friend speaks of reproducing certain photographs, that is the kind of work a commercial venture would do, but I shall consider the representation he has made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not yet explained his amendment and the reasons why the proposed exemption in favour of soil pipe for buildings in the list of building materials is being withdrawn.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I had better be formal about this and put the explanation on the record.
This amendment to the resolution is intended to cancel the change concerning the exemption for soil pipe contained in the resolution announced in the budget speech.
The Excise Tax Act for a number of years has provided that "cast iron soil pipe and cast iron fittings therefor" shall be exempt from sales tax. Representations were made before the budget that new types of soil pipe made from substances other than cast iron are now available for use in buildings. It seemed reasonable to place these new types of soil pipe in the same tax position as the older type and accordingly the resolution as announced in the budget speech proposed that the words "cast iron" be deleted from the description of this exempt commodity.
Since the announcement in the budget speech it has come to light that the pipe made from substances other than cast iron is used for a number of purposes and there is no way to distinguish between this pipe sold for use as soil pipe and that sold for many other purposes. To restore the exemption to one which it is feasible to administer and to remove the present uncertainty in the industry it is now proposed to leave the wording of the exemption for soil pipe the way it stood before the budget speech. This amendment to the resolution will have that result.
In other words, we shall continue to have the exemption for cast iron soil pipe and cast iron fittings therefore.
On the chance that some pipe made from substances other than cast iron may have been sold as soil pipe in the interval since the budget announcement it is proposed that the bill based on this resolution will provide

an exemption for soil pipe made from substances other than cast iron sold during the period March 21 to the date of this announcement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does this indicate that the matter is closed in the view of the minister, or is it open for further consideration? It strikes one, after hearing the minister's explanation, that while it may be necessary to take the proposed action at this time, nevertheless the matter is one worthy of further study and consideration.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is quite obvious that our intentions were good, but it was not possible to carry them out as we had thought, and we are still considering the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that conclude the discussion on paragraph 1?
On paragraph 2 of the resolution it is moved by Mr. Pickersgill:
That paragraph 2 of the excise tax resolution be amended by adding thereto a new subparagraph (c) to read as follows:
"articles of cut glassware, crystal glassware, cut or not, etched glassware or metal decorated glassware, all the foregoing when sold for use in the preparation or serving of food or drink".
Shall the amendment carry?
Mr- Fleming: I presume the minister has an explanation that he would like to put on the record. We like any amendment that eliminates tax.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure everyone would agree that this was a desirable amendment, sir. The law now provides an exemption from the special excise tax for articles of china, porcelain and earthenware used in the preparation or serving of food and drink. Moreover, articles for this purpose made of wood or plastic are not liable for this tax. On the other hand, articles for serving food or drink made of glass, such as glass cups, saucers, and drinking glasses, are subject to this tax if they have any cutting or metal decoration and these are in direct competition with exempt china, porcelain and plastic articles.
Since a large part of the glassware items used in the preparation or serving of food or drink have a manufacturer's price of less than 50 cents, the competitive disadvantage due to the tax was formerly not too serious but now that it is proposed to withdraw the 50 cent exemption the full effect of the tax is felt upon lower-priced glassware items. For this reason it is considered desirable to place all glassware products used in the preparation or serving of food and drink on the
Excise Tax Act
same tax footing as china, porcelain, earthenware or plastic products used for this purpose.
Any enactment based on this amendment to the resolution will come into effect on the same date as the resolution, March 21 of this year.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that conclude discussion on paragraph 2? Is there any discussion on paragraph 3? On paragraph 4?


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, this is one paragraph which as I said is strangely incorporated in this resolution and it is one concerning which this party has registered its disapproval in the past.
I must say at the outset I have no apologies to make for the position this group has taken concerning this matter both in recent days and some years ago and it is not because of any lack of regard or concern about the development of Canadian magazines as such. We have many excellent Canadian magazines. I am not going to list any of them for fear I will leave out some small ones which are as important as some of the larger ones. I will simply comment that we have many splendid magazines in Canada that have contributed and are continuing to contribute a great deal to our general culture and progress in various ways. Their development has been somewhat of recent date as far as time is concerned.
I well recall that the party with which I was associated a few years ago, under the direction of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, did impose a general tax on all United States periodicals coming into Canada. This was a tax on those periodicals that were printed in the United States and it applied to all of them. Since that time we have seen in this country a great growth of the number of magazines sold here and there is now a circulation of some four million of the good magazines that are an inspiration to all readers in this country of which we can be justly proud.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I know there is not an hon. member in this house who is not strongly desirous of encouraging the development of Canadian magazines and seeing them flourish and assume their role of influence throughout this country.
I can well recall that in this house at the time the general tax was imposed some years ago by Mr. Bennett those who now sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, were in opposition; and I remember the hue and cry raised by the late William Lyon Mackenzie King and his cohorts, the champions of free trade and the exchange of ideas and everything else that goes to make up what he referred

Excise Tax Act
to as international good will, and their vigorous objections to having even a general tax that might apply to all the magazines including those manufactured in the United States. It must be remembered that this was a tax quite different from the one we are presently discussing.
The latter tax represents an unprecedented move. It is wrong in principle and it is bound to be dangerous in practice. It is discriminatory and unfair.
At that time Mr. King spoke in vigorous objection to the imposition of the general tax as reported at page 3880 of Hansard for 1931. It was described by Mackenzie King as:
... a tax on thought and literary art.
To the extent that the Bennett legislation was effective in blocking the entry of United States publications, it would be, Mr. King warned:
... a prohibition upon thought and ideas conveyed through these media to the people of this country.
I repeat that this was a general tax to be imposed on periodicals printed in the United States. It was not a tax on their subsidiaries in Canada. Mr. King said further, as reported on the same page of Hansard for 1931:
All advances that are made in civilization are the result of ideas, and in any way to preclude the possibility of a good idea having its opportunity of fruition to the full in any quarter is to retard to that extent the progress of civilization itself. In these days there is probably nothing more important than... that each nation should begin to appreciate the intellectual ideals and currents of thought that prevail and sway opinion in other countries. Viewed in this light the tax becomes a tax upon international good will.
He went on to say further:
I deplore any tax which will in any way restrict the widest spread of views and ideas throughout communities, particularly communities that are neighbours.
He also went on to say:
I do submit that the people themselves are much more capable of judging what they should read, what they have the right to read and what they wish to read than is my hon. friend.
He was referring to Mr. Bennett in this instance. Mr. King went on to say:
The proposed tax is one upon art, because after all art is a result of the expression of ideas. It is a tax upon invention, because invention is the offspring of ideas. To my way of thinking it is more or less a tax upon everything which makes for progress.
I am somewhat surprised, Mr. Chairman, to find that those who worship at the shrine of the late William Lyon Mackenzie King, these great champions of free trade and the free expression of ideas, the advocates of good will and all the rest of it, these people who would not do anything to provoke the

United States, who say "We must not provoke our friends in the United States", now turn around and propose to this house a resolution such as this, a part of which no one could oppose and which yet incorporates a clause that everyone should oppose, a clause that is as unfair as it is unprecedented and one that the late Mackenzie King would have deplored even more than he deplored the general tax.
If the party to your right, Mr. Chairman, could oppose a general tax on periodicals printed in the United States and being purely United States products, surely they cannot justify supporting a tax on subsidiaries of those companies here in Canada.
This tax which is proposed is dishonest because I do not think it will serve the purpose for which it was intended. I do not believe it will help any Canadian magazine. It will not help any Canadian advertisers nor will it help the millions of readers who in these days of international stress and strain feel they should know as much as they can about other countries as well as their own and obtain this knowledge in part by reading magazines printed in other countries.
The type of policy embodied in the proposal before us is totally unprecedented. There has been nothing that has passed in this house at any time that smacks as much of what one might call international provocation. This is only a sample of what happened recently in Maryland when it was proposed that a Canadian company would not be allowed to establish there because it might become a competitor to local companies and the governor of Maryland vetoed the proposition because of the danger. May I submit that as a general principle this is equally objectionable. As I say, it does not help Canadian magazines perhaps as much as they think it does or perhaps as much as the government intends it to help some of those who they think may be their temporary friends. It is a penalty, it is true, on United States subsidiaries located in Canada. Those subsidiaries share the benefits of being established in Canada, it is true, but they are corporations which pay taxes and carry obligations similar to those of any other subsidiary in Canada. It establishes a dangerous precedent by which the government can restrict competition whenever they please. With this precedent, if you see a subsidiary developing in the United States-my friends to your right practically subsidized branch companies not so long ago to come into Canada and now they penalize those who are already in here.
When it was proposed in his budget I heard the minister say what it meant to aid the development of Canadian culture; but may

I submit that there are many other articles coming into Canada in many other ways which might be considered as helping to develop the right kind of culture or encourage proper culture in Canada. I am thinking of the comic strips and the borderline pocketsized magazines which I believe in many cases have an influence upon the morality of our young readers. There has been nothing along that line.
The present government says that they want to develop Canadian culture and yet their own particular government monopoly, the C.B.C. and television, buys programs from the United States in the way of entertainment. Fifty per cent of all the programs and entertainment we have over the C.B.C. and television today in Canada are 10.0 per cent United States. Their own agency buys them and sells them to Canadian advertisers for 40 per cent less than they pay for them. Those programs are 100 per cent United States and yet they pick out two magazine subsidiary companies which are established in Canada and impose this tax upon them.
It is difficult for one to comprehend why this is done. Not only that, they say that the gross advertising revenue of these magazines will be taxed 20 per cent if there is any advertising in the magazines which does not appear in the non-Canadian magazine in the United States. There was a general tax in effect and when Mr. King came into power that government repealed the tax altogether because it had been condemned so vigorously by them. On March 13, 1936 when the Bennett tax was revoked by this government Mr. King had this to say to Mr. Bennett:
I would ask my hon. friend whether as a matter of fact the tax was not just one more protectionist device intended to limit competition rather than promote the development of culture?
Mr. Bennett replied as follows:
I assure him that protection was not the question; it was a question of having foreign advertising in Canada make some contribution to the country. I want to be fair.
You can see the distinctive difference between the two types of tax. The government of that day was saying, as vigorously as the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King could say, that they opposed this general tax on publications which were printed 100 per cent in the United States; yet now we have a government of the same party trying to re-establish a tax on a special few, you might say on two magazines, because 25 per cent of it is the same as if printed in the United States.
Surely if we are going to try to encourage Canadian culture the C.B.C. and television should not buy 100 per cent United States
67509-454 ,
Excise Tax Act
programs and sell them at a loss of 40 per cent to the Canadian taxpayer. What this government now proposes to do is to subsidize 100 per cent programs by their own agency and penalize two subsidiaries of United States companies because they are carrying 25 per cent of a certain type of advertising. I hold no brief for any magazine in Canada, as these magazines do not need any brief by me.
We have excellent magazines such as Saturday Night, Maclean's and many others. They have developed and will develop. These magazines represent more than four-fifths of the total magazine reading in Canada. There will be about one million people who will wonder why this penalty is imposed upon Time and Reader's Digest. We have many magazines in this country which have developed, as every hon. member knows. I have read Reader's Digest and Time and they are newsy magazines. They contribute a great deal with their ideas as to what is going on in that country and as to what is happening throughout the world in these days when international good will and international knowledge are more important than at any time in our history.
It seems to me that if a quarter of a century ago it was wrong to place a general tax on magazines which were not being taxed in any other way, surely if that was considered a curtailment of the freedom of the press to a degree, if that curtailed the dissemination of knowledge and ideas of international good will you might say to the extent emphasized by the late Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, how much more would it be so today in the case of these subsidiaries established in Canada and having all the rights of any other subsidiary. They are being singled out and told that they must pay a 20 per cent tax if 25 per cent of their reading matter is similar to what is printed in the United States. Even if it is not, even if it is all Canadian reading matter, if they advertise something in Canada which they do not advertise there-the minister shakes his head, but the last section of the resolution reads:
(ii) containing any advertising material that is not contained in such non-Canadian periodicals.


Walter Edward Harris: That is joined by "and" to the preceding paragraph.


William Earl Rowe: It is indeed passing strange, Mr. Chairman, that this government, which has warned so long and so loud that we must not provoke the United States, and that is the reason they cling to that dusty old doctrine of free trade in everything, in the exchange of goods and ideas, should now propose such a clumsy and discriminatory

Excise Tax Act
form of tariff protection. I can well recall how recently they chided members of this party, and even misrepresented their remarks, in order to try to prove that we wanted no truck or trade with the United States. They overemphasized that, and yet at the same time they would propose something as dangerous as this. Today we have an unfavourable trade balance which is now growing at the rate of over $3 million a day.
Despite the fact that the textile producers, the rubber footwear people and many other branches of industry have been pleading with this government to do something for them, and in spite of the fact that this government pose as the champions of freer trade-almost world champions at GATT and every place else-in spite of the fact they pose as the champions of free trade, the freer exchange of goods and ideas, they now propose a clause such as this. It seems to me that these past masters of this freedom of the exchange of goods and ideas are now the present architects of clumsy high protection where it is least needed. I urge the minister to reconsider this clause. I urge him to delete this clause from what is otherwise a sound, progressive step in repealing taxes which 1 think should have been repealed long ago.
Again I say that in this unprecedented move we have you repenting, in one case, for having imposed the sales tax that you said you never would impose, then you turn around and impose a tax that you formerly condemned, a tax on magazines. I believe that United States magazines coming in here should pay something, along with our own magazines. Again I say that to impose a tax such as this is unsound, unfair to subsidiaries and dangerous in relation to good will. It is extremely provocative. You are trying in vain to help a few and most disastrously affecting only a couple of all the United States periodicals. There are several other reasons I could advance to the minister, but if he will take no cognizance of the ones I have given I shall not delay the house by telling him any of the other reasons why this clumsy protection should not be adopted by these champions of free trade.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I merely wish to ask a question at this point. Paragraph (b) of clause 4 of this resolution sets out the conditions for deciding whether or not the publication comes within the meaning of the resolution. I should just like to quote that first part:
(b) That for the purpose of subparagraph (a) a ''special edition of a non-Canadian periodical" means a periodical printed in or outside Canada for publication in Canada
(i) containing editorial material at least 25 per cent of which is the same or substantially the same

as editorial material contained in a non-Canadian periodical, whether in the same or in some other language-
Now, the question I should like to ask is, how does one, looking at it from the administration point of view, decide what is meant by "the same or substantially the same". Who is going to be an authority to read these special editions and make the decision as to what is meant by "the same or substantially the same"? Has the minister already decided upon a standard or criterion?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is that the Minister of National Revenue, of course in conjunction with our department, will make the regulations, but the minister will be responsible for the determination of the question. However, should anyone affected by the decision desire to do so, he has the normal appeal to the courts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me ask another question along the same line. Mention is made of the fact that it must be the same as editorial material contained in a non-Canadian periodical. What would happen, for example, if a Canadian periodical that is published and printed in Canada published a certain editorial and one of these special editions owned in the United States but published in Canada reprinted the same editorial. Obviously it would be the same, and would that come within this definition?


Walter Edward Harris: That would be Canadian
material, and it would not be material originating in the parent magazine, so to speak, so it would be counted in favour of the magazine in order to increase the percentage of Canadian content and reduce the percentage of non-Canadian content.


John Cameron Pallett: I am rather interested in the latest comments about Canadian and nonCanadian content. What does the minister have in mind when he uses the expression "editorial content" in this section?


Walter Edward Harris: The phrase in the clause as printed is "editorial material" and not editorial content, so I should have used the words "editorial material". The question was whether or not Canadian special editions who are republishing an editorial printed in a Canadian newspaper would have that material considered as editorial material which would be counted in arriving at the 25 per cent. I made it clear that the origin of the editorial in a Canadian newspaper would be regarded as Canadian, and that the reprinting of it would not be counted in the 25 per cent non-Canadian material.

Mr. Pallet!: What do you have in mind when you use the expression "editorial material" in the section? Are you referring to the complete contents of the magazine or to the editorial material?


Walter Edward Harris: No, it refers to everything in the magazine except the advertising.
Mr. Pallet!: I suggest to the minister: If that is what is intended, change draftsman in the department, because I suggest very seriously you are giving an out. In other words, you are paying lip service to the Canadian magazines and the Minister of National Revenue is going to be faced with many law costs in enforcing this section.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does that conclude the discussion of clause 4?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before you leave 4, is the minister not going to say anything about his proposed tax?


Walter Edward Harris: I will do so later on second reading, but we are approaching five o'clock, the private members' hour, and I thought if we could pass the resolution, even if on division, I would then speak on second reading.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there any other discussion on clause 4?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you are putting a vote on 4, then it is carried on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should point out to the committee that this is one resolution, but it is divided more or less for discussion purposes. I must put the whole resolution. Shall the resolution as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 450, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Walter Edward Harris: Later this day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Now, by leave?


Walter Edward Harris: Later this day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have not even seen the bill. I understand the minister was going to propose that it be read later this day, that the bill would be distributed immediately and that we might have at least from now until eight o'clock to look at it.
67509-454J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Walter Edward Harris: The bill is ready and I hope hon. members who are interested will obtain: copies so we can take second reading later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The bill will be read the second time later this day.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION1
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Resolution No. 58. Hon. members will find this resolution on page 12 of the book of estimates with the-details starting on page 143.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to one of the gentlemen opposite last evening, and suggested that it might be more convenient to let the item on departmental administration stand and take whichever branch of my department the hon. member would like to discuss first. The nature of my department is such that it is rather absurd to try to have a general debate mixing up immigration, Indian affairs, the national gallery and so on. I would be quite prepared to have whatever general debate was wanted on any of the branches if hon. gentlemen would indicate which one they would like to take.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that item 58 shall stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was some discussion last night, Mr. Chairman, and as far as we are concerned, and I believe this meets the wishes of a least one of the other parties in opposition, we would prefer to take the immigration branch first. If that is agreeable to all hon. members perhaps we might proceed with item 65 and have a general discussion on immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be thoroughly agreeable to me, sir.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then item 58 will stand and we will take resolution No. 65.
Immigration branchdmini^tration of the Immigration Act, $9 0,6 0.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since I do not think the minister has had an opportunity to do so previously this session and since his estimates -or- not referred to the special committee,.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration may I ask him to make a short statement on the immigration position in Canada with reference to any changes between this year and last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not prepared any statement, and I think it would be much more interesting to find out from hon. gentlemen opposite what they are really interested in and then I will try to talk about those topics.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry indeed that the minister has no statement to make because there are a number of matters of importance to be discussed in connection with immigration and there are a number of criticisms to which his department has been subjected with respect to its immigration policy over the past year and we would have liked to hear the minister's views on them. I think it would have made for a more useful discussion. However, there is no way in which we can compel the minister to make any statement so I will have to present the criticisms and make the suggestions that we have in mind.
A few days ago I asked the minister for figures as to the number of immigrants reaching Canada in the first six months of this year. kOn July 24 an answer was given which ;shewed that in the first six months of the -years 1954, 1955 and 1956 respectively the number of immigrants arriving in Canada was 85,765, 58,417 and 69,938, with the total for June of 1956 being estimated, but I understand that will be very close to the actual total. We are pleased to see that there has been a small improvement in the figure for the total of immigrants landing in Canada for the first six months of 1956 as against the first six months of 1955 when the figures were disappointing in the extreme. But I do not think there is room for very great satisfaction in that the figures are still appreciably below those for 1954 and the figures for 1954 were in turn quite appreciably below the figures for 1953.
Therefore, although we have what might be called an arresting of the downward trend from 1953 to 1955 inclusive we have not gone very far yet towards recovering the high point of immigration which was in the years 1952 and 1953. I am under the impression that one of the reasons for the improvement that is to be noted is one or two ways in which immigration policy has been changed and greater inducements or assistance held out for immigrants to come to Canada. These have not gone anything like as far as we would like to see them go as yet but I think they should be remarked on and I feel bound to observe that it is in some respects again a policy of too little and too late.

One of the matters which we in the official opposition had been pressing for a number of years was an extension of the assisted passage loan scheme with respect to immigrants from the United Kingdom particularly but also European countries to cover the members of the family instead of its being confined, as it used to be, to the head of the family only. We pointed out and pressed as strongly as we could that there were numbers of cases where in our view lack of assistance to the members of the family resulted in potential immigrants declining to come to Canada because, although the head of the family could come out, it meant that for an appreciable time, perhaps a year, perhaps as much as two years, his family would be separated from him and that when immigrants were weighing the pros and cons of a decision to emigrate to Canada that factor might and almost certainly would be a very powerful determining factor in arriving at their decision.
Constantly and consistently the department through the minister-when I say "department" I wish to emphasize that I mean the minister because he assumes the responsibility-took the view that this was not a well founded argument. In fact, I recall being told that it was considered that it would perhaps be more to the advantage of immigrants under these circumstances for the breadwinner to come out ahead and get himself established in Canada and then later, when he was in a position to do so, send for the other members of his family. It was strange that not more than a few months after the last time that statement was made to us officially in the estimates committee when considering the minister's department last year the department suffered a change of heart and the policy was reversed. The very thing which we had been told it was neither desirable nor practical to do was in fact done and the provisions of the assisted passage loan scheme were extended so that dependent members of families of proposed immigrants could be assisted under the scheme. I think it is a coincidence which we are bound to discuss and to which we are bound to direct attention that not long after that change was made there was observable some improvement in the figures with respect to the number of immigrants coming to Canada.
I do not want to be petty about these things. I would say that any change is better late than never. I mean that. I am glad that the department has changed its policy in that particular. I think we are entitled to say-in fact, I believe we are bound to do so- that this result demonstrates the truth of the assertion that we have often made,

namely that the minister is not really taking all the steps that could and should be taken to encourage and to facilitate immigration into Canada. The unfortunate part of this matter is that, during the years when they refused to take this simple and sensible step, there were lost to Canada large numbers of desirable immigrants who found it easier for them to go to other countries, such as Australia in particular, which extended to them facilities similar to those now being extended at this late date under our assisted loan passage scheme.
If one analyses the figures with respect to immigration into Canada and into Australia, one will see that they demonstrate beyond doubt that Canada has been lagging behind and has been suffering because of the lack of an aggressive policy in encouraging immigrants from the United Kingdom and, to a considerable degree, immigrants from other countries in Europe.
I also recall that we used to be told that we did not want to do what Australia was doing in respect of encouraging immigrants, that they were finding that their policy of extending generous assistance to the immigrants in meeting their passage was not working out, and that Australia was receiving a large number of undesirable immigrants. The inaccuracy of this assertion or this defence of department policy is proved in the light of the fact that Australia has just recently re-embarked upon a further five-year immigration program. I am quite sure the minister would not wish to accuse of irresponsibility the government of Australia or that of any other country. It therefore cannot be maintained that the Australians have found that among the immigrants they were getting were a large number of undesirables, because to say so would be to assert that the Australian government was irresponsible in the extreme in repeating that experiment or in fact in increasing their efforts in another five-year program to get immigrants from the United Kingdom on an assisted basis. Canada has therefore been suffering as a result of a weak government policy with respect to the encouragement of immigration into Canada.
I noticed a report in the Montreal Gazette of January 13, 1956. It shows that it is not only by the United Kingdom that preference is being shown for Australia but it is being shown by other European countries as well. This is a dispatch from Geneva. It is headed "Many Immigrants" and reads as follows:
Geneva-Australia has replaced the United States as the principal area for resettlement of Europeans migrating to new homes under international auspices. During 1955 nearly 54,000 persons were resettled in Australia by the intergovernmental
House of Commons
committee for European migration. This was 45 per cent of the total number of people aided by the committee during last year. The United States was second on the list of reception countries with 20,523 migrants assisted by the committee. The committee is a 26-nation agency which offers shipping, screening and other services to countries interested in promoting either emigration or immigration.
Some tentative criticisms have been advanced against us here because it is said that we have been saying that we should copy Australia and that Australia gets the bulk of her immigrants from the United Kingdom. We have not been saying that we should copy Australia in every detail, but we have been saying that we compare badly with Australia in terms of aggressiveness of our immigration program. It is now demonstrated that Australia's immigration program is not confined to immigrants from the United Kingdom. As we see, nearly 54,000 persons were resettled in Australia from Europe in the year 1955.
Surely it cannot be said that the opportunities in Canada are inferior to those in Australia for the settlement and establishment of immigrants. If such a thing were said, I would certainly deny it. That being the case, where is the blame to be laid for the fact that we do not get as many immigrants to Canada as Australia gets? I think the answer is inescapable. I think the blame lies at the door of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and that the responsibility rest? with the minister who declines to inaugurate-and follow through sufficiently aggressive policies to bring immigrants to Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I note that it is five o'clock.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.


TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;THIS IS OTTAWA&quot;
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to ask the leader of the house to clarify one matter in view of the statement he made last night, near the end of the sitting, to the effect that the house will adjourn tonight at ten o'clock. I note that arrangements for television have been made. I would ask the leader of the house to explain just what are the arrangements, and why the house might adjourn at ten o'clock for that purpose instead of at eleven o'clock. I would ask him to tell us just what are the plans.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it would be possible beforehand to do the amount of work we had in mind. However, this situation arose out of the request that we vacate
715S

Private Bills
the chamber at ten o'clock or before that time so that one of the items in the program *"This Is Ottawa" might include in it a television shot, or perhaps more than one, of the House of Commons as a chamber.
At the outset of the correspondence leading up to this arrangement, there seems to have been an impression that it was the desire to televise the chamber in session. Such, of course, was not the case. The subsequent advice we had was to the effect that all that was required was that these lights might be installed and that shots might be taken of the chamber in order to give background material, I suppose, to a story or narrative which was being broadcast at the time. The intention, therefore, Mr. Speaker, is not to have any members in the house. In other words, the request was that we should adjourn at such a time that we would not be in the chamber when the television apparatus was functioning. It was on that basis that I mentioned the matter last night. I therefore propose that, a few minutes before ten o'clock, we should in fact adjourn so that there will be no question about the chamber's being vacant when the television program goes on. I understand that the program is live, in part at least, and that the purpose will be to interview some persons in connection with the work of the House of Commons. When, through the party whips, consent was given to this arrangement, I am sure that it was not the intention that any member of the house should be televised in the chamber itself.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are two private bills at the committee stage. Is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on both of these bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PERSONAL FINANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 160, respecting Personal Finance Company of Canada-Mr. Lefrangois-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Name changed.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the clause should be allowed to carry without some statement from those who have rather consistently opposed it in the committee. I say that for myself, although I was there only a short time. In view of the fact that the clauses have been approved in the committee-it is true with some amendment-I do not suppose we shall call for a vote on

this particular bill. I would remind the committee that we have had the experience on this side of the house of having private members' bills eliminated. I am under no illusion at this particular time of the year, seeing that the house is going to close in the fairly immediate future, that our bills which have been held up would not die on the order paper. It is not our intention to do such a thing as that with this bill; but I do think it should be pointed out that we have certain objections, first of all, to the multiplication of certain facilities that are provided by those companies. We think there are other alternatives.
However, to speak to the clause, the first clause has to do with the changing of the name. Some of us opposed that name and I think would still oppose the adoption of the new name. In the committee and in the evidence it was shown that the word "Beneficial" was the name of the parent company in the United States. I think this is one company that is wholly owned by people outside of the country. It is true they use Canadian money to carry on their operations to a large extent, and then lend that money to other Canadians at higher rates of interest. We might have a word to say on the third reading of the bill. However, in speaking to clause 1, we would agree that these names are chosen with some purpose in mind, to our way of thinking, rather deceptive purposes. We in this group are of the opinion that this particular type of institution is not beneficial either to the economy of the country as a whole, or particularly to those people who might be considered as customers of these particular loan companies. That has been our position in regard to the word "Beneficial". However, the matter was taken up in committee and the majority of the committee decided that it was not so objectionable. But we did reserve the right-of course, it is our right in any case-to raise the objection in the house.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any reason why we should pass this bill, or this clause. It is true that the parent company is called the Beneficial Finance Company in the United States. The company has been operating in Canada for some years under the name Personal Finance Company. I think that as a parliament we should be careful in allowing companies to use names that suggest that the company itself, by some means or other, is going to hand a favour to its customers or provide something that is beneficial or in the customer's interest. The name should be a neutral name, I suggest, and it should not be something that will convey the wrong impression. I do not think

that under the old rates that are being charged by the Personal Finance Company of Canada, or even under the new rates that will be charged when Bill No. 51 becomes law, they provide anything for the customers that would entitle a company to the name [DOT]"Beneficial". The new rates, good as they will be, are still high. They range to as high as 2 per cent per month on loans up to $300, or 26 per cent per year, and even in the area of the smallest loans, on loans up to $1,500, the rate will be 1-27 per cent per month, or something in excess of 16 per cent per year, so that the rates that will be *charged are still high and will still be a very substantial burden on the customers. I think we should turn down this bill which would allow the company to change its name.
People in this country know quite well what kind of business is being undertaken by small loan companies, and the kind of business they are operating. The rates they charge have been given a great deal of publicity in parliament and in the country this year, and the small loan companies are smarting from the publicity they have been given, so that there is a move now by this company to change its name from "Personal" to "Beneficial".
The small loan companies even wanted the name of the Small Loans Act changed to consumers instalment credit act, something else they thought would give them a better name in the eyes of Canadians generally. If we are to be consistent as a parliament in attempting to curtail not only the excessive rates-but some of the practices of these companies in promoting larger and larger numbers of loans at higher rates of interest, I suggest we should refuse to allow this company to change its name.


Mr. Fairey:: I have been asked to say a word on this clause. I think it has been well explained that this particular clause simply changes the name of the Personal Finance Company of Canada to that of "Beneficial". There have been some objections to the connotations which might attach to the word "Beneficial". However, in the banking and commerce committee it was explained that the parent company, the Beneficial Company of the United States, can see certain economies and savings, particularly in the advertising and in services, if they can change the name of the Personal Finance Company of Canada to "Beneficial" because it is in effect one company, and that is the only purpose for the changing of the name.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the word "Beneficial" seems to have raised certain objections, but the whole purpose of it is to
Private Bills
have the operations of the parent company and the subsidiary company in Canada work as a unit.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 48; nays, 19.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the clause carried.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I think we should have some ruling on this voting. After the voting started seven Liberal members came into the house.


Mr. Weir:: How many came in on that side?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am not talking about this side.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Some time ago I indicated that I would put the question in this way: "The question is the following one." I am afraid I did not do so today. Earlier today I had to disallow two votes but so far as I could see, although there were several hon. members standing at the curtain, I do not think they were counted on this occasion.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Well, anyway, seven of them came in after the whole thing started.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Capital stock.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to allow this clause to go by without pointing out some of the implications of it. I took occasion when it was before the banking and commerce committee to ask the parliamentary agent of this company if this clause in the bill he was promoting indicated that there would be an investment of new capital in this concern and I was told that this would not be the case, that this merely would be the transfer of surpluses to capital account. I think it is important that this parliament and the people of Canada should recognize that the volume of profits that these companies make can on some occasions be concealed by just such moves as this.
It is true enough that the inspector of insurance pointed out to us that this put the capital affairs of the company on a more realistic basis and that it did actually show as capital the funds which the company itself owned and did not show them simply as capital and accumulated surpluses; but I think there is an extremely important point to be noted here and that is the very large volume of profits which are made and retained in the hands of these companies.
During the discussions of the previous small loans bill before the committee there

Private Bills
were determined attempts on the part of many witnesses to persuade the committee members, and presumably to have the committee members then persuade their colleagues in the house, that the real method of computing profits on this operation should be not on the basis of either their original invested capital or even the original invested capital plus accumulated surpluses but rather on the basis of the total funds employed in the operations of the company which is, of course, the method that is employed by some other organizations in this country. I believe the packing companies persist in computing their profits on the basis of their whole turnover rather than on the basis of their capital plus their earned surpluses.
While I do not propose to call a vote on this particular clause I think it is important that we should realize that it indicates quite clearly the volume of profits these companies have been making. This company now has some $9 million worth of accumulated surpluses which it now proposes to reclassify as capital stock in the company. This perhaps gives us a better measure of the profit making abilities of these concerns than the usual statements of the profit and loss accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Lefrangois moved: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that this bill be now read the third time?


Hazen Robert Argue: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


SIGNATURE LOAN AND FINANCE COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 166, to incorporate Signature Loan and Finance Company-Mr. Richardson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, this bill is to incorporate a new small loan company. Although it is my sincere belief that there are already too many facilities of this sort for the extension of small credit, I am not going into the arguments concerning why I feel this way but it is an inflationary matter. I understand that our instalment credit has now exceeded $2 billion. I am not in favour

of the encouragement of this particular type of credit. I propose at the moment to suggest a better way for people who do need a service of this type to obtain it.
There have been a great many revelations both in the committee and in the experience of many hon. members as to the effect that the use of some of these small loan facilities has had upon family life and the economy of working people. I suggest the reason they use this type of accommodation in many cases is that they do not know other types exist which would be more beneficial, and when I use that word I mean it would be more beneficial in relation to themselves and their families.
I admit there are people who have to seek accommodation in order to pay their doctor bills and, in provinces not so fortunate as my own, in order to pay hospital bills and that type of expense. They think they have to have money by which they can consolidate their debts although how they lessen them by consolidation I really do not know. So far as I am concerned, consolidation is only a method of increasing one's debts to a considerable degree.
I think it is true that something in excess of 50 per cent of the people who use this type of accommodation for the consolidation of debts return after the consolidation has taken place because they need more money with which to consolidate their new debt.
My suggestion is this. The price people pay for accommodation of this sort by way of interest is too high and I think this has been stated clearly enough. It has always been a mystery to me what 2 per cent a month means but I obtained an explanation from an authority in the committee. I understand it is 26-8 per annum. I observed that the brief of the Caisse Populaire puts it at a slightly lower figure, 26-46 per cent per annum; but I think those two figures are close enough that we need not quarrel about them.
We in this group feel that the banks of this country are not performing a sufficient service in the field of small loans. The Bank of Commerce does cater to people requiring small loan accommodation and the bank has a system of discounting which I do not like. It increases the interest rate but the result is that people can borrow money for between 10 and 11 per cent per annum and that is certainly less than half what they would have to pay for similar accommodation, a loan of $300 or less, if they obtained it from a small loan company.
When the manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce appeared before the banking and commerce committee as a witness he said there was a profit in this particular

business at that rate of interest. We think the banks of this country could very well fall into line with the policy of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and engage in the extension of small loans if only as a social service. They have admitted that while they are performing a social service they also make a profit. When the president of the bankers' association was asked why other banks did not participate in that particular field he said it was because they gave a different interpretation to the act to that given by the Bank of Commerce. I may be wrong, but I believe the Bank of Commerce has been carrying on operations of this sort since 1936 and I would imagine that if the legality of their operations was going to be questioned it would have been questioned before now. I think probably the answer is that the other banks have lots of business without taking on this type of thing. While it is profitable it is perhaps not as profitable as some of their other business and they are not too ready to indulge in it.
Since I am opposing the incorporation of still another company to provide these small loans I would point out that this is the type of service which can be rendered by the credit unions of this country and their counterparts the caisses populaires. The credit union is perhaps particularly favourable to this group in that it does translate the cooperative principle into small loan financing. The differences in the philosophy, shall we say, of the two sets of people, the credit union and the small loan company, is considerable. The first aim of the credit union is not to lend money but rather to promote and encourage thrift.


William Alfred Robinson: I have been listening for some time to the hon. member and he has been referring to the activities of the chartered banks and the credit unions, but I would remind him that we are dealing with a bill to incorporate a company. The first clause deals merely with those who will be the first directors of the company and I submit the hon. member should direct his remarks more particularly to the clause under discussion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My only excuse is that I was opposing the formation of this company. I recognize that some people are in need of these services and I was indicating the services that were available if they knew enough to avail themselves of them. I do not know whether the chairman will allow me to complete my remarks on that particular phase of the matter or whether I shall have to leave it high and dry in Hansard without any explanation or conclusion.
Private Bills


William Alfred Robinson: I regret having interrupted the hon. member but he will remember that in committee we are governed by strict rules of relevancy. I think I would find myself in difficulty if I allowed the hon. member to depart from those rules. It would be brought up later, I feel quite sure, and therefore I ask his co-operation in dealing with the clause under consideration.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Perhaps I shall have an opportunity on third reading of the bill to say what I am attempting to say now and which I had almost finished. However, I shall continue with a literal discussion of clause 1, which has to do with the directors. I am given to understand, and it came out in the committee, that there has to be a majority of Canadian directors of this particular company. The Canadian directors are set out in this clause. I notice that the people who were described as the owners of the business are two gentlemen by the name of Mac-Dermott. I hope I did not give offence to anybody in the committee when I said that these gentlemen at least were of good racial origin. I did not mean any offence to anyone of any other racial origin, I was merely pointing out that they happened to be Irish, of my own nationality. However, that is by the way. The other directors are Duncan Kenneth MacTavish-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -Ronald Charles Merriam and George Perley-Robertson. It might be noted that Mr. MacTavish was in almost constant attendance in the committee until some of us rather objected to seeing so many good-looking men in grey suits hanging around the committee. He told us that he was attending in his professional capacity on behalf of the sponsors of this particular bill and he admitted he was the gentleman named here. I happen to know that Mr. Merriam is a law partner because I have met him in connection with bills brought before the miscellaneous private bills committee. I do not know Mr. George Perley-Robertson but apparently he is the third partner in the law firm.
Those are the gentlemen who are sponsoring the bill. I do not know whether they have any money in the company. I did ask how a directorship was obtained but I did not get a very satisfactory answer. Apparently this is to be another company almost totally United States owned. To be fair to Mr. MacTavish, he explained it was quite customary for the members of a law firm to act as temporary directors. I of course have no right to assume that he is, or his partners are, going to be permanent directors.

Private Bills
I point out again in connection with this clause that this is going to be yet another company owned by people outside of this country. It will operate in this country and will borrow money from Canadian banks presumably at the present rate which I believe is 41 per cent. It will then lend money to those unfortunate people who find it necessary to borrow and who are ignorant of the existence of other institutions which would be healthier for them. They will be charged interest at the rate of 26-8 per cent. To me that is a rather serious matter. These people just do not know; these people just cannot do the mathematics. We were told quite candidly in the committee by the president of the small loans association of Canada that he was quite convinced that under the stress of circumstances these people would borrow even if the interest were double or even if it were half the present rate. They just would not pay any attention to that particular part of the transaction.
We have in this clause the names of the directors, let them be permanent or let them be temporary. I presume the MacDermott brothers-I imagine they are brothers-are actually the owners of the company and will be permanent directors. The status of these other gentlemen is undetermined at the moment, but I am told that they are temporary directors of this company.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I oppose this clause and I oppose this bill because I believe we already have too many companies in the small loan field.


Walter Edward Harris: Competition.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Finance says "competition" but the competition in this field is placing a greater burden upon the borrowers in this country. We have already too much "competition." Every morning over the radio we hear the advertisements of these small loan companies. "Come in and take out a loan." "Come in and talk to Harry, he is a fine fellow with a good personality, it will take but half a minute and you can walk out with whatever money you may need." That is the kind of competition and advertising you get from the people in this field who are burdening the borrowers in this country with extortionate rates of interest. This so-called competition is not competition in fact, it is just competition in name and it does not benefit Canadians at all. I think that the Bank of Canada statistical summary clearly shows that we have already too many companies in this field exerting too much high pressure salesmanship. Parliament, rather than adding to the number of companies in the small loan field

by granting a charter to another company, should be adopting further means of controlling this field and of reducing the interest rates that ordinary Canadians generally have to pay.
I oppose this clause for another reason, and that is the name of the company, the Signature Loan and Finance Company. I can already hear what they will do with that name in their advertising. Nothing to getting a loan; just a matter of your signature. Come in and sign; no security, no chattel mortgages; just walk in and we will take you over as long as you give us your signature. I think parliament will make a mistake if this bill should pass. I do not think we need to provide additional facilities of this kind. There are probably already too many companies in the field. Certainly, the growing number of companies in the field and the growing number of branch offices is causing the superintendent of insurance some concern. He pointed out in the committee that there are more and more companies interested in doing business in this field. Far from being discouraged by any move to reduce interest rates, apparently more companies have been encouraged to go into this field. He pointed out that from December 31, 1954 to December 31, 1955, the number of branches of small loan companies in this country increased from 540 to 702, an increase of 162 branches. We do not need any more competition, as the minister has said. You already have a very great number of branches; you already have too much pressure from small loan companies in this field, and I believe we would be wise to turn down this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if we could have the third reading of this bill on Friday next.


Mr. Mclvor:: We will not be here then.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe it could be arranged that the debate will not be of undue length.


Walter Edward Harris: I share the optimism of the hon. member for Fort William, but if we are not here on Friday we could call it on Thursday. Otherwise, the arrangements are satisfactory and we can depend on the assurance of my hon. friend that the debate will not be unduly prolonged so we would, in fact, come to a decision on third reading.


Hazen Robert Argue: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that all the items under public bills are to stand?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The items under public and private bills having been exhausted, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Immigration branch-
65. Administration of the Immigration Act, $950,650.
Edmund Davie Fulton: At five o'clock I had just dealt with the facts which established that Canada is not getting as many immigrants as she should have or as she could get because the Department of Immigration is not pursuing a sufficiently aggressive and realistic immigration policy. The figures I have placed on the record are amongst other evidences that go to substantiate this statement. In our view this is one of the very serious deficiencies in the policy of this government in that connection. They are not exerting sufficient efforts to bring to Canada a sufficient number of desirable immigrants, neither as many as we could get, as many as the growing economy of Canada requires nor as many as it could absorb. We believe it could absorb a considerably larger number and that until we bring our population figures up to the required level we will constantly experience difficulty in supporting standards of living that our people demand and which the resources of the country make it possible for us to realize. A country's greatest asset is, without question, its people. Canada has benefited in the past from those who have come here from other countries. I would hope that statement itself would not be challenged and I will therefore not enlarge it further or seek to support it by argument, but leave it there and say that it is regrettable we are not getting more people.
In case there should be any tendency to question our realism in saying that immigration, particularly under the present circumstances, could be of immense benefit to the country, I should like to place before the committee a letter which I should have noticed before because it was written in 1955, but it just came to my attention the other day. It was written by the father of an immigrant to Canada from Scotland who had, apparently previous to that, written to the Hamilton newspaper asking for comments
67509-455J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration from people living in Canada as to whether or not it was advisable for his son to emigrate to this country. Apparently the majority of the answers were in the affirmative. Plans were made and the boy set sail for Canada. By the time this letter was written he had arrived in this country. The letter was written to the Hamilton Spectator and it was published in full oh Friday, May 20, 1955 as follows:
To the Editor:
Will you permit me through the courtesy of your columns to thank the very many people who so kindly wrote to me following your publication of my letter asking whether my son ought to emigrate to Canada?
Most of these letters were heartening. Most of your readers said: "Yes, by all means let your boy come out." So we have done.
A week ago my wife and I stood in driving rain on the seafront at Gourock and watched the Franconia glide down the Firth of Clyde. We waved until the ship was out of sight. That ship was full of emigrants like our own son-all dreaming of the new country they were sailing to and all, I suppose, a little fearful of the unknown that lay ahead beyond the western wave.
We have given our boy enough money to keep him afloat for a few weeks until he gets himself a job. We have told him to take any job, even street sweeping, until he gets a foothold and can look around him.
He has never been away from us before. My wife and I, in fact, do not quite understand why our son wants to emigrate at all. For there are plenty of jobs in Britain at good money-columns of vacancies in the newspapers here every day. Britain is crying out for workers but the strange-lure of Canada seems to exercise a spell overyoung minds that will not be denied.
Then I am skipping some portions of the letter. It continues as follows:
One word more. When we send our children out to Canada to fend for themselves in the pioneering, spirit that made Britain and Canada great, all we ask is that they be given a fair deal and a chance to prove themselves.
We seek no charity and no favours for them and certainly no preference. But we think that our young British boys and girls have something to contribute to the fabric of the Canadian nation that cannot be purchased with gold.
Here, speaking if I may for myself, I would interpolate that so do the other immigrants who come to Canada contribute something, from whatever country they come, that cannot be purchased with gold.
The Scots brought you caution and business acumen. The Welsh and Irish gave you the saving grace of poetic imagination that is the very soul of a people. The English, with their genius for compromise, gave you the gift of good government.
Sir, that can be enlarged to include the arts and crafts that have been brought here and the many skills, too numerous to mention, that have been brought to Canada by immigrants from countries in that old land of Europe. These are the ideas which I think should be in our minds as we welcome these
7162	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration immigrants to our shores. Then I commend particularly this passage from the letter for consideration and reflection:
Every ^emigrant ship that touches your shores carries on board a potential prime minister. So it behooves Canada to welcome her young immigrants, however poor they may be, for they are rich in many things that a growing country needs and needs badly.
Sir, it is interesting to think of that for a moment or two. There is something of which I think we in Canada should be exceedingly proud, that in fact in Canada anyone who comes here as an immigrant, provided he becomes a citizen and accepts our way of life, can reach the very highest position in this land and become prime minister. In fact, as is well known, the first two prime ministers of Canada after confederation were both immigrant boys. I believe that they both came from Scotland as their names would seem to indicate, John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did the Minister of Fisheries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was about to point out that there are in government at the present time others who are immigrants to Canada, and in that respect I think we should be rather proud that we place no obstacle in the way of people achieving the highest position in Canada. I am not going to criticize what the Americans like to do and they will make their own regulations for themselves, but I think it is a rather remarkable contrast that in that country one requires to be born in the United States, a citizen of the United States at any rate, in order to reach the position of president. Here in Canada we impose no such barriers and I would hope never would impose such barriers.
But as these immigrants have so much to offer and have offered so much, the main architect of confederation himself an immigrant into Canada, I think we should occasionally take stock and reflect whether we are doing enough to attract these immigrants into Canada and to set them on their feet when they arrive here. That leads me again to a criticism of the policies of the department both with respect to its attitude towards getting large numbers to come here and with respect to some of the details of administration, because immigration can be discouraged not only by a policy which does not seek to attract them in large numbers but ean also be discouraged by the attitude taken to those who land here as reflected in their treatment by the department and departmental officials. If there is a bad record of treatment of immigrants to Canada, then that is going to discourage others from following their example.


There are, unfortunately, a number of cases in recent years which have indicated clearly that the administrative practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to its handling of prospective immigrants are-well, they have been described in the newspapers on previous occasions as shocking and unfortunately there are too many of these practices referred to last year which still persist to lead us to believe that the adjective should be changed. These are not cases merely of maladministration in isolated cases in the sense that they turn up from time to time without anyone having brought the practices which give rise to these cases to the attention of the department.
We have brought to the attention of the department on numerous occasions the very situation which is bound to create this type of case in the policy pursued by that department. I refer, of course, particularly to the refusal of the department to inform prospective immigrants who are rejected of the reasons for their rejection, which practice is carried over in a number of cases to a refusal to inform people who land in Canada and against whom orders for deportation are made of the reasons for those orders. We have said before and we say again that this practice is absolutely unjustified, that it is contrary to the principles of justice upon which this country's system rests.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question at this point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not admitting for a moment that there is any validity in what he is saying but it does not appear to me that this would discourage immigration in any way. It may be that it is a criticism of the department but I do not see how refusing to tell people why they are rejected is going to discourage the immigration of the people we want to get.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will tell the minister why. He refuses admission to Canada of people on grounds which he fails to state and the knowledge of that situation spreads among the friends and relatives of the person seeking to come here and they are discouraged from applying because they do not wish to subject themselves to that kind of treatment. The minister is now trying to play with words and pretend that the people who are refused admission are invariably people who should not in fact be admitted whereas it has been clearly proven that on a number of occasions they have attempted to exclude people from Canada who

should be admitted and that after they have landed in Canada they have attempted to deport people who were entitled to remain here and have subjected them to the most unjustifiable treatment in flagrant violations of the principles of justice and under circumstances and conditions where knowledge of that type of treatment will spread to others and they will simply say: If that is the way Canada treats people trying to get into the country I am not going to run the risk of being subjected to similar treatment, and they will go elsewhere.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never heard of such a case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are cases of immigrants landed in Canada seeking later to bring over their wives and families. The minister knows of a case which achieved some notoriety in Montreal, an Italian who at first was refused permission to bring his wife and family over. He went through months of frustration during which knowledge of the circumstances of course became known to others in Italy who might be seeking to come to Canada. The minister says that they do not keep out people who are entitled to come, but after months and years of frustration the wife and children were allowed to come once the man was given a fair hearing. The case, of course, which is most outstanding in this respect is the case of Mrs. Spalding which we had under discussion in this house on an earlier occasion. I heard the minister muttering a moment ago that he had no knowledge of any case where a person was treated in a manner which suggested the violation of the principles of justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. What I said was that I never heard of any case that discouraged other immigrants; and I never have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister suggest that a person hearing of his treatment of a certain immigrant would bother to write to him and say, "I was thinking of coming to Canada but now I do not intend to do so"? I think the minister gives himself credit for greater importance than he has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I deny that is the case, and I would love to answer. In my opinion what did more to discourage immigration than anything else were the speeches made on unemployment by hon. gentlemen opposite in January and February of 1955.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is another Liberal myth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can produce all kinds of evidence to prove it.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Edmund Davie Fulton: That begs the question. If that is the case, why has immigration not. gone up since then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The numbers have gone up about 20 per cent since you stopped making those speeches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason why immigration has fallen off in Canada is that this department has not been making proper efforts to get immigrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because the opposition has been discouraging them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They have been going to other countries. The purblind and foolish policy of the minister, who is seeking to place the blame elsewhere than where it properly lies is one of the reasons why still not enough is being done to deal with this matter. It is perfectly obvious that until we change the government and change the minister we are not going to get a sensible immigration policy. That is the conclusion to which one is regretfully forced. In spite of the fact that we have constantly been laying the facts before him in an effort to get him to change this policy, the minister's attitude leads to no other conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The best place to try to change the minister is in the country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister forget the case in the British Columbia appeal court and the approach made in the case of Mrs. Spalding? Does he say that it does not discourage immigration? Here we have more extraordinary quibbling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is nothing extraordinary nor any quibbling. This woman was not an immigrant at all. She was an unwanted visitor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mrs. Spalding was a British subject seeking admission to Canada. She arrived in Vancouver and was immediately ordered to be deported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister, instead of giving her a proper hearing through having one of his officials give her a proper hearing, and laying before her the facts upon which the deportation order was going to be based, gave her an entirely improper hearing, excluded her from the room when witnesses in connection with the case were being examined, did not provide her with proper facilities for representation by counsel and relied upon evidence from Australia from another party-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Her husband.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Fulton: Her husband at the time; evidence about which apparently she was not informed or which she was not given any opportunity to refute. She appealed from the deportation order and the case was heard first by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and Mr. Justice Manson overruled the order. He quashed the order on the ground that there had been no proper hearing and that the whole hearing had been a travesty of justice. The department appealed the decision of Mr. Justice Manson to the court of appeal of British Columbia, the court consisting of Justices O'Halloran, Robertson, Sidney Smith, Bird and Davey. The first judgment appeared at page 159 of vol. 16 of 1955 Western Weekly Reports, that of Mr. Justice O'Halloran. The second paragraph of that judgment reads as follows:
Counsel for the appellant minister conceded in this court that the hearing before the special inquiry immigration officer was conducted in violation of the essentials of justice. The respondent had been excluded from the room while a witness was questioned. She had no opportunity to hear his testimony and to examine him thereon.
I am now summarizing. She appeared without legal counsel. Again the judge remarks:
, . s she contended the officer did not determine her right of entry into Canada in a judicial spirit, '"'in accordance with the principles of substantial .justice". The respondent said in effect that she had been deprived of the imprescriptible right of a -British subject (she comes from Australia) . . . to have a fair hearing in a matter which affects her civil status, and she sought the aid of the inherent jurisdiction of the supreme court of this province . . .
And then he applied a ruling or a decision in another case as follows:
I do not agree that it is for the executive to come here and simply say, "The man is in custody, and therefore the right of the high court to interfere does not apply, because the custody is at the moment technically legal".
As the department sought to say in this case. The quotation continues:
I say that that answer of the crown will not do if this court is satisfied that what is really in contemplation is the exercise of an abuse of power. The arm of the law would have grown very short, and the power of the court very feeble, if that were the case.
Acting upon that principle and upon the certain knowledge that what had been sought to be done by the department in that case was an abuse of power and that the hearing before the special inquiry officer was conducted in violation of the essentials of justice, the court of appeal of British Columbia upheld the order of Mr. Justice Manson quashing the deportation order. It is in the light of those significant facts-and that is not the first case; there was the Brent case- ,one would have thought that the department [Mr. Pickersgill.l
had learned its lesson and would have issued instructions that their hearings should not be in violation of the principles of justice. But no. The minister says, "The courts were wrong, we were right"-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I never said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and the sense has been to circumvent the decision of the court which is based on every principle of justice. When that fails him, he seeks to blacken the reputation of a woman who is within her rights according to the courts, by a slurring reference to her domestic situation as to which, when the matter came before the court in Australia, it gave no such decision.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After she came to Canada the appropriate authorities in British Columbia and Alberta were satisfied that the woman was in the right, so that she subsequently married. The efforts of the minister to justify himself for his perversion of justice were such that he owes this lady an apology as public as were the attempts he made to blacken her reputation.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it has occurred to me that, having regard to what I have asked earlier and having regard to the loss of time tonight, it might be agreeable to hon. members that we resume at seven o'clock inasmuch as we shall not be able to sit past ten o'clock. If that suggestion met with the approval of hon. members, I should point out that we would continue to take these estimates from seven to eight and at eight o'clock we would take second reading of the bill to amend the Excise Tax Act.


George Hugh Castleden: If you would make that 7.30, I think it would give hon. members a little better opportunity.


Walter Edward Harris: Agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being six o'clock I do leave the chair. May I advise hon members that I will resume the chair at 7.30.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, when a minister is guiding his estimates through the house I know he expects to hear the views of hon. members and also perhaps to hear some criticism of his department, or of the policy that his department is carrying out. I hope I will not disappoint him in that regard. However, before I speak on some

of the policies that I think should be mentioned I should like to express my appreciation of the minister and of the fact that he gives his personal attention, or he has given his personal attention, to the many cases that I have had to bring to his notice.
Since I represent a constituency in Vancouver, British Columbia, I seem to receive a great many immigration problems. I refer them all to the minister. He always pays attention to them, and although he sometimes takes many months before a decision is reached, at least every two or three months he writes to me and explains he has not forgotten them and tells me why there is a delay. I want to say I really am thankful for that consideration. I am also exceedingly grateful that upon occasion he reverses the decision of his department. I have had success in cases that I have brought to his attention, but not in all of them. It is on a number of these cases that I should like to speak this evening on this item.
I want to deal, Mr. Chairman, with the question of East Indian immigration and also of Chinese immigration and with some of the problems that apply to them. I believe that all British Columbia members are in a good position to speak on the East Indian question because 95 per cent of all of the East Indians in Canada are in the province of British Columbia, and the majority of them are on the coast. I think it should be noted that of the majority of the East Indians in British Columbia by far the greatest number of them come from the Punjab.
Punjab, as you know, has been referred to as the fighting state, and those people have been referred to as warriors. Throughout their history they have proven their right to be known as warriors. They have proven it on behalf of the democracies in a great many wars; they have proven it over many years on behalf of the British commonwealth. They are British subjects and here in Canada they are Canadian citizens. I completely fail to understand the thinking of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when a person who is a British subject and a Canadian citizen is discriminated against when it comes to the question of immigration. In view of the desire of the government for immigration into this country, in view of the fact that we can support a far greater population than we have at the present time, and in view of the regulations with regard to East Indians, we can come to the only conclusion that there must be a colour prejudice somewhere. We find that, strangely, enough, in dealing with the land of origin of East Indians, it is a matter of treaty as to how many can enter Canada as of right; but in addition to that,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration regulations are made under the authority of a statute of this country, as regards East Indians, which provide that in a year the number of immigrants from India permitted to enter Canada is 150, from Pakistan 100, and from Ceylon 50. These regulations are very definite. East Indians do not have the same rights as the Latin-Americans and as the Levantines when it comes to the age at which they can bring in children or their mothers or their fathers.
Something is definitely wrong when British subjects, as the East Indians are, are placed in a depressed category along with those other categories that I have named. Not only are East Indians British subjects, not only do we have them in Canada as Canadian citizens, but, sir, they are good British subjects and good Canadian citizens, and I am certain that every member here from British Columbia will tell you that. Then, why should they have so many obstacles thrown in their way in getting their relatives into this country?
I have in mind, just as an example, one of the finest citizens of British Columbia, an East Indian, yes. He was one of the originals in Canada. He came to British Columbia some 48 years ago. He has built up an excellent business. Unfortunately, he has no children. He is getting on in years and he wants to pass on his property to a Canadian citizen. He wants to bring in his nephew and to adopt him as his son, establish him as a Canadian citizen and let him carry on in his business. And yet, although the application has been under process for years, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration refuses point-blank to allow this one citizen of British Columbia, who is childless, to bring in his nephew. I think something is definitely wrong in the attitude of the department in matters such as this.
I am not going to go into all the details of the brief that was submitted by the East Indians to the minister some two weeks ago because he knows the content matter of that submission; but I should like to quote from the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the brief because I feel their request is just and should be given speedy attention. It says:
If being a British subject and having commonwealth ties is to mean anything, then it should mean that all within the commonwealth should be placed on a uniform basis, so that Indian citizens should be accorded the same privileges, say, as Australians and New Zealanders.
Alternatively, we submit that as Canadian citizens the very least that we should ask for is that we should be treated no worse than Latin Americans and Levantines, and that we should be given the same rights that they are given as to bringing in relatives. We ask that regulation 21 be widened to let in relatives of Canadian citizens of East
7166	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indian origin, to the same extent as regulation 20	(c) admits , Latin-American and Levantine
relatives.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, our East Indian Canadian citizens in British Columbia are not asking too much when they ask that the government, or the department, give them a status as British subjects no less than that which this government and this department are giving, under the same authority and regulations, to the Latin-Americans and Levantines. Since it does not require any amending act of this House of Commons, I sincerely hope that we can this evening or before these estimates are through, have a statement from the minister that he very speedily will bring in the required changes in the regulations so as to give to our East Indian colleagues in this country the rights they have been so long denied.
I wish to say a few words at this time, Mr. Chairman, concerning the matter of Chinese immigration. I received a great many immigration cases from Vancouver and I take these problems up with the minister. He has been good enough to say that I have a very high batting average on the cases I take up and I am exceedingly grateful for that.
It is most difficult to understand the thinking and the policies in some respects as far as the department is concerned on matters that relate to Chinese immigration problems. I would like to give just two or three examples to show what I mean.
I know of the case of a young man of Chinese origin who was born in the city of New Westminster. He spent his life and received his education in New Westminster. He served all through the last war with great distinction. When the war was over he took advantage of the rehabilitation measures and set himself up in business. He built a good business and succeeded in it and then proceeded to build himself a home and furnish it. At this point he is ready to take a wife.
This young man's fiancee lives in Hong Kong; but do you think he could get permission for his fiancee to come to Vancouver in order that this young man could marry her? The answer is no. We offered to post any bond that would be required to ensure that when she arrived here she would marry this young man. The answer was no. In a letter I wrote to the minister I personally gave my word of honour that if the minister would permit her to come to Canada we would be prepared to post any bond he might require, and I went so far as to say that we would keep the girl confined in the immigration shed until she was married to this 

young man and that if she did not get married to him she would be returned on the next plane to Hong Kong. What was the answer?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: The answer was no. This young man is a wonderful citizen; he has established himself in business and has built and furnished a home. Instead of paying $550 for the passage of his fiancee from Hong Kong to Vancouver he has to secure someone to look after his business and then pay $550 for the flight of his fiancee from Hong Kong to Vancouver and in addition to that he has to pay $1,200 for his own passage to Hong Kong where he will marry the girl and return with her as his wife to Canada. Why should this be necessary, sir? Surely a matter of this nature could be attended to on a different basis.
Another example concerns a Chinese gentleman who has been in Canada for many years. It is customary to go back home to China and take a wife and beget children. This man is all alone in Canada in his old age. He has only one child in Hong Kong and he is supporting the boy and trying to bring him over but owing to the technicality of the son's age the answer to his request was no.
We who knew this Chinese citizen-I knew him>-were aware that he was dying and one reason he was dying was because of sorrow, and therefore we got in touch with the minister. A number of us, people who dealt at his store and knew him well, got together and agreed to put up the money for a bond if this young man in Hong Kong could just come to Canada and see his father who was dying in hospital here. What was the answer?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: The answer was no. I might inform the minister that three months after I wrote to him concerning this case the old man died in hospital in Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: Will the minister go to heaven? No.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that we citizens who are white-if that should make so much difference-were prepared to put up the bond to guarantee that the young man would return to Hong Kong after a brief visit with his father, why should the department be so sticky that they could not allow an old man with no family in Canada an opportunity to see his only child?
Now I would like to speak on the major phase of the subject of the Chinese immigration problem. Why this almost complete insistence that immigrants should come in as

a family unit? I refer to it as being almost complete because in recent months the minister on two or three occasions has reversed previous decisions and has allowed families to come in not as a unit. But, as I understand it, the basic policy of the department is that the family come in as a unit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind my correcting that statement.


Harold Edward Winch: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the rule is that we do not admit children unless both the parents are here or unless the parent who is in China comes with the children.


Harold Edward Winch: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But we do not insist on the whole family coming in together.


Harold Edward Winch: You insist on their coming in as a unit, though; the parent and the child or the parents and the child.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course they do not come at all unless one parent is here.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I am coming to. If you could only learn to control that impatience a little bit!
The only way you can emigrate from China is from Hong Kong to Canada. Because of the governmental situation there the relatives of many of our Canadian citizens of Chinese origin are in communist-held territory. From all the information I have been able to obtain, it is exceedingly difficult for them to get into Hong Kong where they can go through the necessary examination by the officials of the department and receive the required authority to be admitted to Canada.
I have heard that in the past Canadian citizens of Chinese origin were actually being blackmailed; that is, they had to pay somebody in the village in order to get their wife or children into Hong Kong. Sir, I am convinced from my contact with Chinese in British Columbia that this is true and the practice still prevails. Because of this and the difficulty of getting into Hong Kong you cannot always get all the children, or the children together with the mother, out of the country at the same time. Sometimes it is spread over a period of years and very frequently over a period of months. In some instances you can get a child into Hong Kong more easily than an adult.
We have situations such as this. I will refer to a specific case because then the minister will understand to what I am referring. I am speaking of an agreement with the minister's department that the wife and children of a certain citizen in Vancouver
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration can come to Canada. However, the wife and one child have not yet been able to get out of the village in which they are living into Hong Kong. One five-year old child was able to get out of the village and has been in Hong Kong now for several months living with a relative. Just why, when the child is separated from its mother and father, can the father in Vancouver not be permitted to receive his child who has been living in Hong Kong for almost a year?
The minister has just recently given me a decision to the effect that the child cannot be admitted until the mother can get to Hong Kong and both she and the child can go for the examination before the authorities in that city. Concerning matters of this nature I just cannot understand where is the milk of human kindness in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and some of its officials. I often wonder whether they have been fathers themselves, and I sometimes doubt that they have. Otherwise they would not put obstacles in the way of these people as they seem to do.
I know that there are regulations, I know that there must be a close check, and I know that those who are coming in from China must be watched closely because of the conditions there. I believe the minister and the government know-I have had some indication of this-that in the past couple of years there have been people coming in who perhaps should not have been permitted to come in. If my information is correct, some of these people are using Canada as a causeway into the United States. Be that as it may, I am certain the department is keeping a close watch on all cases such as I have mentioned.
But where the department is agreeable to people coming in, why do they insist that they cannot come in except under the condition of all or none? They must come in at one time instead of being permitted to come in as they can get to Hong Kong and be processed by the department. I do not want to repeat myself too much because that is a bad habit of mine, but I should like to plead with the minister just to think over some of these things and see if he cannot give greater consideration to this matter of the immigration of relatives of our Chinese Canadian citizens. I am quite certain it could be done without in any way endangering this Dominion of Canada and it certainly would make a few individuals very happy to have at least part of their family with them if they cannot have them all.
There is only one other point I wish to mention, the matter of cash bonds. In this connection I am still waiting for a conclusive

Excise Tax Act
reply from the minister. I am not a member of the legal fraternity but I understand that the courts will accept bonds other than cash bonds. However, the immigration department insists on cash bonds. I am told by lawyers in Vancouver that if you happen to arrive at the airport after five o'clock the officials will not accept a deposit of cash because they say there are no facilities for handling cash bonds between five in the afternoon and nine in the morning. Although the immigration department is prepared to let you in under bond you must stay in the immigration detention cells because there is nobody authorized to take your money. To me that is a stupid state of affairs. I hope sincerely the minister will do something to correct it and also give some consideration to having the immigration department accept the type of bond acceptable to the various courts of law in this country.
I see that my time is almost up and I will stop at that. But I ask the minister to show a little more of the milk of human kindness in handling some of these cases and to realize that perhaps there is too much red tape in his department. If he could get rid of that I am sure the department would be much more popular than it is at the present time. Finally, I repeat what I commenced with. Let us not have discrimination between British subjects and Canadian citizens because of the colour of their skins. Let us give to the East Indians their just rights. I ask the minister to use his power at the next meeting of the governor in council so that the regulation may be amended to permit our East Indian colleagues in British Columbia to bring their relatives into Canada.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I understood aright that the order of business was to be changed at eight o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think it would be only fair to the hon. member if we called it eight o'clock and reported progress.
Progress reported.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 450, to amend the Excise Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I propose to say a few words about the bill, but assuming as I do that there is not very much disagreement if any with respect to the clauses other than the one having to do with the magazine tax I shall confine myself to some brief comments on that and at a later time when I conclude the debate make references to

what has been said this afternoon by the Acting Leader of the Opposition.
I should like to point out to the house that in proposing a magazine tax we are not proposing any tax or tariff on the ordinary editions of magazines as published in their home countries. Those magazines will continue to flow freely into the hands and homes of Canadians. However, we are concerned with the so-called special editions of magazines which are much the same in their reading content as the editions of the same magazines published abroad but which, in a way that seems to us unfair, are making inroads into the revenues available from magazine advertising in Canada.
I should like to remind the house that the position of Canadian magazines has been brought to the attention of the government and parliament on many occasions over a considerable number of years. Particularly during the past four years the growing difficulties of Canadian magazines have been urged upon us. We have attempted to give them some positive help. The various government departments were asked to give special attention to Canadian magazines in placing their advertising whenever that medium was appropriate. We considered assistance in the form of special concessions on postal rates, but decided that once again the amount involved would not prove significant. We have continued to watch developments closely. We have seen two things which have given us real cause for concern, one related to circulation and the other to finance. First, a word or two about circulation. We have in Canada only a dozen or so magazines of general interest which are widely read, including those published in the French language as well as in English. I am speaking of course of the sort of magazine one finds on any well-stocked newsstand; I am not speaking of the numerous magazines catering to specialized trades, professions and other groups in the community.
Since the war a few of these general interest magazines have gained circulation, one or two quite spectacularly; others have made little progress; one or two have disappeared entirely; and two have cut down their frequency of issue. In the aggregate their circulation has increased, but this increase cannot compare with the increased circulation in Canada of general interest magazines originating abroad. Thus the proportion of Canadian to non-Canadian magazines read in Canada has been falling steadily. This is the main point of concern.
Shortly after the war about one-third of the magazines of general interest read in

Canada were Canadian; four years ago the proportion was down to one-quarter; last year it had fallen to one-fifth. I wonder if there is any country in the world where only one-fifth of the magazines of general interest are of national origin and four-fifths originate abroad.
The second point which has impressed itself upon us is financial. We have received figures over the years indicating quite clearly that the publication in Canada of these magazines of general interest is not profitable. The figures we have received were of course obtained in confidence but I can assure the house that they were disturbing. I can disclose that for the year 1955, when business in general in Canada was good, and when our leading Canadian national magazines had larger aggregate circulation and larger advertising revenues than ever before, those published in English made not a profit at all but a loss estimated at 2.4 per cent of their total revenue. Those published in French are too few to quote percentages but the house can be assured that their position was about the same as that of the English magazines.
It must be clearly understood that this tax is designed to assist not the publishing house necessarily nor the printer but the magazine itself. In many industries, firms add or drop different lines of production, depending on their profitability, without causing any concern to themselves or to their customers. Their balance sheets are better off for the change, and their customers find other sources of supply to meet their needs. Canadian magazine publishers would similarly be better off financially to drop a number of their general-interest magazines and concentrate on the profitable lines of their business; and, without some assistance to make these magazines profitable, that is what they can be expected to do. Failure to grant this assistance would not mean that these publishing houses will go out of business, although some of the smaller ones might, but it would certainly result in the eventual disappearance of a substantial proportion of the few remaining Canadian magazines of general interest.
Before trying to find remedies for the ills, we tried to diagnose them; and it soon emerged that they faced two quite different forms of competition from abroad. One may be described as overflow circulation; the other is the special edition.
Excise Tax Act
I believe-and I agree with what the Acting Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon-that, given a fair chance, the Canadian magazines should be able to stand up against the overflow into Canada of magazines published abroad for circulation in their home markets. True, those magazines are usually prepared for far larger markets, at far greater expense; they pay far more for their articles and their stories; and they can spend more money on their pictures. Nevertheless, attractive and interesting though they may be, they are not Canadian; they are addressed to a somewhat different audience; they advertise a somewhat different range of goods. So the Canadian magazine, with its distinctively Canadian material, should be able to hold its own against them in the Canadian market. It may tell its story less expensively, but Canadians want to read it and will continue to want to do so as long as it can afford to put out a vigorous and attractive product.
This is where the other type of competition, the competition of the special edition, is so damaging, for these editions can and do cut at the financial foundations of the Canadian magazines-their revenues from advertising. Some people, both inside and outside this house, have expressed doubts on this point, and so perhaps I should quote some relevant figures.
There are, as I have said, about a dozen magazines of general interest published in Canada, including two special editions. These dozen would, I believe, usually be taken to include the following: Canadian Home Journal, Canadian Homes and Gardens, Chatelaine, Maclean's, Mayfair, La Revue Moderne, La Revue Populaire, Le Samedi, Liberty, Reader's Digest (special editions in French and English), Saturday Night, and Time (special edition). How have the two special editions fared within this group? We find that eight years ago these two special editions attracted about 18 per cent of the advertising revenues of the group; last year they attracted 37 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I should like to have consent to put on record a table showing the figures in detail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the minister leave to place this table on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The table is as follows:

Excise Tax Act


GROSS ADVERTISING REVENUE OF SELECTED MAGAZINES
[Stage Direction]
Source: Canadian Magazine Advertising Summary
-	12 Consumer Magazines1	"Time"2	Per cent of Total	"Reader's Digest"3	Per cent of Total	Per cent of Total Reader's Digest and Time$	$	$	1948	7,983,574	757,030	9-5	687,552	8-6	1811949	9,101,348	919,531	101	1,216,495	13-4	23-51950	10,209,097	1,176.6S7	11-5	1,557,612	15-3	26-81951	11,900,082	1,604,405	13-5	1,905,356	16-0	29-51952	12,944,437	2,004,988	15-5	2,477,247	19-1	34-61953	15,442,492	2,678,602	17-3	2,793,005	18-1	35-41954	16,098,898	2,896,236	18-0	2,848,290	17-7	35-71955	17,434,225	3,320,664	19-1	3,094,483	17-8	36-8
1 Magazines included are: Canadian Home Journal, Canadian Homes and Gardens, Chatelaine, Maclean's, Mayfair, La Revue Moderne. La Revue Populaire, Le Samedi, Liberty, Reader's Digest (Special editions in French and English), Saturday Night, and Time (Special edition).
2	Special edition.
3	Special editions in French and English.
The two special editions that I have mentioned are not the only ones in the field. Of recent years several women's magazines, of the type usually distributed through chain stores abroad, have decided to put out special editions on sale in Canadian stores. The names of these special editions now on sale here are: Family Circle, Woman's Day, and Everywoman's. Similarly, Parent's Magazine puts out a special edition for Canada. These editions sell advertising space to cover the Canadian market. If these sales of advertising were included in the figures of magazines of general circulation, the proportion of Canadian general-interest magazine advertising now going into special editions would be about 40 per cent.
However, that is not all. Before deciding to impose the new tax, we had learned that at least two other well-known magazines published abroad were making plans to put out Canadian editions in order to attract Canadian advertising. Further, in connection with one of these projects, a well-known publisher of trade papers abroad was known to be considering the establishment of a branch in Canada; thus the field of trade papers too, which has so far been relatively profitable and in which there have been only one or two small special editions, would be open to serious invasion by special editions.

We have had a number of requests for exemptions, and, as the bill will indicate, there are a number of exemptions, but I need not deal with them at the moment. The question was whether or not the government ought to give consideration to imposing a tax not, as has been indicated, on editions of magazines coming from abroad, which after all, as I have pointed out, may possibly not compete unduly, for the reasons I have given, but whether or not the real difficulty facing the Canadian publishing industry might not be confined to the special editions. After giving it careful consideration, we decided that such a tax would be in order. Perhaps the result will be that there will be an equalizing effect in the competitive situation, although, of course, I cannot say how much it might affect individually each of the special editions which have been published in the past or which might be published in the future.
I should emphasize that the proposed tax will apply whether the special edition is printed in Canada or abroad. As I stressed in my budget speech, the publication and circulation of Canadian magazines is a thread in the fabric of our national life. If we wish to see Canadian magazines continue, we must find some technique for arresting the inroads into advertising revenue made by these

special editions. A special edition printed in Canada constitutes as much of a threat to the existence of Canadian magazines as does a special edition printed abroad. It is for that reason that we propose that the tax should apply to special editions wherever they may be physically produced.
There have been some suggestions that this is a discriminatory tax. Indeed, the Acting Leader of the Opposition mentioned that this afternoon. I propose to leave it at that by saying that it is not discriminatory and I shall confine myself to answering his statement later in that respect. However, I want to place before the committee one fact, namely, that it is extremely doubtful that there is any country in the world so situated in this particular regard as Canada. We are next door to a tremendous market and a tremendous outpouring of magazines of all kinds, whether for reading material or for advertising. I think the house will agree that under these conditions it is only to be expected that our own publication industry would have difficulty, but this is particularly true when our languages are alike, our tastes are alike and our pursuits, whether by way of recreation or occupation, are much the same.
Therefore I should like to say that this tax cannot in any sense of the word be called an anti-American tax. The purpose, of course, is to apply the tax to all forms of special editions, whether they originate in the United States or not. The motives behind the tax, I think, have been made clear, but I think it is overlooked that, if anyone supposes that this tax would in any sense of the word offend our neighbours to the south, it would seem to me that the obvious answer would be that if the North American continent is to be strong-as we all ought to hope it would be- that should mean that Canada and the opinions of Canada could and should be independent and that, if we are to have a public opinion in Canada other than that which we would gain from our newspapers and our own discussion, it can only be fostered and continued by a periodical industry which would have critical opinion on many subjects, both internal and external. If we foster that, then our own independent opinion will be the more valuable; but if that opinion disappears we have nothing then to offer except a repetition of the ideas of someone else, and I do not think that the house would like that under any circumstances.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There are, of course, in the present bill many other provisions than that pertaining to the proposed tax on advertising revenue of certain magazines with special editions. With those
Excise Tax Act
provisions of this bill other than those pertaining to the tax under discussion we have, of course, no quarrel. On the contrary, at the resolution stage of the measure this afternoon we expressed our gratification at seeing in the bill exemptions from the sales tax introduced in favour of many commodities. However, I shall follow the example of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) tonight and confine my remarks on second reading to the proposed tax on advertising matter. I wish to recall to the house what we have said in regard to the bill in general by way of putting this discussion in its proper perspective.
The views of Her Majesty's loyal opposition with respect to this tax were stated in the house on April 10 by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when he spoke in the budget debate. His remarks on this subject are to be found at pages 2782 to 2784 of Hansard. Other hon. members of this party also expressed their views in the course of the budget debate, and the views of this party were reasserted this afternoon at the resolution stage by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) as Acting Leader of the Opposition. Sir, those views are firmly held.
What is the essence of this provision in the bill? We may well see it in its context if we recall the introductory remarks of the Minister of Finance in the budget debate in leading up to this subject. On March 20, as found at page 2333 of Hansard, the minister said, after describing the magazines coming into this country:
We have been considering this problem for some time, and we have decided that, in this field, very exceptional measures can be justified-measures that certainly could not be justified in connection with any ordinary line of business or commerce.
I ask the house to note well these words. The minister has decided that the measure of which he now asks approval by the house is one which could not be justified in connection with any ordinary line of business or commerce. The measure itself he describes as very exceptional. That, Mr. Speaker, is the estimate placed upon this proposed tax by the minister who has fathered it. It is indeed a measure which could not be justified as applied to any ordinary line of business or commerce. This proposed tax is indeed a special tax on a special group singled out of a particular line of business, and therefore I say this is a special form of governmental interference with the magazine business.
The house will not have forgotten that the resolution was first introduced in the house on March 20. We are debating it now on August 7, about five months later. What has become

Excise Tax Act
of this resolution in this long interval? Why was it not pressed forward at an earlier date? We had other resolutions arising out of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance before us on earlier occasions. Why has this one been held back for so long until we are virtually on the eve of prorogation? I suggest that the reason is that the minister found he had something of a tiger by the tail and he did not know what to do with it. He has been embarrassed by it and that is the reason he has held it back until this moment. He has been asked repeatedly in the house to say whether or not he intended to proceed with the tax. On every occasion his answers have been coy and evasive. However, there is one thing that the house has learned to expect and that is that neither the minister nor any other minister of the government is prepared to lose face, and so rather than submit to anything like losing face the minister has decided to press this measure in the dying moments of the session in the face of a virtually unanimous public outcry against the proposed tax.
I should like to analyse the proposed tax and to state to the house certain facts that stand out in any fair and searching analysis of it. In the first place, this is not a tax for revenue purposes. Normally taxation is designed to serve the purpose of raising money, but it is not pretended by the minister that the raising of money is any part of the purpose that he has in mind in fathering this new tax. No, this tax is to serve some unusual or abnormal purpose. Something other than the ordinary purpose of taxation is what he has in mind. What is it? I shall seek to answer that question a little later.
The second fact that is outstanding on any analysis of the bill is that it is not a general tax. It is a tax of particular effect. The statement has been attributed to the minister that there might be nine magazines or thereabouts affected by this measure, but certainly it is undeniable that the two that will be the hardest hit are Time magazine and Reader's Digest, the latter in both English and French editions. I understand that the gross advertising content of these two magazines in the form of Canadian advertising produces a revenue of about $6 million per annum. This is not a general tax. It is a tax of particular application.
It is patent on the face of it, therefore, that this tax is discriminatory and, sir, I do not know that there is any worse vice to be found in any form of tax than to find that it is discriminatory. The party of hon. members opposite was critical 25 years ago of the tax applied by the Bennett government on United States magazines entering Canada but, sir,

that tax of the Bennett government was a uniform tax applied right across the board. It was not like this tax, a discriminatory imposition.
The third fact that is outstanding on any fair and searching analysis of this tax is that it is a new kind of tax. In our taxation of corporations we are accustomed to thinking in terms of a tax on income which in the case of corporations means a tax on their profits. But this is not a tax upon the profits of the corporations which publish these particular magazines. This is a tax on advertising revenue; in other words, it is a tax on a particular form or source of revenue of these taxpayers. That fact adds to the discrimination that is inherent in this measure.
If you want a parallel situation here is one. It would be if the Minister of Finance decided to apply a tax on newspapers in this country and he did not choose to apply it on profits but chose to apply it on advertising revenue to the papers. There is a parallel. Does any hon. member in this house support such a parallel? I do not believe there is an hon. member of the house who for one minute would be prepared to lend his support to such a proposal and yet that, sir, is the type of tax that we are asked to approve here and now.
The fourth fact that stands out with regard to this measure is that the minister has chosen to apply a rate of taxation of 25 per cent-


Walter Edward Harris: 20 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of 20 per cent which, so far as any facts laid before this house are concerned, is arbitrary. To what does it relate? The house has not been given any facts by which to judge whether 20 per cent is a fair percentage to apply in order to attain the purposes of the minister in asking approval of this tax. To what is it related? Is it designed to equalize some terms of competition that today are said to be unequal? The minister has left us in the air. He has not said one word by way of justification of a 20 per cent tax. Hence we can only conclude that this percentage has just been plucked out of the air. It has no relation to any fact or situation that the minister has placed before the house.
I come now to answer the question that I asked a little earlier. What is the purpose of this tax? It is not to raise revenue. A review of what the minister has said tonight and what he said on March 20 indicates that the minister's purpose is to help Canadian periodicals, as he says. But how? Not directly, of course. His purpose, as embodied in this tax is, as he asks the house to suppose,

to help Canadian periodicals by hurting United States publications which print Canadian editions here in Canada. That is the purpose; and in relation to that purpose we have nothing in the way of a yardstick by which to estimate or judge the propriety of a 20 per cent imposition.
The next fact I observe is this. The house has been given no proof that the growth in the circulation of United States magazines in Canada which would be affected by this tax has hurt Canadian magazines. The minister has assumed that fact; he has not proved it. Just because there are United States magazines which are printing Canadian editions and because, as the minister asks the house to believe, the rate of growth in the circulation of Canadian magazines has not kept pace with the total market, although it has grown absolutely, he asks the house to assume that the latter fact is attributable to the former. Mr. Speaker, the house will require in the way of proof something better than the minister has offered. He has just asked the house to swallow an assumption for which he has offered no proof.
The fact is that Canadian periodicals are increasing their circulation and their advertising revenues. The industry is becoming stronger. When my leader spoke on this subject on April 10, he put on Hansard, as reported at page 2784, some of the figures on the size of the circulation of Canadian publications in comparison with the two United States publications with Canadian editions which are going to be principally affected by this tax. May I remind the house of what he said:
Time has a circulation of 170,000 in Canada. Reader's Digest, with its English and French editions, has a circulation of 900,000. But these are the circulations of the Canadian magazines:	Star
Weekly, 913,000; Weekend, 1,400,000; Maclean's, 510,000; New Liberty, 500,000 and Chatelaine, 400,000.
Mr. Speaker, the growth in the circulation of Canadian magazines and in their revenues is indeed very striking. I have before me figures of six of the leading Canadian magazines which show that in the ten-year period from 1946 to 1955 their circulation increase ran to these figures: 408 per cent, 45-8 per cent, 48 per cent, 123 per cent, 63 per cent, 76-8 per cent. Their revenues increased by the following percentages in the same ten-year period: 456-9 per cent, 46-3 per cent, 67-8 per cent, 292-9 per cent, 211-9 per cent and 6 [DOT] 6 per cent.
While the minister has asked the house to draw a rather dreary picture of their outlook, I must say that the virile nature of these Canadian publications and the figures of increase in their circulation and revenues
Excise Tax Act
do not at all bear out what the minister argued tonight. Here is what one of these magazines-one of those that are supporting the minister's tax-has to say of itself:
Growing twice as last as fast-growing Canada. Audience now 1,836,000. Circulation up 66 per cent since 1946. Population up 31 per cent.
These Canadian magazines are not asking for the sympathy and the dreary expressions of lack of confidence in their future that we have heard from the Minister of Finance here tonight. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are glad indeed to think that the Canadian periodical publications are showing such vigour and vitality. We have confidence in their future.
The next fact that I put before the house is that we have been given by the Minister of Finance no proof whatever that this tax will indeed help the Canadian magazines. There is no proof that the imposition of this tax on these particular magazines will stop advertising in them. Indeed, having regard to the fact that many Canadian businesses operate on a fixed budget for advertising, it may well be that when this tax is passed on to the Canadian advertiser by the magazines on which it is imposed in the first instance the net result will be that the Canadian advertisers will not reduce their advertising in those particular publications, but will, if they continue to operate on the same advertising budgets, reduce instead the advertising space that they are purchasing in the Canadian publications; and the end result of this tax may well be not to help Canadian magazines by hurting the United States publications, but actually to hurt the Canadian magazines. Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Here is what has been said by the general manager of the Association of Canadian Advertisers in an open letter that he wrote to the Minister of Finance on April 3, 1956. I do not think any hon. member of this house can maintain that he is in as good a position to judge of the effect of this tax upon the advertising business and the advertising habits of Canadian advertisers as is Mr. Frank A. Healy. the general manager of the Association of Canadian Advertisers. This is what he said in his open letter to the minister:
Dear Sir:
The board of directors of the Association of Canadian Advertisers has instructed me to advise you that, after careful deliberation, this association feels duty-bound to voice its strong objection to-the 20 per cent tax to be levied on the gross advertising revenue of special editions of nonCanadian periodicals issued to the public in Canada.
Since your announcement to this effect in the House of Commons on March 20, a large percentage of the 167 member companies of this association* representing approximately 85 per cent of the

Excise Tax Act
national advertising dollars spent in Canada, have communicated to the board of directors their deep concern and alarm at this precedent-setting discriminatory tax which will directly affect Canadian national advertisers.
As Canadian advertisers, we fully respect your government's desire to protect our own Canadian culture and nationalism. We would, however, like to point out that despite the Canadian editions of foreign publications, Canadian periodicals have expanded tremendously in scope, as much as 50 per cent in circulation and 80 per cent in gross advertising revenue, in the past 10 years.
It is not the intention of this association to judge whether or not Canadian editions of foreign magazines have been hampering the development of Canadian magazines,-


Walter Edward Harris: That is the very point of the letter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I continue:
-but we doubt whether such drastic action would have been taken had you been fully aware of the fine record established over the years by Canadian magazines.
Although the national advertisers of Canada are against, in principle, tax legislation aimed at throttling any one segment of our industry, an industry which we feel is so vital to our national economy and development, we, the national advertisers of Canada, are deeply concerned that this legislation will not achieve its purpose but, on the contrary, serve to hinder the intake of advertising revenue by all Canadian magazines.
This concern is based on the presumption that Canadian editions of foreign publications will have the choice of either ceasing publication or increasing their advertising rates and, perhaps, their cost to the consumer. Canadian national advertisers have every reason to believe that these publications will not cease publication.
As a result, the majority of ACA member companies, will be faced with the increased advertising rates and in order to find the extra funds to cover such increased rates will be forced to trim their advertising expenditures, not only in Canadian magazines, but in other Canadian advertising media as well.
The board of directors of the association of Canadian advertisers, therefore, respectfully requests that you reconsider this legislation in as much as the tax would provide only a negligible amount of revenue to the government of Canada, and would not, in our opinion, accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.
Sir, I think the Minister of Finance is a brave man, perhaps not a wise one, to set his opinion against the opinion of those in the advertising business who presumably know more about that business than anyone else in Canada, including the minister and his advisers.


Mr. Sinclair:: He is a brave man; he showed that before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, the next obvious fact is that if the minister is concerned about seeing that Canadians read Canadian magazines and not American magazines, one would have thought that he would not have singled out some few of those publications, but that he would have had concern for the larger fact that there are great quantities of American

magazines, far beyond the number affected by this measure, coming into Canada and being read by Canadians; but the minister apparently entertains no concern for those magazines. His concern is simply for the reading by Canadians of those magazines that have a special edition for this country. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly apparent that this tax abounds at every turn in discriminatory features.
Sir, what has been the reaction in this country to the proposal made by the minister with respect to this tax? The reaction in this country, as may be judged by editorial columns right across the country, has been strongly hostile to the tax. Indeed, the strength of that hostility, both in the quality of expression and in the widespread sources right across the country in which it has been expressed, is almost unparallelled, with the possible exception of the reaction editorially to the government's program a year ago on the defence production measure and on this year's pipe line measure, with all that happened in the course of the debate. In fact, sir, I think it no exaggeration to say that no tax proposed by any minister of finance in Canada's history has met with a more hostile reception, if indeed as hostile as has this proposed tax. Listen to some of the adjectives and other expressions that have been applied to it. I just chose these at random. Most of them, I think, have come from Liberal newspapers, papers that normally called themselves Liberal and until at least recent times gave strong support to this government as long at it did retain a shadow of pretence of right to call itself Liberal. Listen to these adjectives selected at random from the editorial columns right across Canada: bad, vicious, unnecessary, punitive, discriminatory, dangerous, unfair, protectionist, misplaced, useless, unwelcome, a tax on ideas, a stroke of folly, more harm than good, an artificial prop under a free press, high-handed discrimination, unadulterated protectionism, a tax on information, an attempt to destroy several magazines, yielding to a long-standing lobby, economic nationalism in a particularly dangerous form, Liberal principles well prostituted. And, then, the most unkindest cut of all, as I look yonder at the Minister of National Revenue, is this one, "Harris' tax expected to be McCann's headache".


James Joseph McCann: Don't be worried over that one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the Minister of National Revenue will have to stand up for himself, but I can point to at least one newspaper that is extending its sympathy to him. But the Minister of Finance, even in the face

of this universal outcry, expressed in strong but nevertheless extremely accurate terms, has decided that he will not submit to losing face. That is not ever accepted by this government opposite. Anything is better than that the government should lose face!
Sir, we hear mention made in this house from time to time of the word "protection". Well, sir, I remind hon. members of several of those expressions applied to this tax by the press-the Liberal press, "protectionist", "unadulterated protectionism", "economic nationalism in a particularly dangerous form", "Liberal principles well prostituted". Even last night the Minister of Finance had a lecture to read to the house on the subject of protection. Now, I suppose, sir, I would not be permitted to refer to that debate. It was a debate on another measure, and that measure is passed, the debate is closed and I cannot refer to it.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Don't.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me suggest to you, sir, that any member of this house who is looking for a first-class, patent contradiction by the Minister of Finance when speaking on August 6 and the Minister of Finance when speaking on August 7, ought to go back and read what the minister said at pages 7106 and 7108 of Hansard. It must be the month of January in the Liberal calendar because the minister has been looking opposite ways consecutive days.
There is a remark that I think ought to be made on the subject of our relations with our neighbour to the south, sir. The minister has said this is not an anti-American measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the supreme hypocrisy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister must be aware of the fact that his proposed tax has been roundly denounced in many of the leading United States newspapers in their editorial columns.


James Sinclair: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister would do well to go back and see what is thought of his pet tax in the United States as reflected in the editorial columns of some of the leading and most highly respected dailies published in the United States.


James Sinclair: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The house heard the minister make passing reference tonight to the subject of exemptions. It is true that from this tax there will be exempted periodicals the editorial material of which is devoted particularly to religious or medical purposes. I
Excise Tax Act
am glad the minister has inserted that exemption in his bill; to that extent his bill departs from but is an improvement upon his resolution. I think it also indicates at least a little afterthought on the part of the minister after the introduction of his budget.
Perhaps it is too much to expect that this may have been remembered, but I wish to remind the minister that in speaking in the budget debate on March 27 I had something to say to him on this particular subject, because I was aware then of a particular medical publication that would be affected by his measure and I thought it was not likely to be unique in that respect.
The publication I had in mind was Modern Medicine of Canada, a very highly respected medical publication which has been published in Canada since 1946 and which has a British edition with Canadians on the editorial board. This publication because of having a British edition would have been affected by this tax and I could not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would propose to apply a tax such as this on a magazine of this type. I therefore said, as reported at page 2650 of Hansard for March 27:
We do not like discriminatory taxes. There have been protests already from the United States sources and there have been many Canadian protests. As was inevitable, there are some magazines which evidently were not within the thought of the minister when he proposed this tax and which are now pointing out that they are going to be affected by it. They are not among those which were referred to in the press or in the talk that went on around the corridors. Of such are magazines whose chief purpose is such as the dissemination of medical information, magazines edited by competent medical sources.
The Minister of Finance cut into my remarks at that point to say:


Walter Edward Harris: I have had no intimation or indication of a magazine that I had not thought of.
If the minister had thought of this particular magazine at that time I am amazed that he did not provide for an exemption in his resolution. I think it is more likely that he had not heard of this particular magazine up to that time and was not aware of the effect that his tax was going to have upon it; and now that he is aware of it he has taken the proper course of introducing an exemption in the bill.
However, sir, the lesson that ought to be drawn from that episode surely is this: There may be other magazines which will be affected by this tax that we are not aware of here and now. I think it points again to the dangers inherent in such a tax. There may be many more worthy magazines which will turn up that may be affected; not commercial magazines at all but professional

Excise Tax Act
magazines or other worthy non-commercial types of magazines which none of us may have in mind at the moment.
We are faced with the necessity of making a decision on a new tax, an unprecedented tax, a roundly renounced tax. This is not a tax that is being applied at the outset of a new undertaking in Canada. This is not a case of saying to persons who might be contemplating the opening up of Canadian editions of their magazines in Canada, "We are taking note of the fact that you are introducing something new, are engaging in a new enterprise; if you do that we are going to tax you." No, this is a case of applying a new and discriminatory tax to an enterprise that has been in operation and is established. The effects of discrimination under circumstances like that are all the more reprehensible.
I say, sir, that the minister has not been fair in this matter. By his coy and evasive answers in the house, by the elusive tactics he has practised with reference to this resolution ever since it was introduced nearly five months ago, the minister has left those who are going to be affected by this tax wondering whether or not he intended to proceed with the tax. We think they should not be made to suffer for the indecision or the procrastination -whichever it may be; perhaps both-of the minister.
Having regard to the fact that advertising contracts, as the minister must know, are written months in advance, I think that if he is determined to proceed with the tax and if the majority of this house should regrettably support him in this intent he ought to give consideration to deferring the operation of it for some further period to give an adequate opportunity to those who are going to be affected to make their forward contracts.
The bill is going to give wide powers to the Minister of National Revenue to make regulations with respect to the tax. We do not like that kind of legislation.
Let me say this, sir, in conclusion. We as a party do not yield to any party or anybody in this country in our concern for the fostering in Canada of a truly Canadian culture. It is quite true, as the minister has said, that the relationship between Canada and the United States in this particular is probably unique in all the world, with a great country alongside a smaller country speaking the same language.


James Sinclair: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have shown our concern on many an occasion that this country should be strictly Canadian in its outlook. The expedient to which the minister has resorted
lMr. Fleming.]
in this instance, however, is not the method to preserve and foster Canadian culture and to resist what may be thought to be the overpowering influence of United States thought on Canadian thought and habit.
And so, sir, while we give our support to all the other provisions of this bill, so far as the proposed tax on advertising matter is concerned we oppose that new tax with all our might. We sincerely hope that before this bill emerges from the committee of the whole the house will give us its support in eliminating that discriminatory and unjustifiable tax from this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will only reply briefly to some of the more obviously incorrect remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) beginning with the one in which he referred to my answer to him in the course of his speech on the budget debate.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I was completely aware of the medical journal he refers to and I had given careful consideration to it before the budget address was delivered. We had decided at that time that medical journals and in particular this one would be the kind we would exempt from tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister-


Walter Edward Harris: The reason we did not put it in the resolution, however, was that at that time we were concerned to have a definition of the type of exemption we had in mind and while we knew we would exempt medical journals and thought it likely we would exempt religious journals, as we have done, we were concerned as to precisely how we might define the exemption. I can assure the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that when I interrupted him I did not do so for the purpose of pulling the wool over his eyes because he finds it difficult to see some things in any event.
Secondly, both the hon. member for Eglinton and the Acting Leader of the Opposition seem to have some kind of faint cry of help for the Canadian publishing industry though they wanted it to be their particular kind of medicine that the industry would have. There was a nostalgic appeal to the Bennett regime and the way they had taken action to impose a tax on all magazines coming into Canada. If there ever was a tax that could be described as a tax on ideas it would have been that one and not the present tax.
This party when it attained office in 1935 repealed that tax and I am glad to know that

while I listened pretty intently I did not discern very much evidence in either speech which would indicate that they thought we were putting a tax on ideas at this particular time. It is true that in some of the editorial comment immediately after the budget address that idea was given a good deal of credence, that this was a tax on ideas, and the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) used that considerably in her address, but that idea is dissipated with the knowledge of what the tax is intended to do in connection with the magazines on which it is to apply. No one has suggested that we are impeding the flow of ideas; indeed I do not think that assertion can now be made in the light of what is intended by the legislation.
This afternoon the Acting Leader of the Opposition used the word discriminatory, and so did the hon. member for Eglinton tonight. He made the point that the Bennett legislation applied to all magazines coming into Canada, and that that was not discrimination, whereas this is because it applies not to those coming in from abroad but to what we call the special edition magazines. I pointed out to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) that when he referred to what Mr. King had done in 1935 or thereabouts he was referring to editions that did not exist at that time. The present so-called special editions did not start in Canada until 1942 or 1943 and this was not a problem with which Mr. King had to contend, nor even Mr. Bennett for that matter. We have it on our hands now because it has developed in that time and it has developed in a way which I do not think anyone in either 1931 or 1935 could have foreseen. I think the purpose of the tax is perfectly clear and if I did not make it clear to the hon. member for Eglinton, I shall do so now.
The tax is made necessary because of the fact-this fact is not disputed by anyone, not even the Canadian association of advertisers, about which more in a moment-that the peculiar nature of the special editions makes the editorial cost of producing material infinitely lower than that of the Canadian publication. That is the purpose of the tax, and perhaps the only purpose because in some manner, as I said in the course of my remarks earlier tonight, there will be equalization from this tax.
Reference has been made to the letter written to me by the Canadian association of advertisers. I interjected during the course of the reading of that letter to point out that the association expressly disavowed any intention or desire or perhaps ability to solve the problem with which we
Excise Tax Act
were contending. They said that they had no comment to make on how to deal with this particular matter. When they called on me they reiterated what they had said in the letter. Their one contention was, and I am glad the hon. member for Eglinton mentioned it, that this being a tax, as they put it, on advertising, where as it can hardly be described as that, they as an association of advertisers would have to object. They conceded the problem with which we were faced but they said that this was not the way to solve it and went on from there to suggest the reason why there ought to be other ways of dealing with it than the one we had in mind.
So did the special edition representatives.
I do not intend to say in the house what they said to me except this one thing. They suggested that the only alternative they could think of, and they were free to agree that the Canadian publishing business probably did require-perhaps that is too strong a word-they agreed that if we had in mind assisting them, obviously there was a case for it. Their only suggestion was that we should reduce the postal rates in Canada in favour of the Canadian publishing houses and leave the postal rates on the special editions higher. I have already disposed of that.
I appreciate hon. members' desire to curtail the debate and I intend to follow that desire. It would seem to me that the only objection that has been raised in real essence by hon. members opposite is that we should have resorted to a tax on the inflow of magazines of all kinds from abroad such as they had-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that has not been suggested.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps that is too strong. In each case the hon. gentleman representing his party's position referred to what had been done in 1931 and also went on to say- I think I am quoting correctly-that if it had been desired to do something then, and then they went on to what I thought was still approval of a general tax on the importation of magazines into Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Definitely not.


Walter Edward Harris: I am glad to know that over a period of 25 years we have converted the hon. member for Eglinton to our way of thinking. The Canadian publishing business has thrived, as has been indicated tonight. I placed on the record figures to show that circulation has increased since the war. I do not think there is a business in Canada that has not prospered since the war, especially because of the policies of this

Excise Tax Act
government, and it would not be unexpected that the publishing business would gain in prosperity during that time along with other industries. But may I remind hon. members of what I said in the course of moving second reading about an hour ago, that despite the increase in circulation and despite the increase in advertising revenues, these magazines lost money last year. That is the chief reason why I am urging upon the house the carriage of this particular item.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister give us a detailed explanation now that we have the details before us of just what this change accomplishes? I have the act in its present form before me and frankly I am not able to see that the explanatory note covers fully the change.


Mr. Benidickson:: The explanatory note indicates that we are deleting from part 1 of the Excise Tax Act the reference to the 2 per cent premium tax on insurance companies. What will remain in the statute will be simply the provision with respect to filing returns and the remaining section 4 of the bill which deals with the tax on persons placing insurance with foreign companies that are not authorized to do business by provincial or federal regulations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why is not section 3 (a) deleted or repealed?


William Moore Benidickson: I think that will be clear in later sections.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the present time it pays 2 per cent tax within Canada, does it not? Then, if subsection (a) is not repealed, by what legal provision of the bill will that company be exempt from paying the tax in Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: It is simply a definition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but you are not repealing the taxing provision of section 4. In section 4 you say:
(1)	Every person resident in Canada who insures property situated in Canada, in which he has an insurable interest otherwise than as an insurer . . .
(2)	For the purposes of this section, every corporation carrying on business in Canada shall be deemed to be a person resident in Canada.
Such a company is defined in the present act and would be liable to pay tax.


William Moore Benidickson: No, under the provisions of the bill the only tax will be the 10 per

cent tax on net premiums of a company that is considered to be unauthorized to do business in Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister any figures as to how much of such business has been done in Canada in the past? What is the percentage of Canadian insurance written by companies outside as compared with companies licensed within Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: I have no figures as to the proportion of the business done by unauthorized companies as such in Canada, but I have figures as to the amount of premium taxes that have been collected in the last five fiscal years from such companies. In the last fiscal year, 1955-56, the premium tax was $32,000 as against a tax on authorized companies of something in excess of $15 million.


George Hugh Castleden: Are those companies mostly in the United States or are they European companies?


William Moore Benidickson: They could be anywhere. I think that basically they are sought out when insurance cannot be placed through one of the companies that are licensed in Canada. Certainly we should keep some control over insurance of any kind that is insuring Canadian property.


George Hugh Castleden: I would agree with that, but it is a matter of whether this business is being done in the United States or in European countries. If you are collecting that tax, or if these returns are coming in and these premiums have been paid, you ought to know where the insurance has been placed.


William Moore Benidickson: The tax, of course, is upon the person resident in Canada who is insured. I do not happen to have the distribution of the companies with whom that is placed, but all Canadian agents and brokers are required to file with the superintendent of insurance a report as to any unauthorized insurance company with whom they have made contracts for Canadians.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that the reason for this provision is because of the arrangement concluded with the provinces undev the fiscal agreements. Is the minister or his assistant in a position to assure us that, apart from those companies not authorized to do business in Canada, referred to in section 4, the 2 per cent tax on all other insurance companies carrying on business in Canada is repealed by this provision?


William Moore Benidickson: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 2-Tax on insurance with British or foreign company.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Whilst the general purpose of clause 2 is clear and the explanatory notes are clear, the details of the individual amendments, I think, call for a little explanation. Some of these certainly do not arise directly out of the repeal of the taxation provisions as applied to Canadian insurance companies. Some other textual amendments have been introduced for some reason or other. What is the reason?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend is referring to the slight amendments that have been made in these statutes that replace the former. In particular I would refer him to section 5(2). There is there an extension of the time for filing the return of only five days. Then the word "immediately" results from the fact that there was not a clear cut requirement under the former statute to pay the tax within the year after the premium was paid. It could possibly have been required during any of the years in which the premium was earned. That is being cleared up.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause	3-Definitions.	"Editorial
material".
Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the principal clause of the bill in our view, and of course, before the clause is disposed of, we shall wish to divide the committee of the whole on it. Before the vote is put, as it will be a straight negative and not simply an amendment, there are a few questions I should like to put to the minister. Has he in mind introducing any amendments to the clause?


Mr.   Karris@: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has he not given consideration to enlargement of the exemption? For instance, on page 3, at line 23, the exemption now applies simply to: a periodical if the editorial material contained therein is devoted principally to religious or medical purposes.
Has he given consideration to including, say, educational purposes?


Walter Edward Harris: To answer this and the reference that the hon. member made in the course of his speech, I would say that we have examined as carefully as we can all the special editions that either are now in existence or have been. There are some that have been in existence before and are not now. We did not find any of other than a religious or medical nature. This is not to say that there may not have been some slight variation, but they have been, as far
Excise Tax Act
as we have been able to make out, of a religious or medical nature alone. If an educational one or a scientific one is established, I would have to consider that and bring it before the house in the future, but I think the committee can take it that, as far as I know, they do not exist at the moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even if they do not exist at the moment, there is the admitted possibility, if not likelihood, that such magazines in the future might come within the terms of the taxing provisions. Surely it would not be the wish of the minister to apply this tax in such a case. Would it not be better to introduce such a provision now?


Walter Edward Harris: No, because it is quite easy to use the word "educational" and think in terms of the most advantageous kind of periodical that one could have for the teaching of young people and adults, but on the other hand the use of the word in itself would indicate almost any subject whatever. Anything at all is educational; I cannot imagine something that is not. Our difficulty would be to say what is educational and what is not. So for that reason I consciously decided that we should not attempt it until we found something which clearly was within that, and then we would consider whether it would be exempt or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the word "educational" has to be interpreted by the government in many statutes, and it is no more difficult of interpretation than many other words that the government has to interpret all the time, such as "philanthropic".


Walter Edward Harris: I would concede right now that the Reader's Digest is educational.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid that the minister
and I are not going to progress very far, then, in trying to improve the exempting provisions in that respect.
Another question I raised was as to whether the minister, in view of the delay that has occurred and with all the uncertainty that has been created by silence, is still determined to make the tax effective on January 1, 1957?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There has been no difficulty and there has been no uncertainty but if my hon. friend feels that repetition of questions in the house directed to the presentation of a bill which had been forecast in the budget speech is delay, I am afraid I will have to let him have that opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister say how it is proposed to set the value of the advertising material referred to in paragraph 9, the

Excise Tax Act
value in whose hands, the value to the magazine or the value to the advertising agency that places the account or the net cost to the advertiser? How is that going to be assessed?


Walter Edward Harris: It is the net income to the magazine. It is the net value of the advertising since there is a commission which comes off it before it is remitted to the magazine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the net receipt to the magazine for the sale of the space.


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one other thing. Will the magazine itself be responsible for paying the tax or will the agency which places the advertising have to pay the tax at the time of its receipt of the money from the advertising, or how is that to be handled?


Walter Edward Harris: We do not intend to ask the advertising agency to deduct the tax. We will have to assess the companies and make arrangements with them as to the manner in which we can assess the tax.


William McLean Hamilton: Since this is going to be a straight affirmative or negative vote, I should like to put one or two other points before the minister that may still persuade him to change his mind. I should also like to take issue with one or two statements he made earlier in the debate. In the first instance, the minister suggested that this was not really a tax on advertising. I do not think it can be called anything else and I suggest to him that is one of the principal reasons why the business community of Canada has taken such strong exception to the tax.
Paragraph 9 refers to a tax of 20 per cent of the value of advertising material contained therein. It is a tax on advertising, and the greatest lubricant, the greatest single force responsible for taking the goods produced by our modern economy and making them available to more and more people has been advertising and merchandising. I think most of us will agree with that. Therefore anything which tends to increase the cost of advertising and make it more expensive tends to decrease its utility and usefulness and to impede our industrial progress and our progress as individuals towards higher standards of living. I am not going to labour the point because I see the minister nodding his head which I hope means he agrees with me, but basically because this tax is looked upon as a tax on advertising it is viewed with considerable distress, opposition and antagonism by the majority of business in Canada, and

I think that has been reflected in the editorials that have appeared in the papers and in the representations which have been made to the minister.
Having said that, I should like to refer to the fact that the minister made certain statements regarding the very poor position in recent years of certain Canadian publications. He has an advantage over us in that respect because practically all these organizations are closely owned and do not publish their financial statements, as the minister knows. Therefore he has information which is not generally available. I would point out to him. however, that in at least one or two cases such as Saturday Night Press, which does publish a financial statement, their publishing business is only a portion of their overall operation, and while there has been no indication that that particular company is doing well there has been no indication either that the blame may be laid at the door of their publishing business. It could very well be because of their printing business.
But turning to the minister's specific worries about the growing difficulties which these companies have been experiencing over the last four years, some of these companies have published observations on their progress and we find statements like this in Canadian Advertising for March, 1956:
Maclean's . . . are today harvesting sweet fruits . . . advertising investment in Maclean's is up 117 per cent since 1950.
In the same edition of Canadian Advertising the Wallace Publishing Company states:
Jet propulsion . . . when in the brief span of a decade a company grows to 25 times its original size.
Weekend magazine states in the March 23, 1956 issue of Marketing:
Weekend magazine in 1955 topped all other magazines in advertising dollar volume.
Floyd Chalmers, president of Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company, states in the Financial Post of May 23, 1955:
For the 13th successive year Maclean-Hunter has shown an increase in gross business over the previous year .	.	. gross revenue was $16-2
million.
Mark this:
Since the beginning of 1955 two publications have been started .	.	. we now publish four
national magazines.
The Financial Post of March 26, 1956 reports the following:
Canadian magazines have sold $17-4 million worth of advertising space in 1955-$1-3 million over the previous year.

Finally, Marketing for January 13, 1956 reports:
There's a good year ahead for magazines . . . some of the more optimistic publishers see dollar boosts of from 20 per cent to 50 per cent . . . Magazines roll out the red carpet.
I suggest to the minister that in the light of such remarks those people who have persuaded him that Canadian publications generally have been experiencing growing difficulties during the past four years may have overemphasized their particular situation to him. It is very easy. The minister has heard these representations, but to the best of my knowledge and that of the trade he heard them almost primarily from the one side and not from the other.
The minister suggested that the government had done their best to channel advertising revenue into Canadian magazines in order to help them. It was only last Friday that we noted and passed in the house an expenditure of $980,000 for travel advertising in magazines by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and every cent of that was specifically dedicated to United States magazines. A portion of ihat money could well have been spent in Canada to persuade Canadians to travel in their own country rather than go south of the border. If that is an example of the help which the government has been giving to Canadian magazines, I do not think it is very realistic and I must doubt that the minister's colleagues have actually been supporting him in this idea he has put forward.
The minister indicated his concern over the growing circulation in Canada of general magazines from outside Canada. Unfortunately I have not got any statistics at hand on the growth of circulation of magazines from outside our borders, but I would suggest to the minister that the growth of Canadian publications has not been too poor.
Twenty years ago Canadian periodicals sold 1,059,000 copies a month. Ten years ago they sold 10,899,000 copies a month, and last year Canadian periodicals sold 18,173,000 copies a month. These are very sizeable increases. They represent a growth of more than four times in 20 years, a growth which has far outstripped our Canadian population.
It rather indicates that despite whatever circulation increase may have been achieved by United States magazines, our Canadian magazines have also been doing well in that field.
The minister also indicated that the tax was designed to assist not the publishing house but the magazine. The only way in which I can deal with that argument is to say that it sounds to me like doubletalk
Excise Tax Act
because every magazine is owned by a publishing house and is controlled by it; and any assistance which goes to a magazine goes equally to a publishing house.
Fourth, in dealing with the minister's statement I would point out that he speaks about his worries with regard to the total disappearance of the few remaining magazines of general interest here in Canada. In that connection-and again to show the minister that the Canadian publishing industry has been doing quite well on its own feet-I would point out to him that in 1935 there were 57 Canadian consumer magazines of one sort and another.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I know that under present conditions I should not be interrupting anybody but may I say that I think this is a second-reading speech. My hon. friend will probably agree with me. While I would be agreeable to having him continue, I would agree on the understanding that we do not get into second-reading speeches on this matter on the assumption that we want to have a decision on this matter before we are obliged to adjourn in view of the later proceedings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not a second-reading speech, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is advancing reasons why we should vote against the section.


William McLean Hamilton: In
dealing with the minister's point of order, may I say that I deliberately held back this material until we reached this point. We had the resolution which carried a number of items. We had a bill which carried a number of items. It was and is my intention to try to persuade this house to vote against a particular clause in this bill. We have now reached that clause and I am putting forward reasons why this house should vote against it, without becoming involved with the question of excise tax, sales tax or anythin else. It seems to me that it is the most orderly way to do it. Perhaps the minister will now allow me to proceed. I may say that I promise that I will be through before ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: I hope the hon. member will be through sometime before ten o'clock, inasmuch as we must conclude before ten o'clock.


William McLean Hamilton: As
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, in 1935 there were 57 Canadian consumer magazines. T' 1945 there were seventy and by 1955 ther^ were 103. In the field of business and trade publications for the same three years, the numbers rose from 208 to 305 to 465. I suggest

Excise Tax Act
that those figures show the minister that the magazines are not disappearing from the Canadian market but rather that they are coming more and more into the Canadian market and that the publishing industry in Canada is well able to look after itself.
Just today, Mr. Chairman, figures came to me indicating that, despite this difficult position which the minister puts forward for the Canadian publishing industry, they are able to compete and are actually able to raise their advertising rates. If you are able to raise your rates, that is an indication that you are in a strongly competitive position. In the first six months of this year, of our Canadian consumer magazines there were 9 which increased their rates and one which decreased them. Of our business publications there were 30 which increased their rates and none which decreased them. Those figures would seem to indicate strongly, Mr. Chairman, that our Canadian magazines are successfully meeting this competition and that in most cases at this point they do not need this type of protection which is so invidious and so unsatisfactory, as was pointed out by my colleagues.
I am not going to labour the point further, Mr. Chairman, but there is one thing I hope I shall not hear from a government which has at one stroke with this tax done grievous harm to two fine publications, namely Reader's Digest and Time magazine plus a number of others which are less well known. I hope that same government is not going to come out and, under the guise of talking about what they have done for Canadian culture, leave the Canadian public with the impression that their attack has been directed against Modern Detective Stories, True Love Stories, Esquire, The Police Gazette, Modern Scientific Stories and many others-I could give the minister a list of 100 publications of that sort-which are flowing across the border into Canada every day and which are contributing nothing to our culture, to our advancement or to our civilization. Instead of taking any broad approach to this matter, the minister has singled out the two publications I have mentioned in the full knowledge that one of them has been one of our best Canadian industries and businesses, spending over $6 million a year in this country and employing over 600 Canadians. To my way of thinking, Mr. Chairman, it is something of which this government can be little proud.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to express my own personal views on this matter very briefly. A while ago, on the resolution stage, I asked the minister what criterion or method would be used to define the words "the same or substantially the same" as they

refer to the editorial material in the so-called special editions. His answer was far from satisfactory. In addition to that, I feel that this is definitely a protectionist move disguised as something different. It is an attempt to tax the advertising of the special editions in order to fulfil the avowed purpose set out by the minister himself, namely to assist Canadian magazines which, he said, were losing money. We have no figures to show that they are losing money but we must take his word for that.
What I do not like in that respect is the special statement "to assist Canadian magazines". There are many desirable Canadian magazines that I should like this government or any other government to assist. But when you say "to assist Canadian magazines" and stop there, what does that mean? Does that mean that every Canadian magazine printed and published in Canada is a desirable magazine, so much so that it is more desirable than is anything printed in these special editions? The minister does not think so and I do not think so. Yet, without any way of separating them, this is a move to assist all Canadian magazines, some of which may be absolute trash. There are some that are trash and we know it. Why should we make a blanket provision to assist any kind of literature published in Canada just because it happens to be published in Canada? As a matter of fact, I have seen some Canadian publications which contain nothing more Canadian than many of the United States editions that come to this country. That is one ground on which I feel that this is a clumsy and deceptive provision.
In the second place, what would be the effect of taxing this advertising? It may not be of any assistance whatever-in the long run-to the Canadian public because, if this protection goes through, and if the Canadian magazines wish to take advantage of the fact that there is that protection on this type of advertising, the result may be that they will just raise their advertising rates and take up the slack or take up the difference, and then the competitive position will disappear. Personally I do not think that this tax will have any effect on the number of special editions sold in Canada. All it will mean is that there will be a higher cost to the consumer of that material in Canada. Then, on another ground, and to me this is rather important, it is left to the Minister of National Revenue to define or to decide what is meant by the term, "the same or substantially the same". With all due respect to the Minister of National Revenue, either the present one or any other minister, I do not think that he is competent to decide what is meant by the words, "the

same or substantially the same", when it comes to editorial material.
Then, there is exemption for material which is principally for religious or medical purposes. Well, the hon. member for Eglinton has already pointed out that here you have wide-open possibility for discrimination. Why not educational material? For that matter, why not scientific? There are many people who might think that scientific material is far more important than medical material. Why not agricultural material, and so on? There is almost an endless list that you could add to that. I think it is' leaving much too much discrimination in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue, and it is a clumsy and half-baked way in which to try to do something which might be desirable but which, in my opinion, this one certainly does not accomplish.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question? Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 76; nays, 25.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the clause carried.
Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 7-


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any apologies for standing up, but I do undertake to make my remarks brief. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear the minister's statement on the reasons for deleting the words ''soil pipe for buildings", being item 1(e) in the original draft, and I wonder whether he might repeat in brief what he said this afternoon?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I said that we had decided in the budget address and in the resolutions as tabled to extend the exemptions for soil pipe from the sales tax to include soil pipe other than soil pipe made of cast iron, which is the present exemption. In saying that, I hoped that we could carry it out, but subsequent investigations showed that soil pipe not made of cast iron can be used, and is being used, for purposes other than in a building, and we did not intend to extend the exemption to that kind of soil pipe. Therefore, I am withdrawing the proposed new wording so that the law will continue to be in the form that it has been with regard to soil pipe. The cast iron soil pipe will continue to be exempt, and we shall continue to study the other question to see if we can find a method of exempting from tax any soil pipe that goes into a house.


John Borden Hamilton: I gather it is the intention of the minister to pursue that
7183
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration problem so that other material such as copper used for the specific purpose might-


James Sinclair: For soil pipe?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes, for soil pipe-might obtain the same type of exemption as cast iron.


Walter Edward Harris: We have that in mind, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have one question on the schedule. What consideration has been given to the suggestion made from time to time that lieutenants governors of the provinces should receive an exemption comparable to that of His Excellency the Governor General and certain diplomatic missions? I know their obligations are the same, but they pay the full price for everything they use in the discharge of those obligations.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not suppose that they are a pressure group because I have not heard from them in this respect, but I shall look into the question. I must say it has not come to my notice that any such request had been made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say there has been. I said "suggestions" not "request". I doubt whether lieutenant governors would feel themselves free to make a request formally, but I have heard the matter discussed from time to time. I know it is a real problem, and something which the minister should consider.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
65. Administration of the Immigration Act. $950,650.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fraser Valley was kind enough to say that I could take a moment or two, before he proceeded with his remarks, so that my remarks could be in the same Hansard as the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops about the Spalding case to give the real facts of this case in fairness to a
7184	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration conscientious officer of the department who,
I admit, did make a mistake.
Now, the facts are that this woman came to Canada from Australia with an infant son less than a year old; that she had deserted her husband and two other children; that she arrived


Mr, Fulton:: On a question of privilege, the minister said he was going to give the real facts. If he says that, why does he not do it? That was not the finding of the court of Australia and that is not the situation. Why does the minister further attempt to blacken the reputation of an innocent woman about whom the courts have found that his department made a mistake.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might listen to me in silence as I listened to him, and if he has anything to say in reply I will be very glad to accord him exactly the same courtesy.
This case has been grossly misrepresented on a number of occasions and I intend to stick very strictly to the facts that are a matter of record.
I have not said anything about anything that did not happen. The fact is that this woman arrived without her husband. She admitted at the inquiry that her passage had been paid by someone else. She did not have a return ticket; she had no money and no visible means of support, and it was quite proper in my view for the spetial inquiry officer to find that she was the sort of person who was likely to become a public charge.
Now, I admit that technically the officer did not carry out the proceedings of the inquiry in the way in which they should have been carried out, and that was very unfortunate. But these are the facts of this case. This women subsequently hired a lawyer in Vancouver who took the case into the courts and won the case for her and I have no criticism of that whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: I hope not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I have a criticism of something else. This woman asserted that she was seeking a divorce in Australia for the purpose of marrying this man who had paid her passage. It would seem to me that this was a pretty material fact and that, when she got the divorce and married, this information should have been conveyed promptly to the department. As soon as we did get the information we proceeded to process the case at some expense to the taxpayers, and I think it is very probable that she will be landed quite soon. I understand the medical examination has not yet been completed.
fMr. Pickersgill.]

I think that anyone hearing these facts would agree this is not the sort of person we are supposed to be looking for as an immigrant. Our immigration policy is not designed to go about seeking women who have deserted their husbands and families and come to this country with infants and without visible means of support; and these are the facts of the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I just make a brief reply. It will not take me more than two or three minutes to set the facts as they actually are on the record.
This lady left Australia having placed her two elder children with her mother under arrangements which were subsequently confirmed by the courts in Australia on the hearing of the divorce application. It was her intention and it still is to bring those two elder children over to Canada after her status here has been regularized and this is what the minister chooses to call-apparently in an attempt to continue to defend himself and his department-deserting her husband and children.
The minister has absolutely no respect for the courts because the proper judges of the moral character of the woman and her evidence in this regard are the courts. The minister and his department condemned her on hearsay without giving her a proper judicial inquiry as was found by the appeal court of British Columbia.
That is the essence of our objection; not that the department does occasionally have to exercise some judgment as to whether or not people are admissible-it has to do that *-but our objection is that the department exercises the judgment without giving the subject of the inquiry a proper right to state his or her case. Had that right been given in this instance this misunderstanding and the ghastly consequences from the point of view of the woman's reputation and peace of mind would never have taken place. This is true not only of the Brent case but it is true also of other cases.
We have pointed out to the minister that his department proceeds on a wrong principle in carrying out its investigations; not that there should not be an investigation but that the department proceeds on a wrong principle in carrying out the investigations.
In fairness to the hon. member for Fraser Valley I will say no more tonight but we will have some more to say about this in the subsequent discussion of the minister's estimates and about the principle involved of which this case is an illustration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, the facts
speak for themselves.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to take very long tonight in making my observations but I would like to say the reason why I am not going to take so very long is not the reason given in an article in the newspapers today which stated that the Social Crediters are always complaining about the business of the house going so slowly.
I do not think we have been doing too much complaining. We have been participating in the debates and have been doing our best to present the views of our constituents. Certainly, however, we do not feel that we have to prolong the proceedings and consume needless time. Therefore, it is not because of what appeared in the papers today that I am going to make my remarks as briefly as I possibly can.
At the outset I would like to state my appreciation to the minister and his officials of the courtesy and dispatch with which my representations have been dealt from time to time. When I have had occasion to make representations to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration I have always found the officials extremely co-operative and courteous and I wish to place my appreciation on the record at this point.
I want to speak very briefly with regard to the subject under discussion, immigration.
I feel that immigration should be accelerated.
I am not pleading tonight for a wide-open policy but I think there are some substantial reasons why the inflow of immigrants should be accelerated and this can be done without causing dislocation in our economy to any great extent.
It would seem to me that one reason we should have an increase in the immigration rate is because of the necessity for domestic markets for our products. In a country such as ours, with a population of approximately 16 million, we can readily understand that our costs are high because of the limited market we have. From time to time we have been told that if we had a larger domestic market the prices would go down on Canadian products. I think that is one valid reason why we should set our sights on an increase in the flow of immigrants and should encourage those who are suitable to come to our country.
Another reason I would like to suggest tonight relates to defence. With our vast areas and long borders we can readily understand how serious a situation would confront us in the event of war with the limited manpower we have in Canada. I would suggest that is another valid reason for increasing immigration into Canada.
67509-456J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
There is another reason and it is this. In view of the vast size of our country and the relatively small population we have it would seem to me, looking at it from a Christian point of view, that we in this great country ought to be willing to share it with those who are less fortunate and are anxious to make their homes here.
There is perhaps one more reason. It may be that circumstances will force us in the near future to recognize the necessity of opening our doors to more immigrants. I do not think we can forever keep to ourselves this wonderful country of ours. If we are not willing to open the doors a little and accept people into our country to a greater extent than we are at the present time, then it is possible the day will arrive when someone will seize the opportunity of moving, despite our attitude toward their doing so.
For the reasons I have mentioned I would suggest that immigration be stepped up not to the extent, as I say, that it would dislocate our economy but in an orderly fashion that would build up our population as well as provide homes for those who desire to take up residence in Canada.
Earlier in this debate a question was raised concerning not giving a reason to those who are denied entry into Canada or permanent residence here. I believe this causes uneasiness on the part of a great many people who would otherwise want to spend the rest of their lives here in Canada.
Just the other day I had several visitors, some of whom were taking the civil defence course at Arnprior. One man approached me and, referring to a certain case, wanted to know why that person had been denied the privilege of remaining in Canada. I had not heard of the incident and I told him that I did not know. He said that no doubt there must be a reason and he felt that if that man could be ordered out of the country without any reason being given then perhaps he might be the next on the list, that they might come along and tell him that he could not stay in Canada and yet give him no reason. He contended that the reason for such action should be given.
My main reason for rising on this occasion is to speak on behalf of Canadian citizens of East Indian origin. This matter has been referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East and what I say now I say on behalf of the members from British Columbia who belong to this particular group. In that way we hope to curtail the debate somewhat. This matter has been referred to and broached on a number of occasions but was brought

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration most clearly to our attention by a brief submitted by the East Indian Canadian citizens welfare association.


William Alfred Robinson: Before the hon. member commences that brief I wonder if this might be a convenient time to interrupt him. I think it was agreed that the committee would rise at this time and report progress.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon) wishes to ask leave to revert to the presenting of reports; is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Nixon.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the Indian Act, then go into committee of the whole on the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and then estimates of citizenship and immigration and trade and commerce.
It being five minutes to ten the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose): 1.	What type of heating systems are used in the following federal buildings: Sudbury public building; mines and technical surveys building, Ottawa; forest products laboratory, Ottawa; and national research council, Ottawa?
2.	Was the type of heating system installed in those buildings the one called for in the original specifications? If not, for what reason?
3.	Who were the engineers in charge of the construction of each of the above-mentioned buildings?
4.	Did any of the above-mentioned buildings have to be redesigned? If so, under what circumstances and at what cost?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
Sudbury public building:
1.	Hot water heating system using coal-fired low pressure steam boilers and convertors.
2.	Heating system being installed as originally specified.
3.	Architect-Louis Fabbro, Sudbury, Ont. Consulting engineers-Dye Lewis & Co. Ltd., 66 Elm St. E., Sudbury.
4.	No redesign.
Question
Mines and technical surveys building, Ottawa: (Chemical radioactive ores and administration)
1.	Hot water heating system. Heat supplied by steam through convertors. Steam supply from existing central heating plant, using coal and oil.
2.	Heating systems being installed according to original design.
3.	Architects-P.W.D. headquarters staff. Consulting engineers-Leblanc & Montpetit, Montreal, P.Q.
4.	No redesign.
Forest products laboratory, Ottawa:
1.	Hot water heating system. Heat supplied by low pressure steam boilers through convertors. Boilers are coal-fired.
2.	Heating system is according to original design.
3.	Architects-Burgess and McLean, Ottawa. Consulting engineer-J. Klassen, 454 Slater St., Ottawa.
4.	No redesign.
National research council.
New central warehouse:
1.	Hot water heating system. Heat supplied by steam through convertor from central heating plant using coal.
2.	Heating system being installed according to original design.
3.	Architects and engineers-Department of Public Works, headquarters staff.
4.	No redesign.

Wednesday, August 8, 1956



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.