1956-06-19

MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What is the minister's comment on the press report from Edmonton that Senator Croll had declared that credit restrictions on mortgage money for the building of homes will probably be relaxed some time about August 1? Is this prediction correct?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am called upon to comment on speeches made outside the house, but I shall just add that I presume the senator was expressing his own opinion. I am sure he had no knowledge from me as to when the credit restrictions might be changed.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to answer my question of June 15 when I asked:
Under whose authority were Canadian citizens in British Columbia recently subjected to radioactive rainfall, and what measures is the government proposing to take to ensure that Canadians will never again be subjected to that sort of thing?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. gentleman asked me this question the other day I approached him privately because I wanted to have a clear understanding as to precisely what he had in mind. I understand that what he had in mind was that he wanted to know whether or not the government of Canada shared in decisions as to whether experimental atomic detonations would take place. The answer is no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister investigate a report that construction companies engaged on federal work at La Scie, Newfoundland, are working men 60 hours per week with no overtime rates except for hours in excess of 60 hours per week, and that local men are being paid less than men from the mainland for the same work; and will the minister take steps to ensure that proper employment practices are followed ir this area?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. Two contractors are engaged at La Scie, Newfoundland. Gulf Maritime Construction Limited is working on a harbour development project under a contract with the Department of Public Works. This is part of a federal-provincial joint project for the improvement of the harbour and the construction of a fish plant. Terminal Construction Company Limited is working on a project for the United States army corps of engineers.
Wage rates and hours of labour for workers employed on both contracts are governed by the federal Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. The statutory hours of labour under this act are 8 per day and 44 per week. These statutory hours can be extended by the Minister of Labour in emergency circumstances.
On the urgent representations of the parties concerned that emergency conditions existed justifying an extension of the hours worked, both contractors were given authority to extend hours to a maximum of 10 per day and 60 per week. The overtime authority issued to these contractors included the following conditions:
(a)	That no employee be required to work in excess of such maximum hours;
(b)	that penalty overtime rates may be invoked in connection with the provisions of section 2 of the labour conditions forming part of the contract;
(c)	that payroll records be maintained
showing all hours worked by each employee in excess of the statutory hours, and
5160	HOUSE OF
Veterans Business and Professional Loans
(d)	that all subcontractors be informed of these conditions and be required to give effect thereto.
Our Newfoundland officer located at St. John's has been instructed to investigate the complaint that the companies concerned are working their employees in excess of the authorized hours and paying local workers less than mainland workers for the same work. He has also been instructed to investigate and determine whether the companies should be required to pay penalty overtime rates for hours worked in excess of the statutory hours.



INQUIRY AS TO SALE TO DISTRIBUTORS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to ask the Prime Minister if a large quantity of 1955 surplus butter has been sold to large distributors in Canada at much less than the cost price to the government.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I shall have to take the hon.
gentleman's question as notice and inquire from the proper officials who are handling the butter situation. I shall make a reply as soon as I get the information.



VETERANS BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 253, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act-Mr. Harris

Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1.
Mr. Gillis:: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant might give us an explanation of the changes in this bill, and who is affected by them.


Walter Edward Harris: If I may do this, I might say that 1 went into it last evening and made it clear that the persons who would be affected by the amendment would be persons who were entitled to the benefit of the original act and who had applied for that benefit but had the 10-year period elapse before the application was completed. It is a relieving amendment which will help those who, for one reason or another, had left off applying until too late to get the processing done in time.


Mr. Hansell:: The minister mentioned last night that only four cases had been brought


to his attention. I should like to know, for personal reasons, whether the case I brought before him not so long ago is one of those cases, and if he thinks this case comes within the purview of the amended act?


Walter Edward Harris: I must apologize for not having the particular case in mind. I know the name of the gentleman concerned, but I am not familiar enough with the facts to say that it does. I think I can say this. If the veteran my hon. friend has in mind had applied within the 10-year period this will undoubtedly aid him. If he had not applied within the 10-year period, it would not.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 208, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act- Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose previously we were considering clause 5. Shall this clause carry?
On clause 5-False statement in application for loan or misuse of loan.


Mr. Nowlan:: There was an amendment moved in the committee at the last sitting that was before us when the committee rose. I presumed the minister would have some comment to make.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I should read the amendment to refresh the memories of hon. members. It was moved by Mr. Fulton that clause 5 be amended by striking out subsection 2 thereof.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, on the occasion of our previous discussion we had a good deal of explanation of this particular clause, and I stated at the time that I was under the impression this was a necessary provision having in mind the fact that these loans are spread over a good many years and that normally an offence against the act is not known until default may have occurred in the repayment of the amount concerned, and that is why we have the provision in the penalty clause.
I should like to point out to hon. members that this follows the same wording, with only one minor necessary change, contained in section 111 of the Unemployment Insurance

Act. We felt that the circumstances here justified a certificate being granted by the minister under the conditions set out here, or by someone on his behalf, which would act as conclusive proof of the date on which the minister became aware of the offence.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I ask a question here? Is the minister referring to a statement which has to be in writing, following the same language as in the Unemployment Insurance Act, or is he referring to the unlimited period in which a prosecution can be instituted?


Walter Edward Harris: Both. Section 111 has the two subsections, the first one being No. 3 in the bill we are now discussing and the second one being No. 4.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the minister has told us that there is a similar provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am rather surprised that provision is there but, of course, there is a great deal of difference between the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and an act to provide for loans to farmers. There may or may not be justification for that section in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do suggest, as was urged on May 1 when this was last before us, that there is no justification for this section in the present bill. The amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Kamloops should commend itself to the committee and also, I would say, especially to the house leader and to all hon. members.
I can tell the minister, for instance, that we have a similar act to this which was passed last year, namely the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act, and it does not contain any such provision. Yet the situation is parallel, or certainly analogous. In one case loans are made to fishermen, and in the other to farmers. The department and this house did not see fit to include such a provision last year. We have the Canadian Farm Loan Act, which I have gone over rather carefully. There is no provision similar to this or in any way comparable to it in the Canadian Farm Loan Act, although there the loan may run for a period of 25 years, as the minister knows; yet such a provision is not contained therein.
I presume the minister's research staff has given considerable attention to this, and apparently the only matter the minister has been able to turn up which is comparable in wording at least

though I do not think it is comparable as far as the principle of the legislation is concerned-is the provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which I have not had an opportunity to read since he mentioned it. I presume in that case if a man has made false statements and misled
Farm Improvement Loans Act the unemployment insurance commission and thus obtained unemployment insurance when he should not have obtained it, there might be some possible reason for such a provision.
Just to recapitulate for a moment, and without unduly taking the time of the committee, I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that we are considering clause 5 of the bill which re-enacts section 8 of the original act. I shall read the clause which is being reenacted:
Any person who makes a statement in an application for a guaranteed farm improvement loan that is false in any material respect or who uses the proceeds of such loan for a purpose other than that stated in his application, is guilty of an offence-
These are the critical words to which I would draw the attention of the committee. -and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, as you very well appreciate and as those of us who are lawyers appreciate, this invokes the provisions of the summary convictions act, the federal act which is a part of our Criminal Code and therefore we would have the time limits of that act invoked were it not for the succeeding section which goes on to say:
Proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced at any time-
I repeat:
-at any time, within 12 months from the day on which evidence, sufficient in the opinion of the minister to justify prosecution for the offence, comes to his knowledge.
That is the particular point to which I wanted to draw the attention of the committee. As was said the other night, subsection 4 provides for a certificate signed by the minister or by someone authorized by the minister. I think that is going rather far afield, but at the moment I am not quarrelling with that wording. I do realize it is standard practice today, and it is obviously a wise practice. Instead of bringing witnesses before a court and proving certain things you can simply accept the signature. As far as I am concerned I would not quarrel with the signature of the minister or someone authorized on his behalf. What I am quarrelling with and suggesting is wrong and improper is the provision in this bill which permits the prosecution to be brought on at any indefinite time in the future provided it is within 12 months after it has been brought to the minister's attention.
As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out the other night, and I think I did as well, the Criminal Code has a period of limitation. There are various offences under the summary convictions act, and most of those can be prosecuted only within a period

Farm Improvement Loans Act ol six months after the commission of the offence. As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out even in treason, which is a capital offence-or was under the old code and I suspect it still is although I have not checked it; in any case it is one of the most serious offences with which a man can be charged-the information must be laid and the prosecution instituted within three years from the date of the commission of the offence. Here you have a section which says a man may be prosecuted within 12 months after it has come to the attention of the minister and it may not come to the minister's attention until 10 or 15 years after the alleged offence has been committed. The minister said it would not be advisable to have this extended, but I do not accept that for a moment.
I would point out that as I see it there is nothing in this section which ties in with the time limit even after the expiration of the loan. In other words a farmer may have repaid a loan, we will say within eighteen months, and then forgotten about it; yet under this bill it would be theoretically possible to bring a prosecution eight years afterwards. I am not saying, and the minister knows this very well, that a responsible minister of this government is likely to do such a thing. We realize that practical common sense will probably be applied to the application of this legislation, but I am asking if that is a satisfactory answer to this committee.
We are establishing a precedent here. I admit that there may have possibly been an unfortunate precedent established in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, but if so two wrongs do not make a right. The mere fact that we happened to have made a mistake, if we did make one, is no reason why we should make another.
The Minister of Finance, the house leader, has been a practising lawyer. He has been brought up in the school of our law and has carried on a country practice. He knows the general background of this whole problem. I suggest to him as a man with that background and with that training-I know he cannot answer personally, but I am putting it to him that he knows the answer-that a provision such as this is not in keeping with our concept of the law and would establish a most unfortunate precedent. If we have a period of limitation for the most serious offences which are prescribed by our law, then I suggest that certainly there should be one for this.
One could speak on this indefinitely, but I do not propose to do so. I am not trying to delay the committee, but I do submit that
	-	!
the amendment which is before this committee is one which should commend itself to all hon. members. It is not striking anything pertinent out of the bill, it is simply striking out this provision. 1 would even be willing to have the amendment amended by having some provision inserted whereby a report in writing could be made rather than actual evidence being submitted. It would be acceptable to me to have a document signed by the minister, or by someone authorized to sign on his behalf, taken as evidence. I would go that far, but I am completely opposed, and I trust this committee is opposed, to a provision being inserted in this particular legislation dealing with farmers, who I think are as honest as most classes in our community, whereby they shall be put in a special category.
It would be theoretically-I emphasize that -possible for an agent of the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice to institute proceedings against a man when he had forgotten completely the particulars of the transaction. I say that is wrong. Just a few days ago we had before this house a bill to amend the Income Tax Act to cut down still further the period allowed under that act. There the Department of Finance has fixed a period of six years except in cases where fraud can be established. Why should we depart from all accepted principles on this occasion, particularly when we are bringing this bill within the provisions of the summary convictions act, when the Criminal Code provides certain limitations? Having done that, why should we in this particular instance provide for prosecution being taken at any time, not only in the lifetime of the present minister. The minister is not an individual; he is the head of the department.
It is possible that a prosecution could be conducted 20 years after the loan had been made and after it had been repaid. I suggest that is not right. We should not be departing so far from principles which have always guided and governed this country in connection with prosecutions.
This is a quasi-criminal offence. Once we have begun breaking down the precedents that have been established, although, as I have said, probably no injustice would follow from it directly, then some other government of some other party may be in control of Canada and it can say, "Here is a precedent that has been established." The statute of limitations would have been wiped out, and the precedent would have been established by this government; therefore people would say it must be good because it was established by a party which had been in control here, and so on and so forth.

I suggest to the minister again that he give this further consideration and try to amend that clause so as to take out that particularly obnoxious part.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no objection to removing the words to which my hon. friend referred a while ago. They occur in the nineteenth and twentieth lines on page 2, beginning after the word "minister":
-or by any person purporting to be acting on his behalf.
In my opinion there is no reason why the minister should not make this certificate, since he would be the one that would have peculiar knowledge of the facts contained in it. If it is the wish of the hon. member who is speaking on behalf of the gentleman who moved the amendment to put that in that form, I should be agreeable to it.


Mr. Nesbitt:: For my colleague, in reply to the minister, there is something in this same paragraph to which I should like to direct the minister's attention. The wording under subclause 1 is:
Any person who makes a statement in an application for a guaranteed farm improvement loan that is false in any material respect . . .
I would gather from that, Mr. Chairman, that there is no question at all of intent here. It is merely a simple statement of fact that is false in any respect. In other words it could be a simple innocent statement in which a person might give some false information on the application. In view of what has been said by my colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings it would seem bad enough to have no time limit for the starting of a prosecution even if there were guilty intent, but here there is no time limit under which prosecution can be begun even in the case of an innocent mistake.
I should like to suggest to the minister with respect that in the second line, after it says, "Any person who makes a statement in an application for a guaranteed farm improvement loan",-the words "with intent to defraud" be added. Then it would carry on, "that is false in any material respect."
The addition of those words, "with intent to defraud", would improve the clause very much. As it is at present, a farmer making an innocent mistake in an application could be prosecuted 20 years afterwards and be fined or, if he did not meet the fine, could be sent to jail. I know it is not very likely, but with the wording of the clause at the moment that is what could happen. It does not seem proper that a person should be punished for the quasi-criminal offence of a simple statement of fact and a statement of incrimination. I feel that could easily be cleared up by adding the words "with 67509-327
Farm Improvement Loans Act intent to defraud." As the minister well knows, being in the profession, evidence could be given to prove intent, and I think the clause would be materially improved by making that suggested addition.


Mr. Hamillon (York Wesi):: It would be difficult to add very much to what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said in connection with the shortcomings of this clause. As a matter of fact I welcomed the indication by the Minister of Finance that he feels there is some defect in this clause and is prepared to do something about it. Coming on the heels of what the Prime Minister did last night in dealing with clause 6 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that gives us some assurance of an indication of a desire to take care of some of these very important small points in connection with legislation of this type.
I for one welcome the indication that these sections are being studied in that manner. I do not think, however, that merely by deleting this one sentence we are going to have the solution of the problem this particular section raises. Although it has been mentioned that a similar section is contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act I cannot help but feel that apparently in the various acts of a similar nature such as the Canadian Farm Loan Act there has been no thought of including such a penalty section.
I have looked at the Canadian Farm Loan Act and I find that, under section 7, (i) and again under section 20, subsection 7, when people use the money improperly the act says that under certain circumstances they must give it back. In coming forward as the minister has to deal with the question of the certificate, he is only doing in that case what I notice is provided for in the Financial Administration Act, chapter 116, section 89, subsection 2, where it says that where money has been improperly used the minister himself gives a certificate to that effect in connection with the improper use of the same. This seems to be going one step further than has been done in similar legislation.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford was the subject matter for an amendment, as I recall it, previously voted down by the committee. But certainly if this section giving the right to prosecute after several years is going to be retained, I think we might give a second thought to the provision dealing with intent to defraud. Our other penal statutes ordinarily permit us to go back a great length of time if there is proof of intent to defraud. I think the Minister of National Revenue knows that provision is contained in his legislation. There is a place where you stop under one set of

Farm Improvement Loans Act circumstances, but if there is intent to defraud there is permission to continue to go back in order to obtain the evidence and prosecute. So I would say it is a step in the right direction here, the one that has been suggested, but it still does not solve the crucial problem in connection with this legislation.
I might point out one other thing to the Prime Minister. I find that section 6 of this legislation indicates that if this act is passed after March 31 it is to be considered as having come into effect on April 1 of this year. I say we are then making this retroactive legislation.


Walter Edward Harris: On the contrary. The act ran out on March 31 and we are trying to continue the benefits for the farmers from that date.


George Clyde Nowlan: The section did not run out.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Let me say this to the minister. What you are doing is taking us back to April 1 and including the additional penal section you have put into this legislation.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes; but I am quite prepared to drop the penalty section if you will drop all the guarantees we have made to the banks in the meantime.


John Borden Hamilton: That is a rather facetious remark-


Walter Edward Harris: Not at all.


John Borden Hamilton: -in view of the argument I am making. I say this to the Prime Minister as well as to the Minister of Finance, because I recognize what the Prime Minister did last night. Here is an indication that we are making -a particular additional section effective as from April 1; and to anyone having any knowledge of this type of act it is obvious that this is a quasicriminal section. As such it should not be part of a retroactive piece of legislation.
Perhaps in finally arriving at a satisfactory solution to this difficulty, if the legislation is going to include the words dealing with the intent to defraud, and if it is finally going to end up with the deletion of the provision that anyone can certify for the minister, then it may be possible that section 6 as well should be amended in some way to ensure that this particular section is not effective from April 1.
Here is what is happening. It may be that the circumstances upon which a prosecution may later be based may have taken place between April 1 and June 19, when a person has made his application, whatever it is. There may be circumstances which, under
[Mr. Hamilton (York West) .1
this legislation, 20 years from now will result in a prosecution. I say that under those circumstances this very definitely is bringing into effect in a retroactive manner a quasicriminal type of legislation.
I therefore say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a great deal of merit in the amendment that is before the committee at the present time. If that amendment should not be carried, then I commend again to the Minister of Finance the words of the hon. member for Oxford and, prior to that, the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Peel. You can still rectify this situation by including the wording "with intent to defraud"; by deleting the words you have suggested should be deleted, and by subsequently amending paragraph 6. Those are things I think any prudent man would take into serious consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is just a brief word I should like to say. It seems to me that if the minister insists-as I hope he will not-on the retention of subclause 2 in clause 8, the very least he can do-in fact he should not even have to be asked to do it-is to remove the words he has offered to remove from lines nineteen and twenty on page 2. But I do not see how the minister can think that by making that offer he meets the basic objection which has been made from this side of the chamber to subclause 2 of clause 8. After all, the real evil in this clause is in lines thirteen and fourteen where authority is given to commence an action at any time within 12 months from the day on which evidence comes to the knowledge of the minister. All I am suggesting at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is that these things must be looked at separately.
I can hardly conceive that the minister is trying to make a trade, that he is suggesting to the opposition that the amendment moved by the hon. member from Kamloops be dropped in return for the minister's offer to drop these words from lines nineteen and twenty. They are two totally different things. What the minister has offered to drop out is the least objectionable part of this subclause. He has not yet met the argument regarding the most objectionable part of it, namely the authority to enter proceedings for an offence literally at any time provided it is within 12 months after the day on which the evidence comes to the minister's knowledge, no matter when he obtains that evidence. Perhaps we can debate that point under some other heading or in some other relationship, but I believe the two points should be kept separate.


Walter Edward Harris: In what I said, Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to have any reference to subparagraph 3. I was referring to subparagraph 4, because it was at that point that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings completed the statement he was making. I was not intending to suggest that my amendment would meet the objections he had to the preceding subparagraph.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I think the various members who have spoken have made a good case for the passage of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops. When we had this bill before the committee we were told by the deputy minister that the record under this act was exceptionally good in so far as the question of repayment was concerned. Repayments had been good.
In the light of that fact it is hard to understand why the government at this time should see fit to introduce an amendment of this kind. Are they anticipating that conditions are going to be so tough that the farmers in order to get loans are going to be driven to methods that are wrong, and then will that action be hanging over the farmers' heads indefinitely? The farmer will never know whether, 20 years from now, the government may come along and say that he signed the document wrongly, and the minister will then be in a position to take action of any kind within 12 months from that date. It does not seem a very satisfactory condition so far as the farmer is concerned. I cannot understand why the minister should now consider it necessary to introduce this amendment when the act has operated so satisfactorily in the past.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want anyone to misunderstand the reason for this, and there seems to be some misunderstanding. When an application has been granted and a loan made, you must remember that this is a guarantee of the government of Canada. It is not a loan by the government of Canada. There is nothing here comparable to the Canadian farm loan board, in which case the government of Canada makes the loan. In this case the bank makes the loan and all we do is guarantee it under the conditions set down in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Now, if everything goes well, the money is paid and that is the end of it. We never hear anything more about it.
But when something goes wrong, when default occurs and the bank then asks us to repay the loan or pay the amount of money we guaranteed, that is the first time the government of Canada can have any information about it and can ascertain 67509-327J
19. 1956
Farm Improvement Loans Act whether there has been some kind of misrepresentation such as we describe here. That is the reason it has been thought necessary to ask that the power to prosecute should start from that date and not from the date of the making of the loan by the bank, because we have nothing to do with the original making of the loan.
Under those circumstances I suggest to hon. members that if we are to be responsible for these bank guarantees, surely we ought to be in the position of having the right to prosecute within a very short time, namely 12 months, after the first time the offence comes to our attention.
It would be the reverse if we were dealing directly with the borrower. I quite agree with my hon. friend from York West when he speaks of the Canadian farm loan board. In that case we have the original opportunity to decide whether any fraud has in fact occurred, or any misrepresentation of a material nature. That is the reason for this. There is no suggestion, and I am sorry to say this, that there has not been difficulty in the past. There have been many cases in which we have found that there has been an effort made to conceal the true facts from the bank in the first instance. I do not know why anyone considers that the government of Canada should not be in the position of having some power to act, both in the punitive sense as well as in the sense of, shall I say, avoiding trouble, in the provisions of a statute of this kind.
If I may answer some of the questions already put, no one supposes that if an applicant described a farm lot number incorrectly, any magistrate would, in any sense of the word, convict. But the point is that if there is a deliberate misrepresentation of assets or if there is a deliberate statement that the money will be spent for the payment of certain liabilities and later it is found the money has been diverted for other purposes, it seems to us there ought to be a penalty for that because this is a beneficial statute in favour of farmers, just as there are beneficial statutes in favour of other people. There ought to be a proper method of showing that the taxpayers' money is not to be used lightly in this way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of what the minister has just said, unless I have misunderstood him he has clearly indicated that the whole intent of this section is to deal with intent to defraud and not with an innocent mistake. The way the section is worded, however, it appears clear that any farmer who makes some mistake, albeit an innocent one, in his application could be prosecuted some time afterward. In view of what the minister has



S16S HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Farm Improvement Loans Act said I think it should be made clear that the section is aimed at the intent to defraud, and I cannot see anything objectionable in making that request.
Mr. Pallet!: I think the Minister of Finance has made a very good case for taking the section right out altogether. He has said that the government guarantees the loan to the bank. Then what do the banks do for the government? Do they not accept any responsibility themselves when making these loans? They are the people who interview the applicants and they should be the people who have the responsibility for certifying to the government that these loans are proper loans. The government is trying to go right through the person who is receiving the profit from the loan to the farmer who is obliged to borrow the money in the first instance. When you suggest that you cannot find out what is wrong with the application until default has occurred, that indicates to me that the people whom you have authorized to make these loans are not properly carrying out their duties.
If that has been the history, then I suggest there should be some penal provision against the people making the profit and not the people who seek to get the loans. Obviously the breakdown is in the people who are receiving the applications not taking the care before the loans are made that they would take with a loan that was not guaranteed. Of course it is possible that the recent position in which the minister has been placed has caused him to think like a banker rather than like a member of the government.
Walter Edward Harris: Never.


Mr. Palletl:: As has already been so well said, you would not permit a penalty provision of this type in the Criminal Code which was reviewed in this house and by a committee of people who are handling the affairs of justice in this country. At the same time you say here is one small section of the community that you are going to discriminate against. You say you have already discriminated against another section, but that does not excuse this action. Are we not going to look to the people in whom we have placed confidence to carry out their duties?
I say seriously to the minister that you are allowing something to continue, as has already been said, that is strange and foreign to our method of administering the law. You are making retroactive legislation with a penalty provision. You are putting a provision in this act that you would not permit in the Criminal Code and you are not taking any concrete steps to say to the banks, "If you make bad loans we will not guarantee them; before we will guarantee your loans


you have to certify that these loans are made on a proper basis". The applicant's responsibility is to the banks.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just clear the question of retroactivity. I think every hon. member who has read clause 6 will realize the purpose of the retroactive provision. The Farm Improvement Loans Act ran out on March 31. This bill was introduced before that date for the purpose of continuing the benefit of these loans to the farm community. I have no doubt there have been loans made since that date, and the purpose of the legislation is to validate the guarantees that would be made for those particular loans.


Mr. Chariton:: Mr. Chairman, the minister now suggests it is because of the guarantee angle of this loan that he wants the penalty clause. I suggest to him that the fisherman's loan is a guaranteed loan but there is no penalty clause in that act at all. Although I realize the Canadian Farm Loan Act is not a guaranteed loan act there is no penalty clause in that act either. The minister is saying that this legislation is similar to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Is he suggesting that it is comparable with the Unemployment Insurance Act?
The minister appears to think he is giving the farmers something under this act. He is not giving them anything; he is only guaranteeing the loan at the bank. Out of loans amounting to $582 million the loss to date has been $285,000. Is the minister suggesting that all the farmers who take those loans are to be subjected to this clause just because $285,000 has been lost out of $582 million? Must all the farmers who take loans under this act have this on their shoulders for the rest of their lives? I ask that question advisedly, because it could be for the rest of their lives. They could have this hanging over their heads, with the fear that they could be brought into court.
As the hon. member for Oxford said, it might be purely a mistake, yet under this clause it could be proven that it was a false statement, and whether it was a mistake or intentional they could be subject to a fine of $500 or imprisonment if they could not pay. It is ridiculous. Not only is it ridiculous, it is the most terrible thing I have seen in this house for some time. Especially is that true when there is no penalty at all in the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act or the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
The minister is suggesting that this is similar to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which I suggest is an insurance act and not a loan act. It is something given to people. They pay their premiums, naturally, but it

is something given to them in lieu of employment. It is not comparable at all.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is not a gift; it is insurance.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate would do well to sit quietly in his seat for just a few moments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take up less time in the house than the hon. gentleman does.


John Alpheus Charlton: Sitting in the house is not everything. Sometimes we like to see people sit quietly, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do we.


John Alpheus Charlton: I suggest this legislation is different from the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is something that is unknown in this house; it is foreign legislation to this house. I am not a lawyer but I have heard it discussed enough to know-and I think all members will agree with me-that it is a foreign type of legislation. The minister has not given us enough justification to allow it to go through.


Walter Edward Harris: May I just answer my hon. friend briefly. There is a penalty clause in the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act, though it is not the same as this. My hon. friend should be aware of the fact that there are penalty clauses in all the borrowing and guaranteeing statutes that we have, so far as I know.
I do not think I agree with him that we are not giving the farmer anything. I think the farming community are appreciative of the benefits of the guarantee at the bank under these circumstances; at least a great many of them have used it. It is quite true that we have not had to pay very much in the way of losses; and that only establishes the fact that it is unlikely that the farming community have had too much trouble in making their payments, and they will go on using the advantages of borrowing under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I certainly think this is of advantage to the farmer. We are increasing the amount of the loan he can have from the bank. I am a little surprised that the hon. member would say that we are not doing anything for the farmer.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not say we are doing nothing for the farmer; I said you are not giving anything to the farmer, and you are not giving him a thing. He is borrowing money under a guaranteed loan. He has paid it all back with the exception of $285,000, and you suggest you are giving him something. You are giving him a service, that is all.
19, 1956
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wish I could get some sort of answer out of the minister which would clear up some misunderstanding that seems to be in the minds of hon. members. Is it the intention of the minister under this section to punish applicants for an innocent mistake, or is it not?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why does it say so?


Walter Edward Harris: It does not say so.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has just told us that it is not the intention of the government to punish people for innocent misrepresentation. I am glad to hear that statement. The minister is a lawyer and well knows that the courts must take the specific wording of the act. The section says:
Any person who makes a statement in an application for a guaranteed farm improvement loan that is false in any material respect . . .
And so on. It does not say "false statement of intent"; it says "is false in any material respect". It refers to something that is false regardless of the intent behind it. The remarks the minister has just made certainly have little relationship or little relevancy to what it says in the section. I am afraid I cannot understand it. The minister also said a few moments ago that the farmers would probably take advantage of the act. No doubt they will. If they were familiar with the language of this legislation I doubt whether they would be so anxious to take advantage of the provisions of this act, because some of these amendments put the guarantor of those loans in almost a worse position than the well-known character in "The Merchant of Venice".
Mr. Pallet!: Will the minister indicate whether he would be willing to insert the words "with intent to defraud"? As you know, no court can go behind the act and read Hansard to find out what the members of the committee meant when the words were inserted in the legislation.
In reply to questions this afternoon the minister has said that it is not the intention, where there is innocent misrepresentation, to charge anybody under this section. I suggest that for clarification the words "with intent to defraud" should be inserted. Nothing would be lost by inserting those words. It is a very simple thing.


Walter Edward Harris: We have already disposed of that in the committee on a former occasion, Mr. Chairman. But, in any event, may I point out to my hon. friend that the wording is

Farm Improvement Loans Act pretty clear. It says, "false in any material respect". No magistrate nor any county court judge dealing with this section is going to fine a person who made an innocent mistake about a particular matter that is not material, guilty under the act.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance by this very act takes the magistrate's discretion completely away from him.


Walter Edward Harris: No.
Mr. Pallet!: Yes, he does. That is the effect of the wording of this legislation. The hon. member for York Centre has just inserted a comment. I am quite prepared to sit down and listen to what he has to say.


Mr. Hollingworih:: As a matter of fact, any county court judge will determine what is material. Absolute authority is vested in him to say whether it is true or false. The county court judge may determine whether or not it is a material fact. Consequently I think the hon. member's argument is quite redundant.


John Cameron Pallett: If the hon. member reads the legislation he will find that the case first comes before a magistrate, who is not a county court judge. I think it is generally accepted that the people who are appointed to these positions are not all legally trained. If you mean to say that the innocent misrepresentation is not to be charged it is of no consequence to add the four words, "with intent to defraud". It seems to me if that is what you mean but you are not prepared to put it in writing, it is not what you mean by the words you have just used.


Mr. Stanton:: On more than one occasion I have heard magistrates say, "I have all sympathy but the act says so and so". They go entirely by the act. I do not see why the minister should be antagonistic and refuse to add these words, "with intent to defraud". They will take nothing from the bill; they will add to it. They will protect the individual. Some person may get a loan processed and, through no fault of his, make a mistake. The magistrate can say, "I must go by the act". I believe there is much merit in the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops, and its acceptance would go a long way toward alleviating the present difficulties.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
Mr. Pallet!: No. I think we should deal with this at greater length. There have been charges that the opposition obstructs, and it is events like this which cause us to obstruct. It is our intention to do so in situations such as this. I for one intend to speak as many times as I possibly can until ten

o'clock tonight in an effort to make this act one that will protect the people of this country and not oppress them. This is a clause that is oppressing a certain segment of the population of this country. The minister does not know what is in a magistrate's mind, nor does he know what is in the mind of the minister sitting next to him or of anyone working for him. As one hon. member suggests, perhaps the minister does not even know what is in his own mind; I do not know.
I think what we propose is a very simple matter. The bill certainly would pass this house very readily if it were inserted. I think the complete deletion of this part of the section would be preferable to anything that has been proposed, but failing that I would simply point out it seems to me the minister has established a little mental block over there. Perhaps he feels he is going to lose face or something. The government has lost a great deal of face in the past few weeks and a little more is not going to hurt it that much. Personally, however, I do not think it would lose face, in fact it would gain a bit, if it were to accede to a proper request.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I always try to be reasonable, and if I make a mistake or get the wrong interpretation I am always willing to change my mind. I have listened carefully to the minister this afternoon and the remarks he has made on the clause. He made a statement a few minutes ago which I believe was supported by the hon. member for York Centre, that it was up to the magistrate, the judge or the officer trying the matter, to determine whether or not a thing was material.
I have had a reasonable amount of experience in practising law before magistrates and in county courts, and I would like to point out to the minister there are two blades to the scissors, so to speak, which the magistrate would have to consider with respect to the statement made in the application. The first one is whether in fact the statement that was made was material. In other words, did it or did it not affect the granting of the loan in the first place; and second, was it false? The magistrate or the officer trying the case might very well decide it was material and the next question that would arise would be whether or not the statement was false. There is no information in this section, and the minister certainly offers us no explanation regarding that. There is no intimation that the falseness of the statement must contain an element of intent in order to be punishable. The way it is set out here the falseness of a statement, even if it is made in innocence, is subject to punishment.

As the minister well knows, this comes under the summary convictions act, and if the fine cannot be paid the person is sent to jail. As far as I can see the minister has certainly offered us no explanation.


John Borden Hamilton: I do not think the minister need worry about losing face, because last night we had a shining example of what can be accomplished by an argument being put forth and received in a reasonable manner.
I have had a little argument on the side here with one hon. member who suggests this amendment is protecting the one dishonest man in a hundred, but there is nothing remarkable about that in connection with what is known as British justice. It has been said over and over again that it is better that a hundred guilty people should go free than to convict one innocent person.
It may seem a little remarkable that this large house is spending half an hour on this particular point, but this is certainly the place where we can get down to fundamentals so far as our laws are concerned. I do not think anyone is going to object to this type of legislation or to the fact that there may be 20 years in which to prosecute if the words "with intent to defraud" are included.
I hope the minister will seriously consider what is put forward here in the form of an amendment as an alternative to the present wording, along with the deletion of the words he has suggested further down in the section. Let us not worry about losing face. As a matter of fact, I think it will make the government look a great deal more substantial if it agrees to suggestions which are worth while.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 67.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the question is put I would like to place one point before the minister. We have disposed of the amendment striking out all of clause 2, which is an amendment I think the government should have accepted. I return again to the thesis I proposed a few moments ago, to the effect that it is absolutely wrong to have a criminal act with no limitation in it whatever. The committee has decided we cannot accept the striking out of clause 2. The minister has also pointed out, and I can follow this, that
19/ 1956
Farm Improvement Loans Act it may be some considerable time after the loan is made before it comes to the attention of the minister that there has been misrepresentation or fraud.
There is nothing in the section which says that. The section is an open end transaction in so far as prosecution is concerned. As I say again, I am not suggesting that this would be done but I do think it is so contrary to the principles of law that we should not permit something which may or may not be twisted by individuals.
The minister knows by looking at the clause that it would be possible for a prosecution to be started long after the maturity of the loan, long after the loan had been paid. There is nothing to tie it in with the loan. The minister said a moment ago that perhaps this would not come to his attention until the loan had been paid off. I cannot conceive that it would, because ordinarily these loans are payable by instalments.
I do not intend to move a formal amendment now because I realize that if it does not commend itself to the minister it will not be accepted by the committee, but we do feel strongly about this thing. I do not propose this simply for the purpose of delaying matters, but may I read the section:
(3) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced at any time within twelve months from the day on which evidence-
That again leaves it wide open as to what may or may not be evidence or what may or may not be information. They are two different things, as the minister well knows. When the minister has decided that he has evidence that might be, shall we say, six months, a year or two years from the time he first got a letter from the bank manager saying there was a little trouble over this thing. Let me read the clause again:
Proceedings for an offence under this section may be commenced at any time within twelve months from the day on which evidence, sufficient in the opinion of the minister to justify prosecution for the offence, comes to his knowledge.
I suggest to the minister that at least we close that in, that we do not have it wide open. I would suggest that he put a proviso at the end providing that such prosecution shall be instituted within twelve months from the due date or maturity date of the said loan. In other words the prosecution would have to be commenced within a definite period.
I understand that there are two classes of loans. Where a loan is made for the purchase of land it might run for as long as 10 years. If you accept the principle of a limitation period, then I would agree that that would be an improvement and we would not be perpetuating a completely wrong principle.

Farm Improvement Loans Act In view of everything the minister has said, surely if there were a limitation period of twelve months from the maturity date of the loan or from when the loan was due, and if he had no evidence of wrongdoing before that time, then certainly he should not be able to prosecute afterwards because the evidence would be so flimsy that it would not warrant prosecution.


Walter Edward Harris: I think perhaps my hon. friend is labouring under a minor misapprehension. We never hear about these loans when they are paid. It is when they are not paid that we hear about them. We are not concerned with the farmer who pays off his loan, and I do not suppose the bank is either. At any rate they never come within our ken. It is only when we are called upon to pay the guarantee that we become interested.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would not twelve months
from the maturity date take care of that?


Walter Edward Harris: I have been waiting for a long time to move an amendment which fits in with the act here. This would add a further subclause 5 which would read:
(5) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may not be instituted later than three years from the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose.
There would then be two limitations; there is the limitation in subclause 3 that proceedings must be taken within twelve months, and then in any event there would be a limitation of three years beyond which prosecution could not be taken.


George Clyde Nowlan: If the minister had said that earlier instead of sitting on it like a hen on an egg it might have been better.


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid that my obedience to the rules of the house make it impossible for me to move an amendment until we reach the point at which it can be moved.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister has stated that the government knows nothing about these loans unless they are not paid. I do not think that is quite true. Surely the department would have some idea of the number of applications. Are not copies sent to the board?


Walter Edward Harris: Of course we get notice of the amount of money involved in our guarantees from month to month, but we have no knowledge of a particular loan.


John Alpheus Charlton: Have you not a copy of the application form that goes in?


Walter Edward Harris: They are kept in the bank, and we are only notified of the person who has the guaranteed loan.


John Alpheus Charlton: Just the name of the person?


Walter Edward Harris: The name, the address and the amount.


John Alpheus Charlton: You do not have a copy of the application for loan?


Walter Edward Harris: The application is not made to the government, it is made to the bank. Apparently my hon. friend forgets the origin of the legislation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister is not sitting on another egg in connection with offences of fraud?


John Borden Hamilton: Do I understand that the minister proposes to introduce an amendment deleting the words "or by any person purporting to be acting in his behalf"?


Walter Edward Harris: I said that I would do that.


William Alfred Robinson: Have I that amendment in writing?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry; I will write it out.


John Borden Hamilton: In view of the two amendments that are to be made, any remarks that I made about the effect of clause 6, which is to follow, being retroactive and being detrimental could be withdrawn. There would be no necessity for dealing with it.


Mr. McCann:: I move:
That clause 5 be amended by striking out of lines 19 and 20 the words "or by any person purporting to be acting on his behalf".


John Borden Hamilton: I wonder if there would be any confusion in connection with line 24, which reads:
-without proof of the signature or of the official character of the person appearing to have signed the document-
Would that still be in order now that it deals only with the minister himself?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Joseph McCann: I move:
That clause 5 be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
" (5) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may not be instituted later than three years from the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose."


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am certainly not going to quarrel over one year in view of the fact that the minister has agreed to a principle that has been argued from this side of the house. But I should like to point out that before he got to his feet with this amendment I was going to ask him to take a look at Bill No. 82, which we passed earlier this session, having to do with guaranteed bank loans to farmers with respect to grain stored on farms. The reason I was going to ask him to

look at that was to draw his attention to the section having to do with offences and penalties, which is section 9. If he is looking at the bill he will find that it had three subsections when it was presented, but he will recall that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had a colleague move the deletion of subsection 3. However, the relevant subsection, subsection 2, reads:
A prosecution under subsection (1) may be instituted at any time within two years from the time when the subject matter of the complaint arose.
It was my purpose to suggest that that language was a little better than the language about information coming to the knowledge of the minister. The minister seems to have picked it up here, but why has he put in three years instead of two? If two years were sufficient in the case of the guaranteed bank loan on grain stored on farms, why would not two years be sufficient in this case?


Walter Edward Harris: Even my hon. friend can find the answer, if he just goes on for two more sentences in what he is reading, and that is that he is dealing with a nine months' loan in the one case and in the other with perhaps a ten-year loan.


George Clyde Nowlan: Since' the minister has been reasonable in dealing with this matter and has offered an amendment which at least recognizes the principle we were urging, I wonder whether he would not on his own accord consider the matter urged by the hon. member for Peel a few moments ago about the intent to defraud. I realize that technically it was voted on the other night and therefore the discussion of it might be out of order, but there is even more than the hon. member for Peel pointed out. If the person makes a statement that is false in any material respect, that is bad enough. It may or may not be a mistake. But it says:
... or who uses the proceeds of such loan for a purpose other than that stated in his application . . .
It is all very well to say that a magistrate would use common sense; he probably would. But I can imagine a man getting a loan for a tractor, shall we say, coming into town, paying for the tractor, perhaps having $5.05 left over and making a purchase with that $5.05 to take home. I am sure he would not set that forth in his application. Of course if he were a prohibitionist he might use the $5.05 to buy his wife a birthday present that certainly would not be set forth in the application, yet he would be technically guilty of an offence.
The minister says there is no intention of prosecuting a man unless he has deliberately 67509-328
Farm Improvement Loans Act defrauded. We know very well that this minister would not authorize that, but why have it wide open that way if that is the intention? Why should we not insert "with intent to defraud"? Then we would have maintained a principle of law which, although it has been remedied to a substantial extent this afternoon, yet I think is wide open in that one particular sense. I should hope the minister would give consideration to inserting those words, and then I think the bill would be satisfactory in every respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point, may I again ask the minister to look at the wording of clause 9 of Bill No. 82, the very first part of which reads:
Every person who, after the coming into force of this act, in respect of a guaranteed loan
(a) knowingly makes any misrepresentation in any application . . .
It seems to me that if the government earlier this session brought in a bill having to do with guaranteed bank loans and put in the word "knowingly", it might consider putting the same word or words having the same meaning in this comparable piece of legislation.


John Cameron Pallett: I wonder whether the minister really read this bill before it was put before us. I refer to a statement made on May 1, as recorded on page 3467 of Hansard, in which he said:
I was not a member of the banking and commerce committee, as I believe my friend was, but my recollection is that there have been no convictions although I would not be sure as to that.
If the minister recalls, this bill did not go before the banking and commerce committee; it was referred to the committee on agriculture. The statement by the minister at that time perhaps indicated that he was not following the course of this bill or the preparation of it as closely as he might have been. With that in mind, giving him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps this particular aspect of this clause did not occur to him, there is nothing wrong with that, if that is the situation. We appreciate that with his vast duties he perhaps cannot examine every detail, and sometimes things might escape his attention; but, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have pointed out, other acts have "knowingly" in them, and it seems such a small point.


Walter Edward Harris: I thank my hon. friend for his generosity. All money bills that are referred to committees go to the banking and commerce committee. I said in the house that this would go to the banking and commerce

Farm Improvement Loans Act committee but, on the urging of hon. members opposite, I changed that to agriculture and forgot temporarily that I had done so.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Mr. Pallet!: I think we have to explore the other aspects of this a little further. Is there any particular reason the government advances at this time why one section of the community, the agricultural section, should be set apart and why we should say that we are applying the principles of the Criminal Code and various acts against all sections of the community but we are applying them differently against farmers, that we are required to prove certain things against other persons but a farmer is automatically guilty until he proves himself innocent?
Under this bill you say we are going to let the banks lend more money, that loans up to $5,000 will be guaranteed, but we shall be taking away a right from the farmers. It does not matter how much money is given them; rights are more important than money in the building of any society. You cannot buy a right. You have no proper authority to take a right away from them. This is a small but important group of the community, and it is entitled to the protection to which any other groups of the community are entitled.
It may be said that there are two other acts which contain the provision, and it is hoped to put it in a third one. That argument falls because you are repeating a wrong, which is never a correct thing to do. It seems that we would lose nothing and gain much by recognizing that here is a principle which should apply to the agricultural group in this country as well as to any other.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There has been a good deal of discussion on this matter this afternoon. My hon. friend from Peel has just mentioned that in this case the burden of proof has been shifted. Actually there is no burden of proof here at all. It is a simple statement of fact. The burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. Even if a provision were put in that, if he could present evidence that he was not making the statement with any intent to defraud, he could be exonerated, that would be something; but it does not even go that far. It just says "if the statement is in fact false." It is like the provisions of some provincial statutes I can think of that give no discretion to the court.
There are only two things that have to be shown; that the statement is (a) material and (b) false. There is nothing about intent.


If it is merely a false statement, regardless of intention, the person must be punished and can be sent to jail. The minister has already told us on several occasions that it is not the intention of the government to do that, but that is what the bill says.
I suppose there is no use labouring the point. The minister has evidently made up his mind that he is not going to do anything about the wording. I cannot understand why he would take that attitude.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


John Borden Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Edward Harris: I wanted to say this. My friend the hon. member for Oxford seems to be under the impression, or at any rate his words so indicated, that we are amending the act by putting in these words. May I point out to my hon. friend that the words he has spoken about, "in any material respect", are in the act now. We are not putting them in now. We are not asking the farming community at this time to have another restriction put upon them. Those words have been in the law since the Farm Improvement Loans Act was passed.


John Cameron Pallett: That is like saying, "I held up a bank once. Now I am holding it up a second time, so I am all right". Would the minister consider putting the word "knowingly" before the word "makes", as in the act already passed this year?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, if one had to do this originally I do not know what one would do. But this is the act and this has been the act, as I said, since it was passed in 1946 or 1947; I have forgotten the exact date. I doubt very much whether it would be desirable to change the basis of the penalty now with respect to those who borrow from now on from that applicable to those who borrowed in the past.


John Borden Hamilton: It is much more severe in the subsequent sections you have put in. That is one reason for considering changing the old wording of the section.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister pointed out- and I quite realize it to be the fact-that this wording has been in before. As the hon. member for Peel pointed out, to continue a wrong does not make it any better. To reply to the minister's remark, in view of the fact that this extension of time for prosecution has been made-though now there is to be a restriction, which is a very welcome change at this time-which is an amendment to this act, it might be appropriate at this

time to do as was suggested by the hon. member for Peel and insert the word "knowingly". I feel that the minister might give consideration to that suggestion.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 6-Coming into force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is just a suggestion as to form. Clause 6 reads as follows:
If this act is assented to after the 31st day of March, 1956, it shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1956.
It seems to me that this wording of this clause would have been appropriate had the bill been passed before the 31st day of March and not received royal assent until after the 31st day of March. There is no "if" about it now. Would it not be better to change the wording of the clause and have it read simply:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1956.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I move that clause 6 be amended by deleting all the words thereof previous to the word "shall" and by substituting therefor the words "This act".


An hon. Member:: A triumph.


Walter Edward Harris: Either way it does not make any difference at all.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?
Seme hon. Members: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Indian Act to provide for a number of changes in connection with the administration of the act; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance may from time to time advance to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration out of 67509-328J
Indian Act
the consolidated revenue fund such sums of money as the minister may require for the loans to Indians under section 69 of the act;
The total amount of outstanding advances under the said section not to exceed at any one time one million dollars in lieu of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars as at present.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that for most of this afternoon there has been a vast expenditure of words to help out a few potential deadbeats and to save a few words in an act. I am going to try to stay strictly within the rules and deal only with the resolution that is now before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is out of order in talking about something that has already been disposed of.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite aware of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the minister broke the rules to do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman could not resist the temptation to point that out.
The purpose of this resolution is to authorize the introduction of a bill that has only one section which has any financial implications. In what I say today I am going to deal solely with the section that has financial implications because it seems to me it would be simply a waste of the time of the committee and of the house to deal with a hypothetical bill before anyone has the right to look at it.
The revolving fund that is referred to in this resolution is a fund which, under the act, amounted to $350,000. Last year, when the estimates of my department were before the committee of supply, I asked to have this amount increased to $650,000. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember this proceeding because he took some exception not to the substance but to the form of what was done at that time. I point that out because, from the resolution, it appears that the amount of the fund is being increased to $1 million from $350,000 whereas, in fact, it is being increased from $650,000 to $1 million. But the $650,000 is not in the Indian Act; it is in the appropriation act of last year.
These loans which are made out of this revolving fund are advanced to Indians to assist them in establishing themselves in agriculture, forestry, fishing, in setting up business in handicrafts, for getting equipment and facilities for guiding, trapping and a good many other miscellaneous pursuits. The purpose of the loans is to make it possible for Indians-who, because of the protection

Indian Act
they are given under the Indian Act, are also under a disability about borrowing in the ordinary way-to get money on reasonable terms in order to supplement their traditional mode of livelihood.
I would remind the committee that the Indian population of this country, without any addition by immigration and indeed with a steady diminution because of enfranchisement, is growing faster than the rest of the population, whereas their additional means of livelihood are actually being diminished as settlement moves farther north or because of defence installations in some cases or for other reasons. In view of this development, I think one of the most important internal problems we have in this country, and certainly morally there is no more important internal problem for the rest of us, is to do our utmost in every practical way we can to see that the Indians have every opportunity we can give them of developing new ways of supporting themselves and living in a self-respecting manner as ordinary members of the community.
I do think this revolving fund has done a great deal to make it possible for the more enterprising Indians, those with a bit more initiative, to do that. I have a great deal of material here about the number of loans, the record of repayment and other material of that sort. The record of repayment is remarkably good and the number of bad loans is very small. I do not really think it would serve any particularly useful purpose for me to attempt to put it all on the record, but I would be glad to answer any questions any member of the committee may wish to ask.


Mr. Harkness:: So far as the latter part of the resolution is concerned, the only part with which the minister dealt, I think all of us are very pleased to see that there is to be an increase from the present statutory provision of $350,000 to $1 million for this revolving fund, out of which loans can be made to bands or to individual Indians. I fully agree with what the minister said, that much more needs to be done along this line than has been done in the past so far as enabling Indians to better themselves is concerned. The provisions of section 69, under which this money is lent, read as follows:
(a)	to make loans to bands, groups of Indians or individual Indians for the purchase of farm implements, machinery, livestock, motor vehicles, fishing equipment, seed grain, fencing materials, materials to be used in native handicrafts, any other equipment, and gasoline and other petroleum products, or for the making of repairs or the payment of wages, or
(b)	to expend or to lend money for the carrying out of co-operative projects on behalf of Indians.
The minister said he would be glad to answer questions, and I think it would be of
[Mr. Pickersgill.j
some interest to the committee if, before we have finished with the resolution, he could let us know how many loans had been made under this act. How many are in effect at the present time or the latest period for which he has figures? In other words, to what extent has use been made of this fund of $350,000? I should also be very interested in knowing the maximum amounts which have been made available to any particular Indian. As a matter of fact, I think one of the weaknesses in this provision of the Indian Act is that the amount which any particular Indian and even band of Indians could get, particularly for the purchase of livestock or farm implements in the west was too small.
I do not know much about the situation so far as the east is concerned. I know that a considerable number of Indians on the reserves with which I am familiar have been definitely handicapped in making any economic or material progress as a result of the fact that they were unable to secure a sufficient number of farm implements or a sufficient amount of livestock to what I might call set up economic farming on the portion of the reserve which was allotted to them. In other words, I do not think there is any doubt that up to date not nearly enough has been done along the lines which this particular section of the act envisages.
The Indians have not been assisted nearly to the extent they might have been or, in many cases, to the extent they wanted to be. So far as my information goes, this probably has not been the result, at least up until recently, of the fact that there was not a sufficient amount of money in the revolving fund. The difficulty has been that the regulations under which these loans have been made were too stringent, or the total amount which could or would be given to a particular Indian was too small. I would hope that the regulations as well as the legislation itself would be changed and that an increase would be made in the amount of loan which would be available to an Indian.
I think that is particularly necessary in view of the fact we have had a constant process of inflation going on in this country. This has been recognized in the amendments to the farm loan act which we have had this session and in the amendments to the various other acts such as the Veterans' Land Act, which have been before the house recently. In all these cases the total amount of the loan has been increased in recognition of the fact that inflation has taken place. Whereas even seven or eight years ago a loan of $5,000 may have been sufficient for the

purpose of the legislation, at the present time it is not sufficient. I believe the same principle should be applied to the Indian Act and the regulations amended accordingly, so that a greater amount will be available.
In addition to that I would hope that the fact that the total amount available is being increased to $1 million means that the department itself has decided on a much more vigorous policy so far as making use of this provision is concerned, and will give perhaps a more vigorous leadership than has been the case in the past in encouraging Indians to make use of this provision and get into various activities in which they can make a living for themselves.
In so far as the first part of the resolution is concerned, it reads merely:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Indian Act to provide for a number of changes in connection with the administration of the act-
One would think from this wording that probably the changes are not of very much importance. In introducing this resolution the minister did not say anything about those changes. In fact I think he said they would not be of much interest to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. I said that I did not think there would be much advantage to the committee in my talking about a hypothetical bill, and I would prefer to speak about the rest of the bill when I would be in order in speaking about it, on second reading. Some of the clauses are quite important, but they have no financial implications and are therefore not part of the resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was going to say that my understanding is those changes are quite substantial.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But they have nothing to do with the resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The statement in the resolution concerning certain administrative changes is a very poor description of what is involved in these various changes. My information may not be correct, but I understand that copies of the proposed changes were shown to a meeting of Indians which was held in Ottawa last winter. I was very glad to hear that this meeting had been held, and that the proposed changes had been shown to the Indians. I think it is essential, in dealing with our Indians, that their cooperation be secured, and that when changes in the act are contemplated they should be
Indian Act
consulted and their advice should be taken in regard to any changes which may be proposed.
However, what I understand or what I have heard as a result of these delegates coming back and circulating their experiences among their comrades and others, is that the general purpose of many of the changes proposed is to shift authority and power to make decisions from the governor in council, where it resides under the Indian Act as it is at the present time, to the minister himself. As far as I can gather, the Indians look on such a change with very considerable trepidation. They consider their interests would be much better protected if the power of decision in regard to these matters were to remain with the governor in council rather than be shifted into the hands of one man, the minister. These changes, if they are as I understand them, represent an increase in the arbitrary power of the minister and his agents-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might raise a point of order. The hon. gentleman is surely anticipating something that is not before the committee. If this resolution is adopted I understand it will give the minister authority to introduce a bill, and when that bill is introduced the hon. gentleman will know whether or not these things are being done and the minister will be in a position to state what is involved in these changes, and every hon. member will have an equal opportunity to debate it. It does seem to me, sir, it is quite out of order to be anticipating a future debate. No other change in the proposed bill has any financial implications except the one that I have spoken about. The whole bill could have been introduced, if there had been no amendment to section 69, without a resolution at all. I submit, sir, we should stick to what is before the committee at this time.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am afraid the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have to go farther than he has gone to persuade me that his point of order has been well taken. I am not responsible for the drafting of the resolution the committee is considering, but it does start out in this way:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Indian Act to provide for a number of changes in connection with the administration of the act; . . .
And so forth. That is part of the resolution before this committee. I think in my not too long experience here that in resolutions of this kind it has been the regular practice for members of the house to indicate matters which they think should be included

Indian Act
in the bill which the minister is asking leave to introduce. It may be that the first sentences in this resolution are not essential to be submitted to the committee of the whole, but I find myself in the position that they have been submitted to the committee of the whole, and therefore I would hesitate to rule a discussion on them out of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not think it was worth while bringing the matter up as a point of order, but actually I did consider asking the minister to outline in more detail what these changes are, other than the financial ones, which are included in the first part of the resolution. And I think properly he should have done that, and possibly he will do it before we have finished considering this measure at the resolution stage.
Now, to continue from where I was at the time the interruption took place; as I say, these proposed changes, if they are the ones which were submitted to the Indian delegates who came here, mean an increase in arbitrary power on the part of the minister and his agents, and in practice that means on the part of the agents or the superintendents on the reserves, and the other officials of the department. In other words, in most cases the arbitrary power which may be given is not exercised by the minister himself; it is exercised by his agents, and I think this is the sort of thing we should be attempting to get away from as far as the conduct of our Indian affairs is concerned.
One of the things in the minds of the committee on Indian affairs which met here for three years, I think in 1946, 1947 and 1948, was to try and, we will say, place more responsibility in the hands of the Indians themselves, to put the Indians in a position where there would be less and less arbitrary power exercised by the minister or his agents on the reserves. The aim was to put into the Indian's own hands the ability to carry on his own transactions instead of, as had been the case since the establishment of the reserves in western Canada, putting all transactions through the Indian agent. The Indian himself could not buy anything, sell anything or do anything else. To some extent that condition still prevails in western Canada.
It seems to me that these proposed amendments, if they are as they were represented to the Indians, are a backward step. They place more power, or are likely to put more arbitrary power, into the hands of the minister's agents. Therefore I would hope that a pretty close look will be taken at them and any tendency along that line will be curbed.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
We have heard here today and yesterday in connection with two other bills a large number of arguments concerning the undesirability of placing certain arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister rather than leaving them in the hands of the governor in council, where we at least have a number of ministers concerned and where we are therefore perhaps likely to have fewer arbitrary acts committed than would be the case when the power is in the hands of one minister. That argument was in connection with rather limited subjects and matters which really were economic matters. When we come to Indian affairs we are dealing with human beings, we are dealing with quite a considerable segment of our population and it is very much more undesirable, in my opinion, to have arbitrary power placed in the hands of a minister and his agents which can be exercised over other people, no matter what may be the colour of their skins, than it is to have arbitrary power in the hands of a minister to be exercised in economic matters.
The status of Indians is that of a group of inferior citizens under the law in Canada. They are a people without many of the rights of ordinary citizens in regard to recourse to the courts and naturally in regard to the right to vote and so forth. This inferior status of our Indians has been the cause of increasing disquiet and feelings of discomfort on the part of quite a large number of people in the white population. In other words, the consciousness has been steadily growing that we have a group of people in this country who have not been treated as the rest of the citizens of the country have been treated, who are inferior under the law, and that it is a situation in which we can take no pride and one which really should be corrected.
The Indian's lack of the right to appeal to the courts against decisions of the minister, particularly, has been the subject of many letters I have received during this session and previous to it. I would just like to read one of these letters to indicate the sort of representations I have been receiving, and I am sure other members have been receiving, and they represent the thinking of a large number of people. This particular letter is from the farmers' union of Alberta, which has many thousands of members. It is dated March 2, 1956, and reads:
The farmers' union of Alberta board of directors at a recent meeting endorsed the following amendment to the Indian Act which is proposed by the Indian association of Alberta.
Resolved that a new section be added to the Indian Act. Chapter 149, revised statutes of Canada, 1952:
1.	In any case where the minister's discretion or that of the governor in council is exercised

in a manner which the band of Indians concerned feels is inequitable, there shall be an appeal to a supreme court judge of the province where the band is located.
2. That decision to appeal must be made by a recorded vote of the electors of the band at a meeting properly called for that purpose.
3.	The cost of the court action must be paid by the band, and the decision of the court shall be binding on all parties concerned.
Yours very truly,
Farmers' Union of Alberta, (Mrs.) Pansy Molen, Secretary.
I received letters like that from dozens of non-profit organizations including the Lions Club and the missionary societies of various churches and others, particularly organizations devoted to charitable works. As I say, there has been a considerable increase in interest not only in the general welfare of the Indians but in the idea that they must be given a better deal than they have been given before so they may be placed on a basis of complete equality with other citizens in this country and no longer kept in an inferior state. I think this is a matter that needs to be corrected. In many cases under the act the Indians have no appeal whatever from the decision of the minister which as I said previously, really means the decision of one of his agents frequently. In other words there is an arbitrary power which any other person who felt himself aggrieved in like circumstances could take to the courts but the Indians cannot do so. When the Indian Act is under revision I hope the minister will accept an amendment in terms such as those I have just read out. I would hope we could put it in the act at this time and to that extent we will have improved what I might call the general civic rights of Indians and placed them in a better position under the law than they occupy at the present time.
Another matter of grave concern, which has caused more uneasiness, trouble and disquiet among the Indians than anything else since the passage of the present act, is the provisions under that act by which Indians may be expelled from band membership and therefore deprived of the right to live on the reserve and to share in the ordinary care which Indians receive on reserves, including schools and medical facilities and so forth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. There is no provision in the act for expelling any Indian from band membership.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am under no misapprehension whatever. There definitely is a provision of that sort and it has been acted on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What section of the act?
Indian Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, a considerable number of Indians have been expelled from reserves and I believe a certain number of cases are pending at the present time. This business has lain like a heavy threat over quite a number of Indians for a number of years. As I say, it has caused more concern in the reserves in Alberta than any other single thing. More than any other matter it has caused what you might call a general suspicion of what the Department of Indian Affairs and the government might do.
I do not know why the minister rose and spoke the way he did because he knows quite well that in the Indian Act there are provisions affecting a person who does not meet the definition of the word "Indian" which was written into the act when it was last revised. Such a person may be expelled from the reserve. As I say, there are a number of cases pending and some people have been expelled. They are expelled for extremely flimsy reasons, particularly on the basis that their grandfathers took scrip back in the 1870's or 1880's. They are expelled because allegations are made by some other persons to the effect that their fathers or grandfathers were white men, and for reasons like that, which in most cases the person affected cannot disprove.
Of course there is a provision in the act that if any ten members of the particular reserve object to the membership of a particular Indian on the basis that his grandfather took scrip, or for some other reason, they may make a complaint and the case comes up and is presented to the department. The department may then order the Indian expelled from the reserve. The natural result of this of course has been to create a great deal of conflict. A few disgruntled people who dislike any member who lives on the reserve are encouraged by this provision to make a complaint against the individual. A great deal of ill will has developed and the reserves have split into factions, and things of that sort.
I think this is a bad provision and one which should be done away with. The position of these people on the reserves should be assured, as it were. It is unreasonable to allege that a man's grandfather took scrip. As a matter of fact, even if he did take it, in most cases he did not know what he was doing. He could not speak English nor could he read or write. Most of the scrip that was issued to Indians, as a matter of fact, was issued at the instigation of white men who promptly turned around and bought the scrip in order to purchase land. They probably paid the Indian $10 or $15 or gave him a bottle of whisky or something like that and

Indian Act
in most cases the Indian did not know what he had done. He received the $10 or the bottle of whisky, as the case may be, and went back to his reserve and forgot all about it. Those Indians were all accepted back on the reserves. As a matter of fact, there was never any question about it. It is only in recent years that the department has apparently launched a general policy of cutting down, if possible, the number of Indians living on the reserves and has been attempting to expel these people. I think it would greatly improve the feeling of mutual respect and confidence between the Indians, the department and this house if this provision were to be abolished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I would like to know what section of the act he is referring to. I have gone through the act since he started to speak and I can find nothing anywhere that suggests any Indian may be expelled by anybody.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I cannot take time here to start looking up the section of the act. I would ask the minister if it is not a fact that proceedings have been taken against a considerable number of Indians at the instigation of ten members of the tribe in order to have an individual Indian expelled. Is that not a fact? Are there not cases now pending?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to answer his question now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a provision in the act-and I am sure everyone who has any familiarity with the act knows it; although it was changed when the last revision was made, in which I did not take part, as hon. members know-whereby, under a certain procedure, an Indian or a group of them on the reserve may protest that someone else living on that reserve is not an Indian. If it can be proven that person is not an Indian and has no right to be there he has, of course, no right to be there. There is provision also for recourse to the courts and for settlement by a judge in such cases. There is however, no provision in the act to the effect that anyone who is an Indian can be expelled from a reserve by anyone whatsoever.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, what the
minister is trying to do is to say these people who are expelled are not Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not trying to say that anybody is not Indian.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the minister is trying to make a play on words which

does not amount to anything. There is a considerable number of cases, as the minister well knows. As a matter of fact this was being carried on by the department before the new act came into effect. Quite a number of people at the Driftpile reserve, which I happen to know about particularly, were expelled by the officers of the department before the new act came into effect, before there was this provision concerning the ten people making a complaint. They were expelled on the instigation of the department itself. For the minister to say that there is no provision for the expelling of Indians and then to say that anybody who is expelled is not an Indian is I think just playing on words. There are all kinds of people living on these reserves, and some of these probably have a certain amount of white blood, but to say that they are not Indians because of that is the same as saying the minister is not a Canadian because he may have a little Irish blood in him or something else along that line.
This is a matter of great concern. The Indian association of Alberta, which I believe represents all the tribes in Alberta, have made this their chief complaint with the department for several years past. Therefore I do not think the minister can claim that this sort of thing does not go on. In addition to the representations which I received from the farmers' union I have had others in regard to this matter. Here is one from the Women's Missionary Society of the United Church of Canada, Alberta conference branch. It is dated April 18, 1956 and reads:
At our recent annual meeting, the Alberta conference branch of the Women's Missionary Society of the United Church of Canada (representing 5,990 women throughout the province) passed the following resolutions concerning our Canadian Indians.
The first is the same as the one I received from the farmers' union, so I go on to the next:
2.	That all Indians who at the time of coming into force of the last Indian Act were either treaty Indians or the descendants of treaty Indians, be henceforth regarded as treaty Indians (and no Indian who was signed in treaty previous to the act be forced or bribed or coerced by the government against his will off the reserve).
That is the very matter I am talking about.
3.	That the federal government undertake a comprehensive plan of trades and professional training to equip young Indians for any type of employment within or outside of the reserve.
We ask that you give the above your careful consideration, and bring the above to the attention of other members of parliament-
Instead of trying to do this sort of thing I think the minister would be much better advised to look into the matter and bring in an amendment to the act to ensure that

this will not take place in future. Such an amendment should translate into law the recommendation made by the Women's Missionary Society of the United Church of Canada, Alberta conference branch. They are just one among many organizations who have made this type of representation.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired and I have made allowance for the interruptions.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the minister upon introducing this important resolution to amend the Indian Act to provide for a number of changes in connection with the administration thereof. I wish also to pay a special tribute to the efficient direction given at the executive level in recent years in the Indian affairs branch. I refer particularly to he late Major D. M. McKay and to Colonel H. M. Jones, his successor as branch director. Colonel Jones, like Major McKay, has established a fine reputation for leadership and has shown a rare understanding of the Indian problem. The unselfish service and willing co-operation of these two directors have helped greatly all those who have tried and are trying to make a constructive contribution to the solution of this present problem.
I think all hon. members must admit that it is not an easy problem to solve. Various steps have been taken and measures have been proposed by the federal government from time to time. We all know that, no matter how well intended they were, those measures have fallen substantially short of perfection. Somehow it seems difficult to rid official thinking and legislation of the wrong idea that we are dealing with an inferior and subordinate people. At any rate that is the impression left with the Indian himself. I am satisfied that the fault in this direction does not rest with officials of the Indian affairs branch in Ottawa, but rather that in the past many of our difficulties with the Indian population have stemmed from actions of local Indian agents. Indians in a sense have been wards of the federal government. There is a definite responsibility on the administration at Ottawa to make certain that Indians do not become destitute. More than that, the aim should be to see that our Indian population advances steadily from a state of wardship to a status of equal citizenship with non-Indian Canadians.
To this end they should receive adequate education and training if the conception of equality is to have any real meaning of significance. I have always been deeply interested in the Indian people of Canada and
Indian Act
particularly those residing in my own constituency. They number about 1,700 in all. Ever since I entered parliament I have been urging the adoption of a new and better deal for the Canadian Indian. I intend to continue to press for those laws and services which I believe necessary to the improvement of their lot and to their value as people residing in this country.
I know that it is unrealistic to expect that legislation can be designed to cover fairly and within the strict letter of the law every possible individual case or set of circumstances. That is where sensible interpretation comes into play and where the Indian agent on the spot can exercise a most helpful discretion. But I have found in my many years' residence in the north that there is a need for Indian agents who are not tied to their desks, but who will get out and give personal instruction, guidance and supervision to the Indians in their charge. I wish to reiterate that in my view the agents should spend considerably more time in visiting the Indians in their camps and settlements to discuss their grievances and problems personally with them, rather than the Indians being obliged to travel many miles to bring their troubles and grievances to the agents at local headquarters.
In the selection of Indian agents by the civil service commission, I cannot say that good judgment has been used at all times, especially in the past. Academic qualifications are too often given too much weight, whereas those men who have a practical knowledge of Indians, their habits and way of life, and who know local conditions, are not given the consideration they deserve. Some of the best Indian agents I have known are men with practical experience among the Indians and who have not always had the benefits of higher education. These men were highly respected and liked by the Indians themselves. Just because a man with a higher education can sit down and write a good examination does not necessarily mean that he has sufficient practical experience and qualifications to fill such positions. In many instances they do not possess tact or good judgment in the sympathetic understanding of Indian problems.
Instead of this being so, we find too often a tendency toward evasiveness, indecision and buck-passing as between various departments of government, as well as an inclination on the part of local officials to hide behind a tangle of rules and regulations.
On the other hand, I realize that Indians are often not readily understandable or easy to work with. In some instances they fail to assume personal responsibility and accountability in the way that non-Indians more

Indian Act
naturally do. They frequently need careful and constant supervision to attain the best results.
I grant you that older Indians, accustomed to gaining a livelihood by hunting, fishing and trapping, cannot readily adapt themselves to the modern methods of earning a living. But it should be the responsibility of the Indian affairs branch to teach the young generations of Indians useful trades and occupations.
In this connection, I believe too much emphasis is being placed on purely academic schooling rather than on vocational training. I feel that departmental policy on this subject should have been changed years ago. Some Indians I have met are very good mechanics. Many Indians make useful, thrifty citizens and good Canadians in every sense.
Just last week we saw here in Ottawa a splendid example of Canadian citizenship in the person of Dr. Peter Kelly of Vancouver island. He is a full-blooded Haida Indian and a full-time church minister. Dr. Kelly has always been a great fighter for Indian rights and has a son in the welfare section of the Indian affairs branch.
There are some arable areas of land in the north which Indians could cultivate with good results if given the necessary instruction and supervision. They could, I believe, become self-supporting to a large extent, so far as food supplies are concerned, to supplement their meagre means of obtaining a livelihood.
In regard to the older Indians who have always relied upon hunting, fishing and trapping for their livelihood, I believe that the federal departments concerned should extend every possible effort to preserve and develop the forest and game reserves in the north. I was most alarmed to read an article entitled "A Problem in Conservation" by Dr. A. W. F. Banfield, chief mammalogist, Canadian Wildlife Service, reprinted in the Indian School Bulletin, education division of Indian affairs branch, of March 1956. This article states:
Many writers have scored the wastage of caribou by Eskimos and Indians throughout the years. Instances of this have been observed during the recent investigations. Orgies of killing still take place at several crossing points where caribou are speared from canoes or kyaks as they cross lakes in crowded ranks. Each year thousands of caribou carcasses are abandoned-their bloated bodies crowding the shores of northern lakes whose waters flowed red a few days before. At other points men, women, and children pepper the passing columns with small-calibre rifle slugs. Little effort is made to salvage the carcasses of these that escape from the scene of shooting and die of their wounds. During the summer months, caribou meat is often abandoned after the hides have been stripped from the carcasses for clothing.

During the autumn hunts, a few sods or stones tossed on the carcasses are often dignified by the term "cache". In some areas of Keewatin the head is merely twisted so the antlers will stick up through the snow. These caches are easily plundered by scavengers such as wolves, foxes and wolverines. Often they are not revisited when the trapper travels in a different direction.
This is a practice which northern people must take the lead in curbing. Government legislation cannot effectively prevent wastage in the remote areas of northern Canada. Restoration of the caribou can only be accomplished through an enlightened and aggressive program of conservation education, which will bring home to each hunter his own responsibility to conserve the resources of the land. Such a program should emphasize long term conservation and it must reach not only the children but the present day hunters or we may have few caribou for the children to hunt.
This comment by an authority goes to prove that our conservation responsibilities will increase rather than diminish unless the Indians of the north are trained, along the lines suggested, and integrated into the new economic development. I have always thought that Indians are conservationists by nature; however, after reading the article by Dr. Ban-field it rather dispels that theory to a certain extent. I believe, however, that the answer to this problem of adaptation to our ways and our standards of living lies in the patient and persistent education of the Indian.
In this regard I am not unmindful of the brave and devoted efforts of missionaries and public servants in the north. Much also has been done to improve the health of the northern Indians. The Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton has established a wonderful reputation in fighting disease among Indians and Eskimos.
In addition, during the past ten years very real progress has been made in the education of Indian people. The number of Indians attending schools in Canada has reached a total in 1955 of over 32,000. Not only are more Indian children attending school than ever before, but Indians are taking advantage of opportunities to attend high schools and universities and to take special training in the trades and professions. In the Yukon the Indian school population has increased from about 181 to 471 during the ten-year period from 1945 to 1955. About one-quarter of last year's Indian students attended non-Indian schools in the Yukon, and in line with the policy of the department towards greater integration.
It is my view that Indian education, at least at this stage in his development, should mainly emphasize vocational training. The Indian boy should be given some trade which will fit him for the sort of employment he can hope to get in his area.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock9

Private Bills-Divorce


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 217, for the relief of Jean Benoit Maille-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Henderson:: In consideration of clause 1, I should like to say a few words on the matter of the discussion of this bill before the committee of the whole when it came up on Friday last and an incident which was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West and spoken to by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised the point that he had received some information of a proceeding of a very unusual nature and he spoke about a document being in the name of the chief clerk of committees of the House of Commons which had been filed as an exhibit before the committee. I might say that I regret that this matter came up in the house for discussion prior to the next meeting of the committee, which was this morning, to deal with this particular item. Last week, on June 12 and 13 there were two consecutive days of hearings, by this committee of which I have the honour to be chairman, of contested divorce actions, and the two contested divorce actions were disposed of. This morning the committee met on other business, namely 14 other divorce bills and an item of business which was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West on Friday last. In order that hon. members may thoroughly understand the incident which was raised before the committee, I think I should give some of the background and detail, so that there will be no misunderstanding and in order that there will be no feeling that any irregular procedure has been followed by the committee on miscellaneous private bills in dealing with the matter.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. Just before the hon. member proceeds, I wonder whether I should not just point out to the committee of the whole that actually this committee has before it a bill, that it is at the present time considering clause 1 of that bill, and that the powers of the committee are entirely those of acceptance, rejection or possibly amendment of that clause. However, the
committee as a whole recalls the trend that this debate took last Friday and the undertaking-if one might use the word-which the leader of the house gave that the incident brought up last Friday should be or could be discussed today. My purpose in rising and interrupting the hon. member for Kingston is just to point out to the committee that this is an unusual situation and should not be regarded as a precedent; in other words, in a discussion on a clause of one particular bill, extraneous matters dealing with a previous hearing of the bill and some action which may be taken outside this committee would not normally be a subject for debate. I am not interfering with the discussion this afternoon. I am just launching that caveat because I do not think it would be a good precedent to establish.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the matter in committee this morning, may I say that it was recognized by all members of the committee that we were not dealing with the bill but that we were dealing with the incident about which I am now speaking, in order that no precedent would be created by dealing with the bill after it had left the committee and had been referred to the committee of this house as a whole.
On Tuesday last, June 12, there were on the orders of the day several others of the bills before this committee, and particularly this contested divorce bill being No. 217, Letter J-7 of the Senate, entitled an act for the relief of Jean Benoit Maille. There appeared as counsel on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Godbout, counsel from Montreal, and for the respondent, Mr. Penverne, counsel from Montreal. That was during the morning sitting. During the afternoon sitting and the review of the witnesses by the committee, a witness appeared on behalf of the respondent by the name of Mr. Ian Peacock. He was called and he was sworn, examined and cross-examined. During his cross-examination the counsel for the petitioner asked him if he were here pursuant to a subpoena or words to that effect. He produced a document which was alleged to be a subpoena. It had certain amendments typed on it. It had formerly been Form 15, a subpoena form of the Senate. As we well know, there can be no such document as far as this committee is concerned. It was issued over the typed name of R. Arsenault, presumably the clerk of the miscellaneous private bills committee. At that point, when this document which was produced-which for the purposes of the record was marked exhibit "P"

at 5.45 o'clock the division bells rang in the house here and the committee was adjourned until eight o'clock. For the benefit of those who were there and those who were not there I might say, with

Private Bills-Divorce regard to any reflection that has been made or might be inferred as to the conduct of this committee, that there were present in the afternoon sitting the following: Messrs. Anderson, Batten, Brown (Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Carter, Eyre, Fairey, Hansell, Henderson, Houck, Macnaughton, Matheson, Pommer, Regier, Simmons, Weaver, White (Waterloo South), and Wylie.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock. The first matter of business to be dealt with was this alleged subpoena. The witness, Mr. Peacock, was asked where he got this document. If my memory serves me correctly he said he got it from the respondent herself. Counsel for the respondent then stood up and stated that the document had originated from his office.
Another witness who was to give evidence on behalf of the respondent, a man by the name of Mr. David De Castro, produced a similar subpoena which was marked exhibit "Q" in the proceedings of the committee on that day. It was in the same form as exhibit "P", being the exhibit produced by Mr. Peacock. I might say that it is worth noting that when these witnesses were being examined, members of the committee appropriately asked each one of these witnesses who was there and had produced this form of subpoena if he would have come if he had not received the subpoena. The answer in every case was in the affirmative. Might I suggest at this point that we might come to the conclusion that these documents were merely superfluous and base our conclusion upon the evidence as given by the witnesses so sworn.
In dealing with these subpoenas, we discussed the matter in the committee. I might say that the members present at that time- this is the evening sitting-were as follows: Messrs. Anderson, Batten, Brown (Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Carter, Eyre, Fairey, Hansell, Henderson, Houck, Macnaughton, Matheson, McCubbin, Pommer, Simmons, Weaver and Wylie.
In discussing this matter of the subpoena I think some members were of the opinion that we should not in any way, because of a document of this nature being produced as an exhibit, allow it to interfere or prejudice in any way the case of either the petitioner or the respondent. However, it could not interfere with the case of the petitioner because these witnesses had clearly admitted under oath that they would have been present anyway whether or not they had ever received these subpoenas; and in dealing with the respondent, to be fair to her, if there had arisen any prejudice against her counsel for having produced these documents in a conclusion reached by members 
of the committee, she would have been prejudiced by something outside of her knowledge and control. Therefore it was decided to proceed with the evidence and to dispose of this incident of these irregular subpoenas on another occasion. The evidence was put in for the respondent's case. I might say that there was a recorded vote on the granting of this particular petition. The petition was granted by a vote of: Yeas, 12, and nays, 2. The yeas were: Messrs. Batten, Brown (Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Carter, Eyre, Fairey, Hansell, Macnaughton, Matheson, McCubbin, Pommer and Weaver. The nays were: Messrs. Simmons and Wylie.
This was ten minutes after ten on the evening of June 12 and the committee adjourned until three o'clock in the afternoon of Wednesday June 13 to deal with the next contested matter before the committee which was a petition already disposed of by a bill of this honourable house on Friday. I might say that there were witnesses and counsel waiting for the presentation of that petition over the two days. It was thought advisable to dispose of that.
This matter was dealt with this morning, as I say, as a separate incident and not in connection with the bill because the bill was not before the committee. We had the experts on law and procedure in this house before the committee, and it was decided unanimously that I be instructed to report the incident to Mr. Speaker. This decision was based upon standing orders 117 and 118. As we know, briefly, standing order 117 makes provision whereby a parliamentary agent, and the counsel in this matter was one, becomes a parliamentary agent with the sanction and authority of Mr. Speaker. He is therefore personally responsible to the house and to Mr. Speaker.
Standing order No. 118 is the one under which we have authority, and it reads as follows-I am reading it into the record for the purpose of clarifying this matter:
Any parliamentary agent who wilfully acts in violation of the standing orders and practice of parliament, or of any rules to be prescribed by Mr. Speaker, or who wilfully misconducts himself in prosecuting any proceedings before parliament, shall be liable to an absolute or temporary prohibition to practice as a parliamentary agent, at the pleasure of Mr. Speaker; provided, that upon the application of such agent, Mr. Speaker shall state in writing the ground for such prohibition.
In consequence of that standing order, Mr. Chairman, and as I say again with the unanimous consent of the members of the committee, this morning I so reported the incident to Mr. Speaker. I would ask hon. members to consider this bill which is now before us separate and apart from this incident. I hope the explanation which I have

given clarifies the matter in the minds of the members of this committee.


Mr. Herridge:: I listened with interest to the explanation of this unfortunate incident given by the chairman of the committee on private bills. I appreciate the trouble to which he went to explain the matter to the members of this committee. I raised this matter on Friday last and at that time I said, as reported at page 5102 of Hansard for that date:
I have raised this question because, if that is correct, it is in my opinion a very serious matter indeed. I think this bill should be referred back to the committee for an explanation by the chairman of the committee as to what actually happened before the committee.
After that the Minister of Finance spoke briefly, and then noting the absence of the chairman of the committee from the house I was only too glad, in fairness to the chairman, to adjourn the debate. However, at that time the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who is a member of the committee, apparently did not agree with me or with the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance because, as reported at page 5102 and 5103 of Hansard, he said:
Before the adjournment is considered, may I say that I happen to be a member of that committee, and the hon. member for Yukon is another member; the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) was there and perhaps two or three others. This question was dealt with by our committee. Despite the fact that our chairman is not here today, I think what has been said throws rather a reflection on our committee. I think it should be dealt with today. I must admit that the name of Mr. Arsenault was not written, it was typed by this lawyer's secretary, and I think we should dispose of this now. It was given a good deal of consideration by the committee. As a matter of fact we had two sittings, and we sat until ten o'clock one evening. I feel it has been given all the consideration that should be given.
I am very glad, in view of the remarks made by the member of the committee, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, that the chairman has seen fit to give this explanation he has given this afternoon.
I want to explain that after I had been informed of the incident I raised the matter in the house entirely on my own initiative and without consulting any other person, as one on which I considered the house was entitled to be informed by the chairman of the committee. I want to emphasize that there was no political or party interest in this matter whatever. I raised it because I considered it my duty to raise it and because of my jealousy of the rights and privileges of this House of Commons. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in doing so I did not intend in any way whatever to cast any reflection on the committee or any member thereof.
Private Bills-Divorce
Now, from the report just given to the house by the chairman of the committee, it is obvious that my action was fully justified.
I am confident all members of this committee will appreciate the frank and full statement just made by the chairman of the committee on private bills, and particularly the committee's recommendation with respect to this lawyer's action. When speaking on Friday last I said I was informed that this lawyer admitted to members of the committee present to forging the signature of Mr. Rufin Arsenault, chief clerk of the committees of the House of Commons. From the report which has been given, apparently this lawyer is not guilty of forgery in the legal sense. The dictionary gives the meaning of forgery as to counterfeit, to falsify or to fake. In that sense, the lawyer in question certainly is guilty of forgery and a very serious breach of his privileges as a parliamentary agent.
However, according to the report made by the chairman to the house this afternoon I think it is quite safe to say he is guilty of uttering a false document, which is a very serious act indeed on the part of a parliamentary agent. I might say that I discussed this question with one or two members of the other place and I found that the same lawyer attempted a similar scheme on a committee of the other place some two or three years ago. I am very pleased that the action of the committee has brought this breach of his privileges to the attention of the Speaker.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in these difficult and lurid times, when standards that have stood for centuries are being threatened, I think it is the duty of every member in this house to protect the integrity of this house, its forms, procedures and practices. I am pleased to note the committee has recognized this in the report it has given by the hon. member who preceded me. The question of the rights, responsibilities and rules governing parliamentary agents was originally laid down by the Speaker by authority of the British House of Commons in Great Britain in 1837. So far as I can read, these rules have been revised a number of times since. In April, 1938 a new set of rules was approved and issued by the chairman of committees in the Lords and the Speaker in the Commons. I have done some reading on this subject since last Friday, but I must not aspire to be an expert on parliamentary procedure. I can only plead extenuating circumstances because possibly it is an infectious disease.
This question has been given considerable attention, and in May's fifteenth edition there are four pages dealing with the rules relating
5184	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce to parliamentary agents. I wish to draw particular attention to rules 20 and 21 on page 878 of this edition. Altogether, there are 24 rules governing the rights, responsibilities and privileges of parliamentary agents, and some three pages of this book are taken up with these rules and regulations. I find that rule 20 reads as follows:
Every parliamentary agent and solicitor conducting proceedings in parliament before the House of Commons shall be personally responsible to the house, and to the Speaker, for the observance of the rules, orders, and practice of parliament, as well as of any rules which may from time to time be prescribed by the Speaker, and also for the payment of the fees and charges due and payable under the standing orders.
Rule 21 reads:
Any person registered as a parliamentary agent who shall act in violation of the orders and practice of the House of Commons or who shall be guilty of professional misconduct of any kind as a parliamentary, agent shall be liable to an absolute or temporary prohibition to practice as a parliamentary agent at the discretion of the Speaker.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no question about it, this lawyer has committed a breach of his privileges. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Speaker. He has the right to deal with the matter according to our rules.
Apparently, we in this house in general have followed the British practice in the writing of rules 117 and 118 that deal with parliamentary agents and to which the hon. member for Kingston referred when he was making his report. It is fortunate in this, as in a good many other parliamentary matters, that members of this house in days past in their wisdom saw fit to be guided by the experience and traditions of the mother of parliaments. It is not very frequent that an incident of this kind happens in this House of Commons. We have based our practice on the established practice of the mother of parliaments in Great Britain, where I understand this matter has been given a great deal of consideration throughout the years since 1837, because over there the right to act as a parliamentary agent is guarded jealously and I presume by adopting similar language in rules 117 and 118 we have followed the British practice and we expect the same traditions to be maintained.
When we are dealing with questions like the one at present under discussion we must all realize, I am sure, it is fortunate there exists an inseparable umbilical cord of tradition, of procedure, of parliamentary practice and precedent with the mother of parliaments from which we can draw the procedural nourishment on occasions like these necessary to cure the parliamentary anemia that threatens our times.
[Mr. Herridge.l

In conclusion, again I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his report. The committee has done its duty in reporting to this house and reporting the incident to the Speaker according to the traditions, procedures and practices recognized in this house and in the mother of parliaments upon which they are based.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, on Friday last the hon. member for Kootenay West raised the possibility of this case being referred back to the committee. I was very pleased to know that this house did not follow through with that suggestion and that the bill was not referred back to the committee because I feel that would have served no useful purpose.
It is now several years since I first raised the question of the contempt of parliament that I was noticing taking place in these divorce cases, and I think the hon. member for Kootenay West is to be congratulated on raising his voice in an effort to avoid further contempt of this institution and of its committees. I am not for one moment goipg to condone the actions of the attorney in question, the attorney for the respondent. I believe his actions show, although possibly in desperation, though they none the less show it, a clear contempt for the rules by which this parliament and its committees operate. This is possibly, if my information is correct, one of the last times, or the last time, that this subject will be brought up for discussion in this house at this current session. Therefore, I would like to express at this time my compliments to both the members of the committee this year and our very helpful and amiable chairman of the committee this year. When we sat through this Maille case-despite the fact that I was absent from the evening session, I was there for the whole hearing of the case and missed only the summary of the various attorneys at the end-I noticed on innumerable occasions the chairman lending a helping hand to the petitioner and his attorney and the respondent and her attorney. It is a bit of a different arrangement that we have there. We are a court and yet we are not a court, and nobody seems to know exactly what the line of procedure is or ought to be. The committee likes to consider itself as a court. Some like to consider themselves as a court of appeal from the similar committee that is in existence in the other place. On occasion, the Prime Minister has denied that assertion. His claim is that we are not acting as a court but that the petitioner is exercising only

his rights as a private citizen in petitioning at the foot of the throne, which is the parliament of Canada.
Members of the House of Commons are asked to sit in the capacity of judges. Some of us have the legal training for that; others of us have not. I do not apologize for one minute for missing out on the vote on this Maille case, because after a full morning and afternoon session I simply did not know who was the more or less honest, the petitioner or the respondent, and I felt myself wholly unable to cast an honest vote and to reach any conclusion. This was caused especially by the lack of established procedure before our committee. The committee of the other house has well-established and laid-down lines of procedure for calling witnesses, for hearing witnesses, for rights of petitioner and respondent, and for the whole procedure. I am sure the members of the committee will agree with me when I express the wish that something might possibly be done whereby we can arrive at a recognized established method of proceeding.
In this case the petitioner applied to the other place over a year ago for relief from his marriage vows and was denied the relief. This year he made another effort and succeeded before the committee of the other place, using a new incident by which he attempted to prove adultery and calling a completely new set of witnesses.
His argument had some weaknesses in it. A number of discussions took place concerning the reasons he should be seeking relief. He claimed he had no intention of remarrying. "Once was enough," were his words. We could therefore only come to the conclusion that his reasons for seeking relief chiefly concerned the fact that since his wife had a legal separation from him she was costing him a lot of money and was also causing him considerable embarrassment. He is admittedly a fairly well-to-do manufacturer. He has to pay his wife $30 a week and of course he has to maintain the three children involved. Whether that should be a cause for seeking relief, I do not know. He added further that his wife had quite frequently taken him into court and when such events took place he always had to pay both her expenses and his own.
I noted that he had severely injured his wife's hand just a few days before we heard the case and she had him before a court because of that assault. No doubt he had to pay the costs in this case, too.
His main contention was that his wife was costing him too much money and he thought we should relieve him of the responsibility. There was some doubt in some of our minds,
Private Bills-Divorce
despite his assertion to the contrary, whether he might wish to remarry within a short time if his case was successful. He had spent a fair amount of time in the company of another lady even in such far-away places as Europe. It was a vacation in her case and a business trip in his.
To my way of thinking the respondent's case calls for a good deal of sympathy. I do not wish to pass judgment at this time as to whether or not I thought she was guilty of adultery. However, where responsible members sit on a committee I think they must take many other factors into consideration. The woman was obviously in a poor state of health. The husband admitted that on one occasion at least he had her committed to a mental institution. The respondent claimed she was interested in protesting the divorce, because she did not want to lose the possibility of obtaining custody of her three children. I believe she also admitted, if my memory serves me correctly, her health did not permit her to work. That may have been before the committee of the other place. She also stated she did not want to lose the $30 a week separation allowance which she was receiving.
I did note both before the committee of the other place and before our committee the woman's severe handicap in that she was not able to defend herself. She did not have the means-and perhaps I should really say she did not have the tools-with which to defend herself as I thought she should. Several times when we asked whether or not she had certain witnesses with her, her attorney replied that he had asked some witnesses to appear and they had flatly refused to do so. This again brings out the handicap under which we operate because of a lack of established machinery to permit both the petitioner and the respondent to bring whatever witnesses are necessary to support their cases.
I feel this case has once again very forcibly called our attention to our handicap. We are ruling over the destiny of human lives. We are separating families. This is a very dangerous task and an extremely onerous responsibility. 1 sometimes doubt the wisdom of the state legislating in matters such as morals and marriage as they affect human beings. I believe that as the House of Commons we must either begin to assume our responsibility or we must establish some competent body which will relieve us of the responsibility that now rests with us. I hope before another session of this parliament meets the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will have received enough advice from at least the Protestant members on his side of the house that will inform him in no uncertain

Indian Act
terms that they no longer want to be held responsible for the separation of Catholic married people in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
William James Henderson: that the bill be read a third time.


Erhart Regier: On division.
Motion agreed1 to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


William Alfred Robinson: The business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pickers'gill-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Indian Act to provide for a number of changes in connection with the administration of the act; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance may from time to time advance to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums of money as the minister may require for loans to Indians under section 69 of the act;
The total amount of outstanding advances under the said section not to exceed at any one time one million dollars in lieu of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars as at present.
James Aubrey Simmons: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking of such lines as carpentry, diesel and motor mechanics, welding, logging, lumbering, sawmill operation, prospecting etc. For Indian girls a course could be given in elementary household science, nursing, teacher training and other useful occupations. Employment conditions in recent years have been changing in the north. Construction companies are offering opportunities for those who are able and willing to work. This new development is critically important because the traditional livelihood of Indians by hunting and trapping has drastically declined in some areas. A new era is dawning in the north. Large areas are being opened up to development and existing industrial and economic activity is being speeded up. Let us see that the Indians, native to the north, also benefit from all this progress.
The time has come, and rightly so, when racial discrimination should be set aside and all our citizens who obey the laws and who help to build up a better country may be treated with equality. I was glad to hear the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys
[DOT]'Mr. Regier.]
state in the house the other day that in his recent visit to mining districts of northern Ontario he found numbers of Indians employed in the mines and doing a good job. There are other projects as well that could be carried out in the north to give useful constructive employment to Indians. Many of these settlements could be improved by the provision of graded roads, ditches, sidewalks, better water supplies and sanitary arrangements: in other words, a general and complete overhauling. This would be an opportune time to supply this employment and these facilities so that the natives could improve their communities. At the same time they would be working for wages to supplement their other income.
I wish particularly in this connection to congratulate the Department of National Health and Welfare on the establishment of two rehabilitation homes in Edmonton for Indians discharged from the Charles Camsell hospital. I understand that in these rehabilitation homes Indians who have recovered their health are given an opportunity to fit themselves for useful employment when they return to their own homes. They are given vocational instruction or on the job training. This project is of special interest to me because the Indian hospital at Edmonton accommodates patients from the Yukon Territory, as well as from the north country generally.
Of course it is true that no matter how rapidly new avenues of employment are found for Indians many of them will continue to depend upon trapping for all or most of their cash income, as well as on game and fish for most of their food supplies. Here again federal, provincial and territorial governments can do much to protect and conserve game and fur bearing animals in our northern areas.
The problem of the application of liquor laws to the Indian population is a persistent and vexatious one. Opinions over what policy is best to follow continue to differ widely among non-Indians who have given this problem much study and anxious thought. On the basis of many years' experience in the north, and as a result of close association with Indians and their problems, I am convinced that Indians should not be dealt with differently from non-Indian citizens of Canada so far as liquor laws are concerned. I pressed this point of view strongly on the special committee on the Indian Act during its sittings in 1951. As I pointed out at that time, the existing system affords the widest opportunity to the bootlegger to ply his trade. I feel that it is far better to appeal to the pride of Indians in this matter. Let us deal with them as adults, not as children.

In January of this year a brief submitted to the Gordon royal commission by the Yellowknife District Miners' Union touched on this matter of the Indian and the liquor problem. Although no definite recommendation was made in this connection, it is interesting to note that this portion of their brief draws attention to the significant profits made by bootleggers under the present system. Last year the International Catholic League against Alcoholism distributed a questionnaire among Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries in northern Canada. The questionnaire asked for views and suggestions on laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages to Indians. Answers were received from at least ten points in the Yukon, and it is interesting to note that the majority of those replying felt that Indians should have the same rights as non-Indians in this regard. Taking the survey as a whole, however, the majority opinion was adverse to any change in this connection.
I feel that Indians, in principle, should not be restricted in this matter but that in practice the problem should be handled by means of the local option privilege. It is felt by many that the approach toward any solution should be a cautious one, and conducted on an experimental basis.
If the Indians of Canada are to take their proper place in the Canadian community, and to play their rightful part in the upbuilding of this nation, they should be encouraged to accept as much responsibility as they are able to carry. The closer we and they can come to realizing this ideal, the happier they will be, and the stronger Canada will become.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to say a few words on this resolution we now have before us on Indian affairs. I have always had a great interest in the Indians in my own province of British Columbia, particularly on the coast, and I have had some fairly intimate friendships with many of them.
The hon. member for Yukon this afternoon mentioned one of my most distinguished constituents, who was here a few days ago, the Reverend Dr. Peter Kelly. I think that the existence of a person like Dr. Kelly illustrates the complexity of this problem of the Indian population of Canada. Dr. Kelly is, of course, a doctor of divinity and a very eminent minister in the United Church
Indian Act
ministry, and he is also a member of a chief's family of the Haida Indians. I have a peculiar interest in him because his son at one time taught my children in the public schools on Vancouver island, and I realize that in Dr. Kelly, and in his whole family for that matter, we have not only outstanding representatives of the Indian population but outstanding citizens of Canada. It is not easy perhaps to devise a formula that will apply equally to such people as Dr. Kelly and his family and the less advanced members of the native population of Canada.
Every year before I come to Ottawa I always have great satisfaction in being summoned to attend a meeting of the council of the Indians in part of my constituency who call me down to tell me their troubles and what they want me to try to do for them. I think that perhaps is a demonstration that they have come of age in their own minds, even if we do not admit it here in this House of Commons, and that they consider a member of this house as their representative as well as the representative of those who have the privilege of voting for him. I sometimes think that we should have one or two members of that Indian tribe attend here in this chamber and then perhaps we would hear oratory that has not been heard here for a generation, because these people on the coast of British Columbia are for some reason or another natural born orators. What many of the Indians in my constituency can do with the English language should be the envy of some of us to whom it is the native tongue.
We have an enormous responsibility with regard to the Indians because, owing, principally, I think, to ignorance, and partly also to greed and selfishness, we completely shattered their very complex social structure when the white people came to this country. I know this is particularly true among the bands and nations of the coast Indians. The regulations that were put into effect in the early days prohibiting many of their traditional customs simply shattered the fabric of their whole society. When I hear people speaking in a contemptuous manner of the behaviour of Indians, I often wonder how we would behave if some conquering race came in and forbade us to carry on with the traditional social institutions to which we had been accustomed for generations, as these people had been.
In recent years on the coast of British Columbia the Indians have been beginning to assume their rightful place in our society and, with the aid of better economic conditions and better educational opportunities, are now beginning to match the white man

Indian Act
on his own ground. In the constituency of my friend from Comox-Alberni there is a very remarkable old gentleman whom I should hope some day the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might have a chance to meet. He is a chief of a tribe of one of the islands off Vancouver island, and now very nearly 90 years of age. He became chief of that tribe at the age of 18 and decided that the condition of his people in the face of new invasion of white people, with their new culture, was such that he had to take very drastic steps to preserve any sort of life for his people and he proceeded almost to force them to adapt themselves to the white man's way of life. He made them tear down their long communal houses and build individual dwellings. He encouraged and aided them and got provincial government help for them to start in the logging business and the fishing business in a commercial way. At the present time the village in which this old chief lives with his people is one of the best kept settlements on the coast of British Columbia, with its own electric light plant and water system and with its own well kept, well painted and well furnished houses. I mention this because this is a sample of what the native people of the coast of British Columbia are capable of doing when given the right encouragement and the right help.
Among Indians now in my part of the country there is a growing demand for decent educational opportunities. They feel-and, I think, quite rightly-that former governments in Canada rather sold them down the river in the easy way in which they allotted the various Indian tribes to the various religious denominations and told these churches to go ahead and educate them in their own way and the best way they could-and it was a very bad way in which they did it. The Indians now are beginning to revolt against that idea. I was particularly pleased two years ago when I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announce the policy of his department to encourage native Indian children to go to existing public schools wherever possible and, where not possible, to build for them secular schools under the Indian affairs branch.
I take a certain pride in the fact that for a number of years I was a member of the school board on Vancouver island which was one of the first school boards, if not the first, in British Columbia to admit Indian children to the schools without any question whatever. The results of that policy were completely evident in a few years because from that school have gone several young Indians, not only through high school but on to the University of British Columbia.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1
So that is one of our first matters, to ensure that they have proper educational facilities.
I am always very impatient when I hear people say, "You cannot educate Indians" or "You can educate them to about the age of ten, and that's all." Such people reveal complete and total ignorance of the capacity of these people. I believe that we should regard this problem of assimilating the Indian population into our own society, not only from their point of view but from our own point of view too, because I am convinced that these people have a great deal to contribute to the culture of Canada. Anyone who has seen the paintings of George Klutesi and Judith Phyllis Morgan, both of them native coast Indians, will realize that these people have a tremendous talent and gift for the visual arts.
Recently, of course, they also won considerable fame on Vancouver island by the production of an Indian opera which was based on their old folklore and on their old dances. I have often regretted that they were not able to raise the funds that they had hoped to raise to send that company on tour throughout Canada. I think it would have been very helpful to other Indians in other parts of Canada to have seen what it is possible for the native population to accomplish.
This afternoon the hon. member for Yukon spoke of the liquor question in connection with the Indian population. I want to endorse what he said in that regard. We have a great many strange myths and folklores that hang over our minds. One of these myths is that Indians, as soon as they have a drink of beer, become wild, unmanageable savages who will slit every white person's throat. Admittedly there are many Indians who become quite unruly when they are drinking,-and I have seen them-just as unruly as Scotsmen, Irishmen, Swedes, French-Canadians or any other ethnic group you like to mention, and no more so. On the other hand, there are plenty of Indians who take it in moderation. There are even some of them who are not particularly interested in it at all. But certainly, if we are going to hope to have these people assume their rightful position in our society, they must be allowed to run the risks of modern civilization as well as to have the privileges and the advantages. One of the risks of modern civilization is the problem of learning how to handle alocholic beverages. I therefore hope that, among other things, the government will take steps towards changing the status of Indians in that regard.
A few days ago when I was speaking to my constituent of whom mention has been made several times here today-I refer to Dr. Kelly

-he remarked to me that in his opinion the single, most important thing that requires to be done for his people is to enfranchise them and to do so without depriving them of those, shall we say, relics of privileges to which they are surely entitled as the rightful owners of this land. As Dr. Kelly pointed out, we cannot expect people really to assume the responsibilities of citizenship unless we are going to give them the voice of citizens. To me he expressed the hope that, before many years had gone by, the fears and doubts that exist among some Indians that if they are enfranchised they will lose their rights will have been dissipated by government action and government statements, and that we then may hope to call on these people to assume their proper place in our communities.
The hon. member for Calgary North this afternoon was speaking about the expulsion of Indians from reservations. I think the minister may have been technically correct when he answered the hon. member; but, as a matter of fact, while there may not be actual expulsions, there are cases which have come to my knowledge-and which I have brought to the attention of the department-of Indians whose claims to be members of a certain band and therefore part owners of the reservation property have not been allowed by the department. In one case that I recall, this is because the man's right of inheritance came through his mother which is the traditional Indian way of tracing inheritance. Unfortunately the lady did not go through the formal motions of getting married to which we are accustomed but she was considered to be married in the eyes of her Indian relations. This young man-he is not young now; he is a man well on in the forties-has been denied his position as a member of that band. The department takes the view that he should be considered as a member of his father's band of Indians which is away up the coast on a small island. The Indians feel that this is an interference with their traditional methods of calculating inheritance. Hence while he is not expelled from this reservation, he is not permitted to get control of a piece of property in order to build a house for himself. He is obliged to live with other relatives there rather as a sort of hanger-on.
This whole question of band membership is at present acute among some of the Indians. I hope it is not going to be acute for very long because I hope that their insistence on their rights within reservations will tend to diminish in importance in their own eyes as their liberties expand. However, I think the department might well institute some investigations into the disputes, to which the hon. member for Calgary North referred today,
Indian Act
which occur between Indians of certain bands on the reservations as to who has the right to own some of the reservation and who has not. They finally come down on the department to decide the matter because, as I said earlier, we have destroyed completely their old, traditional social structure which settled these questions under their own terms at that time.
I hope that some of these matters that I have mentioned will be given attention in the legislation that we are going to see. I also hope that legislation has been drafted in consultation with responsible members of the Indian peoples themselves. There is not merely Dr. Peter Kelly but among the Indians there are many competent, well-educated, upright men with good judgment who could give valuable advice to the minister as to how to solve some of the problems of their people. I hope this legislation has been the result of such consultation and that, in consequence, it will meet with the approval of the Indian people.


Mr. Hardie:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to bring to the attention of the committee some of the problems facing the Indians who do not live on reservations, particularly those in the Northwest Territories in my constituency. At the outset I should like to concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon concerning the cooperation and services given by the late Major D. M. McKay and also the present director of Indian affairs, Colonel Jones. Also, when speaking of Indians, I think a tribute should be paid to the missions-both the Anglican and Roman Catholic missions-for the great job they did in the early years in educating and looking after the native Indians. For instance, in my own constituency the first school was built in Fort Providence by the Roman Catholic mission in 1867. Other schools were built by the Anglican and Roman Catholic missions after that time. But from 1867 to 1902 the government paid no attention, and did not put up one nickel for education or health of the native Indians. In 1902 they gave a big grant to these missions, namely 3 cents per day to educate, clothe and feed Indian children. In 1912 they raised that grant to 12 cents; and in 1921, I think it was, they raised it to 50 cents and they have come along with large grants since then. But now in the Northwest Territories the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have taken over the education of native Indians. A great deal of money has been spent on schools, both vocational and academic. As I have said, a great deal of time is being spent particularly on vocational training, and I agree with this. But, Mr. Chairman, when we speak of vocational training-

Indian Act
training these native Indians to become welders, diesel mechanics, carpenters and all the rest of it-there is something we must remember and it is this. We are educating these people in the Northwest Territories to follow professions of this sort. I want to suggest to the minister now that it is all right to educate these people along these lines, but he should remember one thing. Once they become diesel mechanics, they have to be supplied with work. Once they become welders, they have to be supplied with work or an opportunity to do something along that line. Development in the Northwest Territories is slow. I am afraid that we are going to have students coming out of these schools and work is not going to be available in the Northwest Territories. Then, what do we do?
As a matter of fact, a few years ago an Indian from Fort Simpson was sent to the technical school in Calgary to take a course in welding. What happened to him? He is back in Fort Simpson. They sent him back to Fort Simpson to weld. There is not enough welding in Fort Simpson to keep this fellow in tea. He does not have to be a welder to go out and trap beaver or muskrat. I just want to impress upon the minister the fact that it is all right to educate these people along vocational lines but there has to be a long-term viewpoint to ensure these people of work once they are educated.
I was rather amused when I looked through three of the reports of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the years 1953, 1954, and 1955. Generalizing on conditions in the Northwest Territories, this report had this to say:
Fur catches were poor and prices very low. As a result, in some localities where caribou and other game was plentiful the Indians did not attempt to catch their fur quotas.
Then the report says how many schools there are in the area and that Indian health was better than average. No serious epidemic occurred during the year and tuberculosis was well under control in the far north and all known cases were hospitalized. They do not say what the department was doing to help the Indians. They do not say what the department was doing to help the Indian make a living.
Then, the 1954 report says:
The economic condition of the Indians in this area continued to decline owing to the scarcity and low prices of furs. The relief problem was greatly eased, however, by the fact that caribou were available at nearly all points with the exception of Providence, Hay river and Fort Liard. The installation of freezer storage plants at vari-out points in this area contributed in large measure to the reduction of relief costs.
The fishing activities of the Indians increased over most of the territories and helped considerably
[Mr. Hardie.l
to supplement the available food supply. Several attempts were made to interest Indians in commercial fishing, with varying degrees of success.
I will come back to that in a minute. That is about all they said. The general health of the Indian was good, and no serious epidemic occurred in the year. Then, they set out how many schools there were. That is all for 1954.
Then, the report for 1955 had this to say:
A moderate increase in the price of fur brought some improvement in the economic position of the Indians in the Northwest Territories and many of the Indians took advantage of opportunities to improve their diet through domestic fishing in the numerous lakes in the Mackenzie area.
Mr. Chairman, they have been doing that since the beginning of time, fishing the lakes. Is this new? Is it new to the department of Indian affairs, that they were fishing the lakes.
A supervised caribou hunt was conducted for the first time in the Yellowknife and Rae areas, in an effort to encourage the Indians to provide food for the summer months and, at the same time, conserve big game by storing in cold storage lockers provided by the branch. The experiment was moderately successful.
No serious epidemics occurred during the year and thorough chest X-ray coverage was conducted in conjunction with the paying of annuities during the summer months.
An increasing number of Indians turned from hunting and trapping to other industries, taking seasonal employment in commercial fishing and lumbering industries and in the transportation service.
Commercial fishing, lumbering and transportation service, that is all summer employment. Hunting is for the winter time, but they do that anyhow.
These reports tell what had been going on up there for three years, and except for the fact that the department built freezer or storage plants in various points, that is all that is said about what the department is doing for the native in the Northwest Territories. The department is telling the rest of the country what the native is doing. Everybody knows he is fishing. Everybody knows he is trapping. But they do not know how much money he is getting out of fishing and trapping. I find from the files of the department of northern affairs that the average Indian trapper in the Northwest Territories earns $450 per year. The cost of sugar, for instance in Aklavik or Tuktoyaktuk or any place along the Arctic coast, is $25 per hundred. Flour costs $20 per hundred and tea $1.85 per pound. How far would $450 go? Do not ever get it into your head that these people want relief. I have heard people say oh, when the native gets relief he is not going to work as long as he can get relief. I am telling you that the relief he gets from the department of Indian affairs is not worth

the powder to blow it to Hades. I am telling you that if these people thought for one minute they could live on the relief that is handed out to them or if the people down here think that is what they think, then they have another thought coming. These people are interested in working and making a living if they are provided with the work. There is no work in that part of the country.
I hear the people in this part of the country talking about the Indian on the reservation. Those people are living in seventh heaven compared with the Indians in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The people here talk about the poor Indian on the reserve. The poor Indian on the reserve is what Rockefeller is compared to me in so far as the Indians in the Northwest Territory are concerned. The Indians on the reserves get equipment from the government for agriculture. They get trucks and all sorts of things. In the Northwest Territories, what do they get? There is no provision for work there. If you are destitute or starving we will hand you out 10 pounds of navy beans and a few other little things. Of course, there is no salt to put in the navy beans, and nothing else to put in them, but the department expects the Indian to eat these beans.
It is the responsibility of this government to provide work for the Indians in the Northwest Territories, something like what is being done on the Indian reservations in this country. A few minutes ago I read something about commercial fishing:
Several attempts were made to interest Indians in commercial fishing with varying degrees of success.
Do you know what the facts are? They take a native out and say, "Now, you are going to go fishing out on the lake through the ice." They move out a little two by four cabin, give him a few nets, and he starts fishing. Then, they leave him there. Mr. Chairman, the Indian has to have leadership. He has to have guidance. They leave him out on the lake to fish, and what happens? After the fellow has perhaps 300 or perhaps 400 pounds of fish out on the ice, a fish buyer comes along with a bottle of rye and $5 and says, "Here is the bottle and I will take the fish." After a couple of days of this the Indian finds there is nothing to eat, so he says, to heck with this, I am going home. He takes off and goes home. What can you expect? What these people need is some guidance, some leadership. If the Indian affairs department is going to help these Indians to set up commercial fishing what it has to do is to hire a man in the country, or from the country, who knows something about Indians, and send him out with them and see that they get a square deal from the
Indian Act
fish buyer and that they fish their nets. These people need leadership. Naturally, they need leadership. They are uneducated, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with the hon. member for Yukon who has talked about Indian agents. Instead of the department hiring Indian agents with Ph.D.'s or something else, who would not know a rabbit track from a snow-shoe track, let us hire Indian agents who know something about the native Indian, who know something about the bush and who know something about the conditions under which the Indian is living, and let them give those people some leadership. All the trouble cannot be borne by the Indian agent because the department has so many statistics for these fellows to fill in that if they did know the difference between a rabbit track and a snowshoe track they could not get out into the bush to see it. All their time is taken up filling out statistics on births, deaths, family allowances and all the rest of it.
In the Northwest Territories there are two Indian agencies, one at Yellowknife and the other at Fort Norman. These two Indian agencies look after 4,500 Indians. It takes an Indian agent at least six weeks in the summertime just to cover these places, one day at each, to pay treaty money. The agent has not a chance to get out and see the people. But in the same area the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has game wardens, chief game wardens, mammologists and all the rest of it, looking after game. There is something wrong with the salesmanship in the department of Indian affairs when northern affairs can sell treasury board on a staff of 23 to look after game in the same area in which the department of Indian affairs can sell treasury board on a staff of four to look after human beings, the natives. I am going to make a suggestion to the minister. I suggest to the minister that he go to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and have every game warden in the Northern Territories act as Indian agent in the communities they are stationed. These people are living with the Indians. As a matter of fact, some of the game wardens have told me that during the winter time there is not too much for them to do, anyway, and they would gladly go out to Slave Lake to organize the Indians and help them in commercial fishing. They would stay with them; they would gladly do it. I sincerely suggest to the minister that something be done. I do not say that they should build up an empire and have Indian agents all over the place. Why can they not use game wardens who are doing nothing for half the time in the winter. If they did



S192 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Indian Act
something for the department of Indian affairs it would be a great help.
Of course, I realize that here in Ottawa some of the department heads may not agree with their personnel doing Indian affairs work, but I think they could stand it. I do not think there is anything wrong in it. There are a few other things they could do.
I want to tell a story about a fellow named Slim Semmler up north of Aklavik. A few years ago big Slim decided he was going to ranch mink. He brought in 20 ranch mink and said to the department of northern affairs who, of course, were the bureaucrats in the country, "Now, this is what I propose to do. In the area surrounding me there are native Eskimos", and I am using the word "Eskimos" as an example, but the same can be said of Indians. "If these people were taught how to ranch mink I am sure it would be profitable to them, much more profitable than trapping muskrats."
At the white whale station we have whales. Whale meat can be used to feed the mink and whale oil and muskrats from the trap lines can be used in the spring to strengthen the animals". Well, he received a nice letter from Ottawa. They said, "Well, it sounds like a wonderful idea but we do not think it will work". That is the answer you get every time. Oh, no, they do not think it will work. So, he decided he was going ahead anyway. He purchased two freezers from Norman Wells and shipped them all the way in. He intended to take the whales, crush the bones and all the rest of it and sell to the natives for mink feed and for dog feed. There are 30 tons to 40 tons of dog feed shipped in from Edmonton every year. This fellow was going to make dog feed right there and mink feed and sell it. What did the department of northern affairs say? They said, "Oh, no, you cannot make a profit off the Eskimos". They sent the R.C.M.P. in who said, "Take these freezers out of here". Out went the freezers.
Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: Why?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: That is the sort of co-operation that people get when they make suggestions as to what could be done. They do not say it is going to benefit anybody; they say, "Let us try it". But this department is not willing to try any of these ideas. Although I have heard that the department of northern affairs is working on eiderdown up in the eastern Arctic some place.
What about sawmills? I have read reports and I have heard members speaking in this house. I have read speeches made in 1951 or 1952. People have been speaking about sawmills on different Indian reservations. We

have not one sawmill in the country. Aklavik is being moved. There is need for millions and millions of feet of lumber. There is going to be need for more lumber than we ever knew of or considered before, but there is not one sawmill in the Northwest Territories owned by the Indians. I sincerely ask the minister to do something about this. Let us spend a few dollars on some equipment, whether it is a sawmill, a whaling industry, a mink ranch, or whatever it is. Let us spend some money and organize these people. Let us do it as on the reserves on a co-operative basis. Let us do something to provide them with work, with a means to make some money to supplement what they receive out of trapping, $450 a year.
There were a lot of things I wanted to say when I rose to my feet. Take the case of natives who are handicapped with deformities. Take the case of a man who cannot get out on a trap line because he is walking around on two crutches. Why can we not do something about that? Why can we not hire these people and use them as interpreters? There is a fellow at Fort Resolution whose name is Louis Tinqui. In my judgment Louis Tinqui is the best Indian interpreter of the Slave, the Dog Ribs or any one of these bands. Louis Tinqui is running around on a pair of crutches. They have supplied him with a canoe, but what good is a canoe if he cannot go through the bush on his crutches? I think people like that should be given some sort of a job with the department. They want to earn their way. They do not want to go to the Indian agent every couple of weeks and ask for the destitute ration. They are not interested in that. They want to earn a living. If we can give them the opportunity to earn a living we will not have to worry about the native Indian being integrated into our so-called civilization.


An hon. Member:: "So-called" is good.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: It is so-called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned they were in favour of giving the Indian liquor. Well, I think possibly they should have liquor, but they need a lot more than liquor and the most important thing of all, as I have pointed out a hundred times already, is to provide them with the means of earning a living.
The Tories who run against me in every election in which I have been involved have rushed around the country promising the Indian liquor in return for his vote. "Get his vote and give him the liquor permit,

boys". Well, I have never promised them a liquor permit although I am not against their having these permits. I am telling you, however, and I have told these people, the first thing I would fight for was an opportunity for them to make a living.


George Clyde Nowlan: Have you succeeded?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am trying right now and I hope you support me.


An hon. Member:: You are doing all right.


Clarence Gillis: You are keeping your promise.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Chairman, there is another problem that bothers the Indian in the country. When they do get employment with the government, whether it is with the Department of Northern Affairs or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or some other department, they are not paid in the same manner as civilians who are sent into the country from the outside. For instance, we have Indians who are hired as patrolmen. A patrolman is a very necessary person because usually the government sends in game wardens from Ottawa, Vancouver or Edmonton and they do not know where the Indians are living and they have to have someone to take them around. Therefore we have patrolmen.
The patrolmen are paid $175 a month- perhaps it runs from $150 to $175 or $185 a month

and they are given a cost of living bonus of $60 a month. Now, that sounds pretty good. The game wardens, however, are paid $3,250 per year and $1,500 a year cost of living bonus or $125 a month. The Indian is just as human as the white man and needs as much to eat. The patrolman should have the same amenities as the game warden. Why are they paying the Indian patrolman $60 a month as against the white man's $125? I cannot understand it at all. These people live in the same village and it costs them the same amount to live. As a matter of fact, it costs the Indian more to live than the white man because the white man who is sent in from Ottawa to act as game warden receives $3,250 a year plus $1,500 cost of living bonus, plus a $25,000 house, plus maple furniture, plus fuel oil, plus lights and all the rest of it. What do you think he pays for that? He pays about $28 a month for it. The patrolman, however, is perhaps living in a house with his wife and six kids. The oldest one is perhaps married and has not a home of his own and he may be living in the same house with his wife and all his kids. There are perhaps 12 pepple or more living in one or two rooms.
This brings me around to the subject of housing. I have heard it said the department
Indian Act
of Indian affairs are improving housing conditions for native Indians in the northwest territories. They have improved about two houses in each of these communities. I had a man come to me last fall, a man who had just been released from the hospital after being confined there with tuberculosis for four years. When I was home last year he came to me and told me he was living at Trout Rock, about 40 miles away, where he had a house with a leaking roof. He told me he had asked the Indian agent to give him some roofing for the house but he was refused. I believe the Indian agent told him to come to me about it-yes, I believe he said, "Go over and see your pal Hardie". Apparently I am the Indian agent now. Well, if they want me to be the Indian agent I want to be paid for it. At any rate the fellow was sent to see me.


An hon. Member:: Do you want the bonus too?


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I went to see the agent. I explained that this man had come out of a sanatorium after three or four years, and found that the roof of his house was leaking. His wife could not repair the house while he was away. The roof had to be fixed and he wanted some roofing, but it is like pulling teeth to get two rolls of roofing out of the Indian agent. Not only is the Indian pulling teeth but I am also trying to pull teeth.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Thalcher:: Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks on this Indian bill by saying that there is not a single Indian in my constituency; nevertheless, I am not too enthusiastic about the legislation which is before us tonight.
As hon. members know, the main purpose of this bill is to increase credit facilities for Indians. I am sure every hon. member in this house will sympathize with the principle of that legislation. I can readily understand, with the Indian population increasing and prices going up, that better credit facilities for Indians are needed. Frankly, however, I am not convinced the legislation which is before us tonight is the best way to give Indians better credit facilities.
I cannot help wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the government is not setting up too many different branches of government for the purpose of loaning money. Earlier today we had a bill which was passed for the purpose of loaning money to farmers. If one wishes to build a house in Canada today the government will loan money under the National Housing Act. It may loan under the Fisheries

Indian Act
Improvement Loans Act, under the Industrial Development Bank Act, under the Veterans' Land Act and so on.
Personally, I think there is a very real danger that with all these government loaning agencies in operation there could be a duplication of effort, and wasted effort. I see no reason whatever why loans made to Indians could not be made under the same facilities we have for making loans to other people in Canada.
During the past year the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made many speeches throughout the country, and has spoken about government policy in connection with Indians. If I understood him correctly, the main purpose of government policy is to integrate the Indian into our Canadian way of life.
I am going to suggest tonight that this government policy is a step in the opposite direction, because it continues to keep the Indian in a class apart. It sets up or extends at the expense of the taxpayer, a large administrative machine for the specific purpose of providing credit for Indians which duplicates facilities already in existence for other Canadians. I suggest that this problem could be met much more adequately if instead of bringing forward this legislation, the government took steps to bring the Indian under the provisions of other existing federal acts.
To give one example; why should an Indian wanting to build a home not be able to do so, by taking advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act. Or if an Indian wishes to purchase a farm, why should he not be able to purchase it under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. If an Indian wants to purchase a boat for fishing, why should he not make a loan under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act? And so on. Even more important, I think this government should take steps to allow and encourage Indians to take advantage of the benefits offered by our banks, mortgage companies and so on. It may be that the government would have to guarantee the loans, but they have done that in many other cases in the past, and I do not see why they should not do it for Indians.
I repeat that I am in sympathy with the objectives of this legislation, but I feel that the machinery proposed is completely wrong. I submit that the sooner encouragement is given to our Indians to use existing credit facilities when they require loans, the sooner they will join with other Canadians in making a maximum contribution to this nation. I think it is possible for the government
IMr. Thatcher.]
to get into the lending business too extensively and therefore I am opposed to this legislation.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be that in dealing with the Indian problem it might be considered to be more of a white problem than an Indian problem. That is what I would conclude from some of the comments we have just heard. It is so seldom that we have a chance in this house to deal with matters relating to Indian affairs that there is apt to be a sad misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
I would assume that the resolution before us will have much wider implications than the extending of credit facilities to the first citizens of Canada. In introducing the resolution this afternoon the minister dealt almost exclusively with that particular part, but he hinted, very vaguely perhaps, that there were to be substantial amendments to the Indian Act. Later on the hon. member for Calgary North dealt with some of the amendments which are proposed, basing his information on the trial run which had been given to the legislation before the conference of representative Indians which was held recently in Ottawa.
I hope that tonight we are to be allowed to speak on the broader aspects of the resolution, namely the contemplated changes or amendments to the Indian Act, or as the resolution puts it, changes in connection with the administration of the act. It was in 1951 that substantial amendments were made to the Indian Act. At that time the department took on a new look. There was a new attitude adopted toward the problem and since that time the minister and officials of the department have been endeavouring to interpret the new approach to the problem in public statements across the country.
They recognize that the essence of the difficulty is the reserve system. Speaker after speaker from the minister down has indicated that if we are going to integrate the Indian population, if we are going to eventually assimilate these first Canadians into the general life of Canada, we must break down the system of segregation which has been growing up since the arrival of the white man in this country. It is generally suggested that the best way to carry out this desegregation program, if I may use that term, the best way to break down the reserve system is by a stepping up of the educational program.
I trust that in the amendments which will be brought in as a result of this resolution, especially those having to do with changes in administration, will permit the minister to give some attention to the difficulties which have arisen in administering the new look and

in the educational approach to a solution of the Indian problem. Formerly the emphasis in the department was on residential schools. It seems that both the English and later the Americans when first approaching this difficulty of dealing with the native population already resident on the North American continent, when the white man first arrived, automatically adopted isolation and segregation as a solution. When it became a matter of providing educational facilities the isolationist and segregationist approach was adopted and the emphasis was placed on residential schools.
In carrying out this program the children are removed from the reserve and from parental influence for a few months annually while they attend a residential school. In the summer they return to their homes on the reserves. It was demonstrated by the residential school system that the Indian child was quite capable of adapting himself to the white man's educational program.
However, emphasis on the residential school has aggravated the isolation and has made it quite impossible for the Indian to adapt himself gradually to the wider culture of the white man. It meant that a child having completed the prescribed educational program in a residential school returned to the reserve and was eventually absorbed into the cultural pattern of the reserve. This system was doomed to failure from the beginning because in any society the authority descends from the adult rather than ascends from the child, and there was no hope whatsoever that the child would have any influence upon the cultural pattern of the parents.
Now the department is gradually moving away from the emphasis on residential schools. The new look today is on the establishment of day schools on the reserves. That seems to me to be the beginning of the breakdown in the isolation of the reserve system that has worked against any possible movement towards integration.
The Americans adopted this method as far back as 1926 and have been experimenting with it with a fair degree of success since that time in handling their own native population. The Indians in my constituency have very close blood relations across the border, and it is obvious that the relations living in the United States have made a much more successful and rapid adjustment to the white man's society than their cousins living across the Canadian border.
In our Canadian program, although it has been in effect for only a few years, we are already running into some administrative difficulties. In the day school system on the United States reserves the emphasis is on 67509-329
Indian Act
the educational role. The educational program is comprehensive. It embraces more than the children. In fact, the schools serve more as community centres, rather than performing the basic functions of providing the rudiments of education. There is a very comprehensive adult education program. It is realized that, if you are going to raise the whole level of life on the reserve, you must work with the adult population as well as with the rising generation.
They avoided too the difficulty which is a carry-over from the emphasis on the residential schools. The residential schools had to provide comprehensive religious education for the children, who were removed from parental influences, and religious instruction dependent on the denominational emphasis of the particular school was an integral part of the life of the residential school.
Coming back to the day schools on the reserve, however, the fact that the members of the various reserves are divided in their religious affiliation has caused certain difficulties. There are two reserves in my riding- the Oak river reserve and the Oak lake reserve-and on both these reservations this problem has emerged in connection with the day school programs. If the majority of the population are of the Roman Catholic faith, they want the Roman Catholic religious emphasis in the schools. If, on the other hand, the majority are of the Protestant persuasion, they want the guarantee of a Protestant religious emphasis in the schools.
The situation is precipitating a type of segregation that is perhaps even worse than the former isolation and segregation of the reserves, in that each group wants its own school on the reserve. This produces the unhappy state where you not only have the basic problems of reserve segregation from the normal community but you have the reserve itself divided down the middle on religious grounds. I do not know what the solution is but I hope that in reconsidering some of the problems that have emerged under this new day-school emphasis the minister will find a solution whereby we can break down this most awkward type of segregation.
I have had letters on the problem from the chiefs of both the Oak River reserve and the Oak Lake reserve. I noticed that in the issue of the Brandon Sun of June 8 there is an announcement of the construction of a new school on the Oak River reserve which will supplement the school already in existence in that place. I visited that reserve last summer and I was quite impressed with the type of educational program they had there. It would seem that the appearance of the new

Indian Act
school is going to split the reserve on denominational lines. The chief of that particular reserve admits, in a letter I have before me, to the need for religious instruction in the curriculum of the residential schools because of the separation of the children from their parents, but he feels that a closer family-integration would be achieved if in the new emphasis in the reserves religious instruction were made the responsibility of the churches and the chapels on the reserve, and also if the responsibility were placed upon the parents of the Indian children.
From statements of the minister that I have been able to gather together, I know that he is aware of this difficulty that any beneficial effect that might be obtained from establishing day schools is going to be negatived if it is going to split the reserves on denominational lines. In a speech before the Young Men's Canadian Club in Toronto on February 1 of this year the minister said he hoped the day will come when Indian schools are abolished completely in favour of the system where all children will sit in the same classrooms. That is an objective that is to be devoutly wished for but, of course, it is a long way off as yet.
An experiment has been going on, on an increasing scale and on a successful basis, I feel, of allowing the children on the reserves to attend the ordinary high schools in the community and mingle with the rest of the population. That is the beginning of the program that the minister announced in his speech before the Young Men's Canadian Club. Education is the solution for decades of segregation; if integration and the breakdown of isolation are going to be eventually achieved, it is going to be through education, and we must avoid the pitfalls that were in the residential school approach to the education of Canada's first citizens.
There is another query I should like to raise at this time arising from the new emphasis in the department. I refer to the attempt to give the Indian wider responsibility in the conduct of his own personal affairs in the community life of the reserve by means of elected councils. This again is an excellent idea. But here the reserves are running into difficulty because the Indians themselves are not quite capable of handling the electoral system. They get the idea that, under the new system, they are to have the absolute say as to what should take place on the reserves. On the other hand, the superintendent or the agent tends to feel that the Indian is not yet capable of looking after his own destiny. Hence, a conflict of interests arises.
This matter, of course, is connected with the question of enfranchisement of the Indian.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
I agree wtih the hon. member for Nanaimo that the Indian should be given the vote just as soon as possible. In many cases the Indian in Canada is ready for the vote. It would provide an incentive for his personal development. It would provide a new sense of responsibility that would help to break down the feeling of inferiority that is part of the Indian's personality as a result of long years of discrimination and segregation on the part of the conquering white man.
In dealing with this problem, an educational program must be carried out. The Indian councillor, the Indian chief or the Indian mayor must have closer supervision if he is to handle his own affairs successfully without getting into the difficulties that have already occurred on the reserves in my own area; and I would imagine the same situation obtains on other reserves operating under a similar scheme. I have also run into another difficulty. The Indian chief and his councillors are coming in contact with some of the less savoury aspects of the white man's public affairs. He is encountering petty patronage and such things as preferred lists and so forth. I am constantly receiving complaints that the Indian is being forced to take relief vouchers and to deal with a particular business because it is on the preferred list or because some petty patronage is involved. That is education of the negative kind and I am sure it will not assist our Indians in understanding the true purpose of the democratic process.
Another difficulty that has come to my attention under this new policy of the department is the responsibility for health services. Mr. Chairman, I am getting a signal from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I suppose this comes under his jurisdiction more than it does that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I believe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is therefore entirely out of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You tried that once and it did not work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, it is hopeless to get anyone to obey the rules.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Listen to who is talking.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Indian is being encouraged to leave the reserve and to take on the full rights of citizenship. That is all to the good. On the other hand, he is finding that as soon as he leaves the reserve and incurs any medical expenses he is faced with medical bills of $200 or $300; and any incentive to emancipate himself from the reserve is lost once he is confronted with financial obligations of that kind.

1 have negotiated with the department-the department of Indian affairs, as a matter of fact-and I believe they are trying to cope with this difficulty which has arisen unexpectedly under the new policy of the department. In the course of this discussion I should like to know whether any rule has been laid down as to when the Indian becomes responsible for his own medical expenses or when he operates under the system that covered him when he was living on the reserve.
We must realize that there must be a weaning process. You cannot project the Indian into the white man's civilization overnight. He has been living in a world apart for 100 years or so. Suddenly to thrust him into the cold competitive world of the white man is not in the best interests of the emancipation program. The weaning process must be gradual. The Indian, when he gets out into the wider world beyond the reserve, does not have the community supports that the new Canadian has, for example; because there is towards our Indian population a discriminatory attitude that has grown up mainly owing to lack of understanding, mainly owing to stereotypes that have evolved largely because of the fact that the Indian has not been in touch with the white man but has lived apart on the reserve, and the white man has seen him only at such times as he has emerged from the seclusion of the reserve and made a brief contact with the white man's world. It is because of this misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, that I sometimes feel the problem is more the problem of the white man than that of the Indian.
Speaking just for a moment on this matter of the extension of credit facilities, I should like to say that it would be a fine thing if the Indian could take advantage of -the credit facilities that are afforded the ordinary Canadian citizen in connection with farm loans, farm improvement loans and so on. The difficulty is that the Indian does not understand the white man's pecuniary civilization. He has lived in a world apart and he is going to have to be nurtured gradually towards a full position of responsibility as a Canadian citizen. I would certainly support the broadening of credit facilities as announced in the resolution. To repeat once again -the broader approach to the problem, I trust that when the legislation is before us, the minister will do something to make amendments in the act and changes in the administration of the act that will deal with some of these difficulties that I have outlined.


Mr. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, in support 67509-329J
Indian Act
of the resolution before the committee. I am pleased -to note that, in particular, the minister in his resolution has moved that the act which will be brought before us will provide, amongst other things, that the Minister of Finance may from time to time advance to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums of money as the minister may require for loans to Indians under section 69 of the act.
Then it goes on to say:
The total amount of outstanding advances under the said section not to exceed at any one time one million dollars in lieu of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars as at present.
I think the minister is to be congratulated upon bringing forward this resolution at the present time. I am sure also that whatever changes are made in the Indian Act at this time, they will be changes which will be of lasting benefit to the Indian people.
I am very much interested in this subject because adjoining my constituency is one of the largest Indian reservations in this dominion, if not the largest. I refer to the Six Nations reservation. I cannot emphasize too much, Mr. Chairman, the contribution that the Indian people have made to the development of Canada across the years, a contribution that is written in the pages of Canadian history from the beginning of time so far as this country is concerned. I do not think that we can have enough legislation brought forward to give the Indian people the chance to continue to play that part that they have played in our history over the years. Anything that is brought forward that allows the Indian more privileges, that allows the Indian an opportunity to play his part in our national life, is something I would support with all my heart.
I just want to go back a little bit for a few moments to outline what the Indian people have contributed to the culture and history of Canada. In 1783, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Indian population in the Mohawk valley of the United States, known as the Six Nation Indians, fought on the side of the British crown. They grew to cherish and love British traditions, which we all love, and as a result these people fought on the side of the British crown at that time. When the American revolution was over, and after a promise from Sir Guy Carleton, governor general of Canada, they came in great numbers to settle on the banks of the Grand river in the province of Ontario, where they have resided ever since. A large strip of land along the Grand river from its source to its mouth was deeded to the Indian people of the Six Nations. Most of that land has been sold, but that large reservation

Indian Act
still stands and is the balance of the land that is still held by these great and valiant people who settled there following the American revolution.
Following the war of American independence came the war of 1812. I should like to remind the house that during that war there was only a thin line of settlers all the way from Amherstburg to Soulanges. It is true that these settlers stayed loyal to the British crown at that time of stress, but had it not been for the Indian population I am quite certain that our province of Upper Canada would have fallen to the invader. At the time England was involved in European wars and all she had here to protect this part of Ontario, the part in which I reside, was the militia. It was not adequate to meet the invader but the Indians stood to the last man and as a result we were able to hold Upper Canada. We have today, therefore, the province of Ontario, but had it not been for that contribution the Indians made I have my doubts whether that large part of Canada would be on the map of Canada today. What we owe to these Indians who stood under the leadership of Joseph Brant loyally by the crown of England is incalculable. As a result, today we have our Dominion of Canada, of which we are all so proud.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in mentioning that contribution of the Indians, I have to mention my own city of Brantford, named after Captain Joseph Brant, the leader of the Mohawks, the leader of the Six Nations confederacy about which I have spoken. This noble and valiant figure will go down in history as one of the greatest of all Canadians. The point where he settled on the Grand river, and where he crossed the Grand river, was known as Brant's ford, and hence came the name of Brantford. Had it not been for Joseph Brant, there would not be a Brantford on the map of Canada today or a county of Brant.
I know it is sentimental, but as the member for Brantford, I cannot help recalling those acts in those days in dealing with the legislation which we have in front of us today. In the centre of Brantford is a large park called Victoria park and in the centre of that park is a magnificent monument to Joseph Brant. As long as I have lived there and practised law I have passed that monument every day coming to and going from home. Every time I passed that monument I used to think of the contribution that that stalwart figure made to our nation and country.
Various hon. members have spoken of the many contributions of the Indian people.

Something has been said of their oratory. I wish we could hear some of that oratory in this house. I have heard some of it in the English language. They are orators in the English tongue as well as in their own tongue. I feel that the contribution they have made to Canada has not come to fruition by any means. I am certain the day will come when they will play the part that they played of old in the history of Canada. Back in the history of the Six Nations confederacy is the figure of Deganawida. He united the six warlike tribes of the Mohawk valley, who had spent all their time at war with each other. He conceived the idea that they could sit down and discuss their problems, smoke the pipe of peace and arrive at a solution of some of these problems and live in mutual peace instead of destroying each other. Out of that concept today we have the United Nations. There have been several authors who have drawn a comparison between what Deganawida said in his day and what has been done during the last few years under the United Nations. That comparison has been made many times and it cannot be made too often. Something also has been said about the vote being given to Indians. I remember last year I put a motion on the order paper to the effect that the federal vote be extended to Indians. I still feel that the day is coming when that vote will be given with no strings attached, Mr. Chairman. I would like to see the Indians be allowed to preserve all the rights they have under treaties and otherwise of the past and at the same time be accorded the vote if they wished to exercise it so that they could have some say in the affairs of our country.
I know the day will come when there will be Indians sitting in this House of Commons and in the Senate of Canada. I look forward to that day and I know it will come. I know it cannot be brought in under this bill but I think it will come.
May I also speak just for a moment about the contribution that Indians make to our national life in the line of athletics? They are supple, active and fleet. I know that over the years they are going to play a larger part in that field and make Canada proud of the contribution of her first citizens to our national life.
In speaking of the Indians, again I should like to remind the committee of the contribution the Indian people have made since 1812. It did not end there. In the war of 1914-18 and in world war II the Indians of the Six Nations confederacy gave their all for what our country stood for and to what we were committed in those two great wars. Everyone knows that. As a result of all those

things, certainly I should like to see them get the federal vote some day, and I am sure they will. I am glad to see that at least in this bill a considerable amount of money, more money than has been available heretofore, will be made available to Indians.
Everybody in Canada needs credit. We are all living on credit. I do not know what a great many members in this house, including myself, would do if we were not able to have credit facilities. In order for the Indian people to play their part they need credit facilities. I am delighted that at least this item is to be included in the bill. I am sure the other provisions will be matters which will enable Indians to play a more important part in the life of this country than they have ever played before. Whatever their rights are, I should like to see them have the same rights as other Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have spoken of the contribution of the Indian people in wars, but I should like to see that contribution given in time of peace and it will be given under the enlightened legislation that is beginning to come forward. The present minister has shown a great understanding of the questions involving Indians, particularly in my part of the country, and, as a result of that, I am sure that from time to time we shall have more changes in the Indian Act which will enable the Indian people to continue to play the part which they have played and which I outlined at the beginning. I long for the day when we can sit together with our brothers, the Indian people, and discuss our mutual problems under their great tree of peace.


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, there is a significant difference in the debate that takes place in this house regarding the Indian problem and many other debates. It is significant because probably all of the hon. members who have spoken on this problem are really trying to do something to help the Indians of this country. I have said that this is the greatest human problem that we have in Canada. That problem is intensified in some districts more than in others. In almost every area of Canada the problem is different.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Brantford, who has just taken his seat. I am quite sure in my own mind that when he speaks on Indian affairs he does so from his heart. I spent a couple of days on the Six Nations reserve a few years ago and I had a very hearty welcome. I found that the Indians in that particular area were very much advanced over the Indians in my constituency. There are 10 Indian reserves in my constituency and I make it a point to visit them periodically. I think that before
Indian Act
anybody speaks in this house on Indian affairs he should spend a little time and acquaint himself with some of the problems before he rises in the House of Commons and opposes legislation brought in with the idea of helping the Indians.
I have said that the problems are different in different areas. This afternoon and tonight we heard from several members from different sections of the country where the problems are different. In my constituency I am interested in three things. I am interested in this legislation because it is going to give some help to the Indians to provide themselves with homes, with farm machinery and with necessities. At least, that is my hope. I would like to see something further done when loans are made. I am not one who wants to see money thrown down the ditch. When loans are made to Indians for farm machinery some provision should be made to give those Indians some understanding of how to take care of those machines. Machinery costs money today. It is a mistake to give an Indian or anybody else a $3,000 or $4,000 tractor if he does not know how to take care of it.
Last year I made two suggestions. My first suggestion was that something should be done along those lines to give our Indians on reserves an opportunity to learn how to take care of farm machinery, trucks, and so on. My second suggestion was that something should be done to teach them how to build houses. I sometimes think that if a man like John Fisher, that great Canadian, could travel through Canada for a couple of months visiting our Indian reserves, or some other newspapermen who were good story tellers, and tell the people of Canada just what the problem is on the Indian reserves, it would help build up public opinion so that we would not hear carping criticism of expenditures made for the purpose of helping our Indians. I would like to take the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre through my constituency and show him some of the houses or hovels in which our Indians live. A lot of people would not keep their dogs in there, and I am sure a lot of race horse men would not keep their race horses in the kind of buildings our Indians are living in. I think it is a disgrace. Every time I go to my reserves I come back feeling sad, and when I come down here I want to try to get the minister and the department to move more rapidly. The more I see of life on the reserves the more I realize that it is not an easy problem. He would be a wise man who would suggest for a minute that he could solve all the problems.
I offered last year to co-operate to the fullest extent with the minister in trying to

Indian Act
get some things done. I know there are opportunities being lost on many of the reserves because advantage of those opportunities has not been taken. I know there are some reserves that have a lot of good agricultural land which is not being used. Other reserves have good timber on them and the timber could be sawed up and made into lumber to help provide homes. I think the Indians should be encouraged to do for themselves. I have perhaps made some enemies amongst the Indians because when I have gone up to see them I have said, "You cannot expect the government to do everything. You people have to do your own share and accept some of the responsibility. You have to develop an interest in bettering your own condition and if you will do that you will receive assistance from the government. If the government gives you a few cattle and you let them starve to death you will not receive any more help. You have to do your share." I think all of us should be talking to the Indians in that manner and not just going amongst them trying to stir up trouble for the department.
As I said before, the houses in my constituency are in such a bad condition most people would not keep their dogs in them. I think it is a shame in a great country like this that we cannot move forward a little faster than we are. I know it is a serious problem and the problem is not always helped by the Indians themselves. When the bill comes down I will have more to say.
When the amendments to the act come down I hope we will find that something is being done for the younger generation. I think a lot of the older Indians are fixed in their ways and there is not much hope of getting them out of the rut they are in. I feel sorry when I see dozens of young men and women coming to our towns and villages looking for work. When the white men ask them what they can do, the work they can mention is limited. Some of them are learning to drive trucks but frequently they cannot handle a combine. Some of them are slowly beginning to learn how to do various jobs. I think something must be done to teach the young people how to earn a living. That is one of the biggest jobs confronting the minister. I have assured him before and I will assure him now that he will have my full co-operation in any measures he undertakes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only about two minutes. On the one subject that is specifically mentioned in the resolution I think I can say that every member of the committee who has spoken so far has been in agreement with it except the hon.

member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who felt it was unnecessary to have these credit facilities because there are all sorts of credit facilities available to other Canadians. On that point I would like to say, as I am sure most members of the committee are aware, it is not possible for Indians to hypothecate their property and it is not possible to seize the property of Indians in payment of debts, as is the case with other people. That is the reason and the only reason why some arrangement for credit to Indians has to be made as long as they have this special status.
I want to mention just one other thing. While I do not want to do anything that suggests cutting off any hon. member who wishes to speak, I wonder if it would be possible for those members of the committee who still wish to speak to make their speeches fairly short because we will have lots of time on second reading. There will be no-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Closure?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There will be no closure on second reading or in the committee when the whole bill will be before us. At that time it will be possible for hon. members to address their speeches more directly to the bill. I want to set that example at this time. I have listened to everything that has been said. I will confine my remarks to this statement and try to reply to the other points when second reading comes up.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, judging from what the minister has said one would assume there is not to be any closure on this bill. If he had given that assurance earlier we might not have taken so much time on the resolution but we were fearful that closure might be brought forward and we wanted to say what we could at the resolution stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has a reputation.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to commend the hon. member for Brantford on his excellent speech with regard to the Six Nations Indians. I agree with most of what he said. I made similar statements in the House of Commons before regarding the place the Indians have held in the history of this great nation. This is a thing very few people realize unless they are living in close contact with an Indian reservation and have an opportunity of hearing some of the talks that are given by Indian historians. We have some very good ones around Brantford and I have listened to them on many occasions.
I want to add one comment to what the hon. member for Brantford has said. I heard

a comment recently which was very impressive. It came to my attention that the school system on the Indian reservation at Brantford is one of the best in any township across the Dominion of Canada. It would put many townships to shame. In addition to that, the percentage of children attending secondary schools in Tuscarora township is higher than any surrounding township in the district. That is a matter which I think should be known. I understand that is the case although I have no definite proof that it is.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in relation to what is contained in this resolution I think it should have been done long ago. After listening to the hon. member for Brantford it was brought forcibly to mind that we have treated the Indians in this country in a disgraceful way, particularly when one considers what they have done for us. I think most people in Canada will agree with that. Whether or not this government is finally going to do more for the Indians still remains to be seen. Certainly nothing was done under the last revision of the Indian Act. We cannot speak about the measures coming forward in this act because we do not know what they will accomplish, but judging from some of the things we have heard I assume the minister himself is seeking more control.
As I said yesterday with regard to another bill, this disease seems to be highly infectious. One minister after another comes before parliament and asks for greater control and power in his own department, taking the power away from the governor in council and placing it in the hands of the minister himself. It is not a laughing matter, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: The minister thinks so.


John Alpheus Charlton: I see the minister is laughing; he thinks it is a big joke, but for those who have to tolerate that sort of legislation I can assure him they do not appreciate it.
There has been a veil of secrecy concerning the number of meetings held with regard to the prooosed changes in this act. I would like to ask the minister several questions at this time. At how many meetings were delegates from the Six Nations reservation in attendance? Did they know of all the meetings that were held? If not, why not? I understand there were two meetings held about which the Six Nations group did not know anything, and that, of course, did not increase their feeling of good will toward the government. Instead, it only increased their suspicion toward what is being done by this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member like an answer to that question now?
Indian Act


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, of course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was only one
meeting held. It was held with representatives of Indians from all over Canada in the month of December. That was the only meeting at which the proposed amendments to the act were discussed with the Indians.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is the only meeting at which these proposed changes were brought forward. Have there been any other meetings regarding the Indian Act or Indian administration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are meetings all the time all over the country.


John Alpheus Charlton: Have the Six Nations
Indians always been represented?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at the ones in British Columbia.


John Alpheus Charlton: There are no Six Nations Indians in British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been only one national meeting.


John Alpheus Charlton: The Six Nations were or were not represented?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were represented
and very ably represented.


John Alpheus Charlton: If they were represented I would say that they would be very ably represented. Did they agree to the changes in the act that are being brought forward?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is something about which the Indians should be allowed to speak for themselves, but I had the impression that they agreed. However, I do not like to speak for other people.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not the story I got. We will let that go for the moment. The minister made a speech before the Canadian Club here in Ottawa on March 28, and in the last paragraph on page 4 he is reported to have said:
Under the present Indian Act it is possible for an Indian to retain his status as an Indian and to secure the vote in federal elections.
That is all the minister said about it. The minister did not go on to explain what they had to do, he just said that under this act it was possible. Yes, it is possible if they give up their rights to income tax exemption. That is the string attached to it. Surely we are not so small that we will not give the Indian, after hearing what the hon. member for Brantford had to say, a vote in federal elections. They have to pay all the taxes which other people pay except on land in the reservation and income tax on earnings made on the reservation. They pay every tax that anyone else pays, and yet

Indian Act
they do not vote. Then on page 20 the minister is reported as having said:
The status of these Indians who do not live on the reserve and who are not yet enfranchised is, in many ways, similar to the status of immigrants who have not yet become citizens, and we are doing all we can, all the time, to encourage these Indians to accept the full responsibilities of citizenship whenever they seem able to do so.
In another place the minister referred to the Indians as being citizens with a difference. Yes, I would say there was a difference. In some cases a person may come to this country and in five years have the vote, and it may be only one year for others if they apply for citizenship, but for the Indians it has been many, many years and they still have not the vote. The minister calls them citizens with a difference. Yes, there is a difference all right.
These first citizens of this land have fought consistently for Canada. They fought for the British crown through two world wars, or through three wars if we count the war of 1812. Still the minister refers to them as citizens with a difference.
As I understand it, the government has a trust fund of over $1 million in connection with the Indian reservation at Brantford. Can those Indians get any of that money? It is almost impossible for them to get any. The matter has to go before the band council and be approved unanimously by the council; it has to be sanctioned by the Indian agent and then the minister must sanction it before they can get any money. Yet it is their own money.
It has been said on various occasions that it is the desire to give Indians more responsibility. The Six Nations Indians at Brantford have accepted a great deal of responsibility. They would be prepared to accept a great deal more. However, if the government expects them to become ordinary citizens and takes away all the rights they have now, takes away their reserves which they have now, then they do not want to become citizens. As the hon. member for Brantford mentioned, this reserve once extended from the mouth of the Grand river to its source, six miles on either side. I live in that district. Thousands and thousands of acres of that land were given away practically for a mere song and the reservation is now down to its present size. They have the largest reservation in Canada with the greatest population, and that reservation is dear to them. It is a haven for them.
I hope that this government or any other government will never say to the Indians of Brantford that they cannot retain that reserve. Some mention was made of splitting it up and making it possible for whites to go in and buy land. The minister shakes

his head but that has been mentioned several times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has never been mentioned by me.


John Alpheus Charlton: Maybe not by the minister, but he is not the only one in the government who mentions things about Indians. As I say, it has been mentioned.


Mr. Philpott:: By your colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not hear him. If he did mention that I did not hear him.


Elmore Philpott: He was in favour of breaking up the reservation system.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not understand him that way. They are entitled to break up their reservations if they want to according to the provisions of the new act. If they want to do away with their reservations and become enfranchised as a body, that is their right, but certainly it should not be forced upon them in any way.
Progress reported.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Righf Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to revert to motions and to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he would second a motion that the speeches made at the reopening of the library be printed as an appendix to the Hansard report.
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I shall be very happy to agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. gentleman leave to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I beg to move,	seconded by the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Drew):
That the address of His Excellency the Governor General, delivered this day upon the occasion of the reopening of the library of parliament, together with the related speeches of the hon. the Speakers of both houses of parliament and the hon. the Minister of Public Works, be included in the House of Commons debates of this day, and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of above see appendix, pages 5203-04.)

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take up defence estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Library of Parliament-Reopening

[Stage Direction]
The

[Stage Direction]
at the
REOPENING OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT on
Tuesday, June 19, 1956
Address of His Excellency the Governor General and speeches of the Honourable Wishart McL. Robertson, Speaker of the Senate, the Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Honourable Robert H. Winters, Minister of Public Works.
Hon. Wishart  McL. Robertson@Speaker of the Senate: Your Excellency, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen: The object of this gathering is to be present at and participate in the official reopening of the library of parliament. His Excellency the Governor General has graciously consented to officiate at the reopening of the library and the unveiling of the plaques. The English version of the plaque is as follows:-
Library of Parliament
This building, begun in 1860 and completed in 1876 was opened in February 28, 1876, by the Earl of Dufferm, Governor General of Canada. It survived the great fire which destroyed the parliament buildings in February 1916, but was severely damaged by fire in August 1952. After restoration it was reopened on June 19, 1956, by the Right Honourable Vincent Massey, Governor General of Canada.
(Translation):


Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Your Excellency, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen: We are gathered here today to witness the reopening of our library.
To preside over such an important ceremony, it was fitting that we should invite that personage who symbolizes parliamentary authority. On your behalf and on behalf of the members of the joint library committee, I am happy to thank His Excellency for having so graciously accepted our invitation.
Certain historical notes concerning our library have been transcribed on a plaque commemorating today's solemn event. The inscription reads as follows:
Library of Parliament
This building, begun in 1860 and completed in 1876 was opened in February 28, 1876, by the Earl of Dufferin, Governor General of Canada. It survived the great fire which destroyed the parliament buildings in February 1916, but was severely damaged by fire in August 1952. After restoration it was reopened on June 19, 1956, by the Right Honourable Vincent Massey, Governor General of Canada.
From August 1952 until today our librarians and their assistants, in spite of the difficulties and inconveniences of temporary quarters, have managed to provide us with the valuable help to which we had for so long become accustomed on their part.
I am happy, on your behalf, to pay tribute to their devotion and to thank them for their loyal services.
While restoration work was in progress, the library was entrusted to the care of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) who is now pleased to let us resume its use and possession. I congratulate him and thank him for a magnificent achievement on behalf of parliament, and now invite him to address us.
(Text):


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Your Excellency, Mr. Prime Minister, honourable Speakers, ladies and gentlemen: The interest of the Department of Public Works in the library of parliament goes back as far as 1859, when the erection of the parliament buildings was approved. Thanks to the foresight of the architects and the contractor, several steel fire doors were installed in the library when it was built. It was prompt closure of one of these doors that saved the historic building from serious damage, if not total loss, during the disastrous fire of February 3, 1916, which destroyed the centre block.
The second fire, which occurred on August 4, 1952, dealt this historic structure a heavier blow. You know the story of that day-how many thousands of books had to be moved quickly and dried to minimize the damage by water and smoke. Following the immediate investigation into the cause and extent of the fire, the Department of Public Works undertook the removal of everything inside the building and immediately started planning rehabilitation.
This, it subsequently turned out, involved a great deal more than replacement of charred timbers and redecoration of smoke-fumed walls and ceilings. It was discovered that in order to ensure greater protection against further disasters, the entire interior of the building would have to be rebuilt using fire

Library of Parliament-Reopening protection methods and materials. One thing led to another and what was first estimated to be a $1 million project came to involve an expenditure of approximately $2J million. This is usually the case when large-scale renovations of old buildings are undertaken. But today we see the worth-while results of that expenditure. I am grateful to those members of the press who have conducted their own investigations and reported so favourably upon the quality of the work that has been done. This is one of the rewards for painstaking efforts to rehabilitate the library of parliament, to maintain the integrity of design and the ideas which were in the minds of the original architects and builders.
Canadians today are deeply aware of the value of our historic relics, and I am pleased that the Department of Public Works was able to play a role in restoring this fine old structure to the point where you can see it here today, faithfully reproduced, true and unaltered, but strengthened to endure the ravages of accident and time.
Of course it is not yet fully finished. In due course, for example, you will see better and more appropriate furniture in its main reading room. Other finishing touches need to be added, but in the meantime it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, the architects and builders, the prime contractors, the subcontractors and all who have laboured so carefully and efficiently, to turn over to your care again, Messrs. Speakers, this beautiful and beloved old library of parliament so that it may render further service to the people of Canada.


Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin (Speaker of ihe House of Commons):: Ladies and gentlemen, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.


Right Hon. Vincent Massey (Governor General of Canada):: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. Winters, ladies and gentlemen:
I greatly appreciate the privilege you have given me this afternoon. This is a very important event for all of us, the restoration and reopening of this historic building. It is easy to build a new structure, but it takes faith and courage and a true feeling for the past to treasure and restore an old one such as this. It is not what the architects of today would design for a modern library. It is not streamlined. It is not functional. It has no new look, but it has a very good old look. It is the kind of library that our founding fathers were proud to set on this hill, which was to be the scene of a nation's deliberations.
(Translation):
The library of parliament is but one of that large number of institutions which illustrate so well the bilingual character of this country. Among these innumerable works, covering such a wide variety of subjects, there are many which relate, in both our official languages, the history of our nation.
This library, used by representatives of French and English Canada, constitutes, as it were, an official link between Canadians of differing languages. Within its walls, it assembles works which bear upon every aspect of our Canadian life.
We are happy to note that it has been perfectly restored and that it is once more capable of performing, on behalf of our country, the important service expected of it. (Text):
This library is a Victorian building. Old Ottawa, what is left of it, is a Victorian city. Its architecture expresses many of the qualities of that great era, and reflects a romantic feeling for the past. Such buildings should not, of course, be reproduced or imitated, but when surviving examples are preserved, they give us precious links with our beginnings.
This institution has had a chequered history; legislative libraries in Canada seem often to have had troubled careers. Two were burned, one at York in 1813 as a result of invasion, and the other at Montreal in the riots of 1849. As we have been reminded, this building was menaced dangerously by the great fire of 1916, but it was saved, as we have been told, by a prompt decision on the part of one of the staff when he closed the steel doors without a moment's warning, and as several members of parliament were at the time in the library, they found themselves, to their surprise, locked in with the books. All were equally safe.
This library was opened in 1876 by one of my predecessors, Lord Dufferin. In the intervening eighty years its services have been of immeasurable importance, and we owe much to the men who have directed its work. Many of these have not been only the custodians of books, but the lovers of books. Some indeed, by their own effort, have contributed ably to our national literature.
I hope that this day will mark the re-invigoration of a great national institution. To those who have been concerned in its restoration, and to the staff who will again carry on in these precincts their invaluable but onerous work, I offer my warmest congratulations and best wishes.
I now have much pleasure in declaring the library of parliament officially reopened.

Wednesday, June 20, 1956



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Henderson.