1960-03-10

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to mention the fact that present in the Speaker's gallery today is Mr. Julius K. Nyerere the distinguished leader of the Tanganyika African National Union. This distinguished statesman from Africa has recently completed a speaking tour of the United States under the auspices of the state department, and those who were privileged to hear him speak today at the Canadian Club realize the power and capacity of our visitor.
We are happy that he has been able to spend this short time in Ottawa, and on his return to Tanganyika-I am sure I speak for hon. members in all parts of the house-we wish him to convey to his people the greetings of the Canadian people.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to associate our party with the words of welcome which the Prime Minister has just uttered to our distinguished visitor. All Canadians are following the progress of the African peoples to independence under law with sympathy and support; especially, if I may say so, with regard to those peoples who have been under British colonial rule and who, when they achieve independence, will we hope become nations within the British commonwealth.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to add on behalf of the C.C.F. party our word of welcome to our distinguished guest. 1 think one of the most hopeful developments in the world today is the emergence of independent free nations in Africa. I associate myself with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in heartily welcoming our guest and looking forward to the development of Tanganyika within the commonwealth of nations.



BRIDGES


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 24 last, I advised the house that the investigation into possible criminal activities
in connection with the collection of tolls on Jacques Cartier bridge had advanced to the point where it appeared that criminal charges should be laid, and that accordingly the Minister of Justice had appointed counsel to assess the evidence, to advise as to the course of further criminal investigations, and to draft charges that should be laid. At the same time I announced that as soon as charges had been laid the government would ask the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to resume its hearings immediately and make the fullest possible examination of all other aspects of the matter.
The Minister of Justice has now been advised that it may take considerably longer than was first anticipated to bring the matter before the courts because of the time and care that must be taken in the weighing of the evidence. The government is therefore of the view that the hearings of the committee to examine other aspects of the situation should not be indefinitely delayed, and has asked that the committee be called to meet for that purpose on Monday morning next, March 14.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether an invitation has been extended to Mr. Ben Gurion, the courageous and indomitable prime minister of Israel, to visit Canada on his current tour of the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no invitation was extended to Mr. Ben Gurion; not that he would not have been welcomed to this country, but because my understanding was that the circumstances of his visit would not permit further days to be spent over and above those contemplated in the original plans.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether the minister could report further to

Inquiries of the Ministry the house on the progress of the Canadian-U.S.S.R. trade agreement. Would the minister care to comment on a statement in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that an agreement is about to be signed which is to cover the annual purchase by Russia of some 15 million bushels of wheat from Canada?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all very much interested in this particular matter, and all are hopeful that a trade agreement with Russia can be signed. The negotiations have been proceeding for over a year, and they have not been without some difficulties.
We have been endeavouring to secure a basis for trade which would provide for adequate sales of Canadian goods and products including wheat in the Soviet union, which is a state trading country, and in return we would offer, as was done in the past, most favoured nation treatment for Soviet goods entering the open Canadian market.
A number of possibilities have been carefully examined by both sides. In recent months proposals have been made to us by the U.S.S.R. including as one element the offer, subject to certain conditions, to exchange goods on a 2 to 1 basis in Canada's favour. We have considered these proposals and made our reply, and now await the reaction of the Soviet government. I consider that we are now close to an understanding, and again I express the hope that the matter will be brought to a conclusion very quickly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's reply that Canada is prepared to make some kind of commitment to buy from the Soviet union at least 50 per cent of the value of the goods she buys from us?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, the Canadian government cannot make a commitment as a government to buy from Russia. Russia is a state trading nation and we are not, and that makes quite a difference.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question. Is any assurance of any kind being given the Soviet union that Canada's importers will be buying up to this proportion of goods from the Soviet union?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is very difficult to give an assurance of that nature, Mr. Speaker, because it would be up to Canadian businessmen, using their own good judgment, as to what they import into this country.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

The minister was kind enough on February 3 in answer to a question of mine to say that the discussions with the Soviet union with regard to this treaty did not include a particular model of automobile manufactured in the Soviet union and known as the Mosk-vich 407. The minister said in reply to my question that the discussions did not include the importation or the inclusion of that particular automobile in the proposed treaty.
May I ask the minister now whether any type of Russian-made automobile forms one of the subjects of discussion between the two negotiating bodies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Specific items like that have not been brought to my attention.



REPORTED RECORD DEFICIT IN INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics of today, which reports an all-time record deficit for 1959 in Canada's international payments. Does the minister propose to make a statement to the house concerning the serious situation disclosed by the bulletin, and does he propose to bring before the house this session any legislation specifically dealing with this subject?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not consider the situation anything like as serious as has been suggested by the hon. member. The daily bulletin has drawn our attention to what it calls a record deficit in 1959 on Canada's international payments. For 1959 as a whole merchandise exports increased by 5 per cent whereas imports rose by 9 per cent compared with 1958, and that increase is reflected in the balance figures for 1959. In the last three months exports have risen by 17 per cent and imports by only 5 per cent from the corresponding period a year ago. In other words the rise in the current deficit which occurred in 1959 is not being sustained into 1960, whereas Canada's foreign earnings are rising sharply.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a supplementary question. When the minister uses the term "Canada's foreign earnings" at the conclusion of his remarks, is he referring to foreign earnings arising out of commodity trade or foreign earnings generally?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In particular with regard to trade, commodity trade.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In order to avoid the misdirection of office missives and orders of the day missiles aimed at the outer space of the Department of National Defence, and to avoid any consequent misfiring or backfiring, would the minister be kind enough to inform the house as to the recent division of responsibilities between himself and his associate minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister answers, I raise the question as to whether this is not a matter of statutory interpretation. I cannot say from memory; perhaps some member of the house can assist me in this. My recollection is that the joint or associate ministry is established by a statute of parliament. If this is so perhaps the question is one for interpretation of one of our acts of parliament, which it is not customary to ask on orders of the day.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, while it is true that the post is established by statute, I believe in this case there was some directive or other document from the Prime Minister or from the office of the privy council setting out the specific duties of the two ministers. I think the question is quite in order, and that it would be useful for the house to know what the division of responsibility is.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: What kind of directive did you have?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, surely the matter still falls to be dealt with in accordance with the principle to which you have directed our attention, that any answer to the hon. member's question would be a matter for interpretation, not a matter to be answered on the orders of the day. Any such directive would speak for itself.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a directive I submit that under the doctrine of responsible government, under which we operate in this house, it ought to be laid before the house so we may know which minister is responsible for which part of the administration. To the best of my recollection no such directive has been laid before the house. My recollection is that when my hon. friend from Trinity was the associate minister, and when
Inquiries of the Ministry his predecessor Mr. Campney was the associate minister, and when Mr. Power was an associate minister, a very clear definition of functions was given to the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a matter of record and the information can be obtained from the statute or the record, then of course it is open to any member of the house to get the information for himself. Since there is some doubt, perhaps the minister might assist in clearing it up.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No specific directive has been issued as to the duties, but by mutual agreement between the associate minister and myself, in general terms we consult on all matters affecting the department, but more particularly, the minister of defence deals with matters of policy while the associate minister deals with administration, particularly those matters which refer to personnel, both military and civilian. However, if the hon. member's missiles are not equipped with a homing warhead, I will see that they reach the right target.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister's reply has been very helpful, and that in future the opposition should address all questions of policy to the minister and all questions of administration to the associate minister.


George Harris Hees: Is it not a fact that the instructions issued to the hon. member for Trinity when he was associate minister were simply to keep out of the way as much as possible?


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: A supplementary question. How does the minister explain that every time there is an important meeting with the military authorities the Minister of National Defence is always alone and the associate minister is never there?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is absolutely incorrect. Whenever there are any matters of policy discussed with the chief of the general staff or with the chiefs of the other services, the associate minister is always present.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS FROM QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house whether since his appointment he has received proposals or counterproposals from the government of the province of Quebec regarding the trans-Canada highway?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisler of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, speaking from memory I have no recollection of ever having received any such proposals.


Maurice Bourget: Has the minister had any discussions with the minister of roads of the province of Quebec regarding this highway?


Mr. Walker:: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister noted the claim of the premier of British Columbia to the effect that Ottawa owes British Columbia $13 million in subsidy payments on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway? Has the government of British Columbia ever made application for this amount of money and, if it has, can the Prime Minister indicate what has been the decision of the government in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the press reference which the hon. member sent to me. An agreement was entered into for payment of a federal subsidy for a specified portion of construction of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway immediately north of Prince George. Payment of the federal funds owing under this agreement has been made. Although the fact is that the provincial government has at various times requested additional subsidies for additional construction, there is no record that any further agreement in this connection was made by the former administration, and I know of no such further agreement having been made by the present administration. There were references made to this matter on one or two occasions, but as far as the government is concerned there is nothing to indicate that any amount is owing to the province of British Columbia.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a related question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report on page 9 of this morning's Globe and Mail, has the head of Canadian National Railways made an offer to aid in the building of a railway from Prince George

to the Yukon boundary, or is the Canadian National intending to build this proposed railway on its own initiative?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. If the hon. member will refer to the answer I gave on March 2 to starred question No. 35 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena I think he will find there in full the position of the Canadian National Railways in regard to the proposed railway development in northern British Columbia.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I have an answer to the question I put to the Minister of Transport yesterday, which reads as follows:
Will the minister tell the house whether the act to amend the Telegraphs Act passed by parliament in 1956 has been proclaimed?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member and I were rising simultaneously, he to ask the question and I to give the answer. I am advised that the task of drafting the appropriate regulations was very difficult, and the technical officers have required this length of time to complete the drafting of these regulations.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the Minister of Transport, is this the amendment to which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green) and other ministers were so bitterly opposed when they were in opposition?


George Harris Hees: Obviously, the hon. member has more information on that fact than I have.



REPORTED REMARKS BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON NARCOTIC CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Justice, and in doing so may I preface my query by congratulating him on his birthday today. Will the minister tell the house whether he has in mind certain proposals, which he is reported to have indicated to the provinces he was prepared to make, for the more efficient operation of narcotic drug control? Could he inform the house what these proposals are?


Edmund Davie Fulton: thank the hon. gentleman, indeed, for his kind reference to my birthday, and in the

light of the mood which he has produced I shall endeavour to answer his question. I think he bases it on the report of a comment I made in Victoria recently when I was out there in the course of the Columbia river negotiation, at which time I pointed out that with the full knowledge and consent of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the question of drug addiction in Canada had been referred to the correctional planning committee of my department, with respect primarily of course to the criminal aspect of addiction. I said at that time that the committee had reached certain tentative conclusions which have been submitted to myself and my colleague, and that I expected shortly to be in a position to lay these before my colleagues in the cabinet, and that thereafter it might well be we would have proposals to make to the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would that be this year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That I am not able to say, Mr. Speaker. The matter is a difficult and complicated one, and it depends upon the rate of progress that we are able to make.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I ask
a question of the Postmaster General. In yesterday's newspaper there are pictures of a postman returning to his scooter after delivering mail to an apartment house. It looks as if the scooter has been left alone on the street without any protection from theft, and with the doors wide open to the 500 pounds of mail which it might be carrying. Will the minister tell the house whether this is a new method the government has adopted for protection against theft?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the scooters we use have the mail completely protected in the back part of the vehicle, with locked doors. The hon. member was looking at the front portion, which is the driver's compartment, and which is quite separate from the part of the body in which the mail is carried. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be delighted to arrange for the hon. member to come down to the Ottawa terminal and personally inspect one of these scooters.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister knows that recently a truck was stolen with the driver in it. I should like to know whether the motor of the
Inquiries of the Ministry scooter is kept running, or whether the postman has to start the motor again every time he makes a delivery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is getting too theoretical and hypothetical. Perhaps the hon. member will accept the invitation to go and examine the scooter.


Azellus Denis: How does the minister explain that the ordinary postman is obliged to carry his load in a bag up to the fourth or fifth floor and has to keep it with him, while the scooter with mail is left in the street unprotected?


William McLean Hamilton: There are few people in Canada capable of carrying away 500 pounds of mail plus the scooter.


Azellus Denis: I do not suggest that the postman should climb up with the scooter on his back.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question in my mind is whether the subject will be exhausted before the house is.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his supplementary question.


Azellus Denis: I have another question.


Mr. Speaker:: I misunderstood the hon. member. I thought he had the same piece of paper in his hand.


Azellus Denis: No; it is another picture showing a scooter and the Postmaster General. I should like to know from the Postmaster General which of the two is the main feature.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR COMPLETION OF ORDER FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked in the course of the present session for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any official thereof, and any member of the provincial governments since November 26, 1957, with respect to the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference. The Prime Minister was kind enough to table some of the documents I asked for. An examination of the documentation shows that no correspondence tabled since January, 1959 has been tabled. Will the Prime Minister say whether or not there is any further correspondence? If there is, will he kindly table the further correspondence pursuant to the motion passed by this house?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier): The entire file, as I was informed, was tabled in the house in response to the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister whether he would have the file examined in order to make sure that all correspondence since January, 1959, if any, has been tabled or will be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister confirm or deny reports that his department plans to commence on July 1 of this year, for the first time, collection of the 11 per cent sales tax on the printing of snapshots-the sort of thing often handled by the corner drug store-[DOT] despite the fact that the sales tax has already been paid on the film used?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: There is a variety of things handled by the corner drug store. I presume snapshots may be one of them. I would not want to answer the question which could be highly technical, without checking the record. I will therefore take this question as notice and will give an answer to my hon. friend tomorrow or the next day.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN SCREENING OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue based upon a news report that the minister had asked certain associations to help his officials screen obscene or objectionable publications. If that is so, I should like to ask him how wide the invitation may be.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not seen the
report, Mr. Speaker, and I do not recall having invited any association to assist me or my department or my officials in the screening of such publications. I should like to look at the report if my hon. friend would send me a copy of it. However, I am afraid it is one of those which are sometimes born of fertile minds but without very much foundation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the situation that the percentage of unemployed at the lakehead has passed the 20 per cent mark for the third consecutive winter-I was tempted to say "Conservative winter" but I will just say "consecutive winter"-will the minister consider constituting a research task force, similar in expertise to the one sent to Elliot Lake, in order to make recommendations to the government for action to ameliorate this situation?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The committee sent out to Elliot Lake has been sent out on a different mission from the one the hon. member mentions in regard to Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question. It is a different mission but the situation is similar, namely the application of expert advice on the spot. I am asking the minister whether he would consider that action for our particular situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I had doubts about the hon. member's question. It struck me that it was a suggestion which could more properly be put forward in the course of a debate on unemployment than on the orders of the day.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Before I put my question to the Minister of Justice may I say this. Although I realize that it is always dangerous to be associated with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I want to be associated with him at this time in offering the Minister of Justice our congratulations on his birthday.
My question is this. Can the minister say when the vacancy on the Manitoba court of appeal will likely be filled?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In
the immediate future, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister silence speculation that the appointment is being delayed until the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been a member of the Manitoba bar ten years, thus becoming eligible for appointment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should be glad to silence that speculation at once. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is fulfilling a function in the government of Canada which, so far as I am aware, leaves him no room for duties elsewhere.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as reporter for the C.B.C. Is he now in a position to say whether the C.B.C. capital budget contains any provision for television at Flin Flon and the other related areas in northern Manitoba?


George Clyde Nowlan: The C.B.C. budget has been submitted and is in the course of study, but it has not yet been approved. I therefore cannot say what may be provided therein.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say how soon it will be approved?


George Clyde Nowlan: In due course and without undue delay.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to complete his answer to the question that was put to him some days ago about the submission made to him by the Canadian Welfare Council with respect to refugees.


John George Diefenbaker: I will have to look up the question, Mr. Speaker, and then I will answer it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can perhaps remind the Prime Minister that he said he would undertake as soon as possible to say what reply the government was making to the welfare council.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Fair dough for the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Indian Act.
Indian Act
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I was saying when I was interrupted yesterday that citizens' committees in various communities where our Indian citizens reside are most important in assisting the Indian affairs branch in carrying out their functions. I may say that while the federal government has a definite responsibility so far as Indian welfare is concerned, it is of the utmost importance to recognize, all along the line, that the Indian people are citizens of the provinces, of the territories and of the communities in which they reside. Acceptance of them as such by all levels of government and by all other citizens is an essential factor in their integration.
I would draw a very definite line, as many hon. members have done in debates on this subject in the past, between the integration of the Indian people and the assimilation of these people. This is why it is so important that the amendment now before the house should be couched' in its present terms, giving a choice to the Indian people so that if they do not wish to vote they need not vote, and whether they vote or do not vote they lose none of their rights.
The federal government alone cannot fully discharge the whole of the responsibility. Each level of government, each voluntary association, each individual citizen must play a part if success is to be expected. The aim of the government would, in my view, fail regrettably if the Indian people of Canada were not brought to the point at which they could, if they wished, take their place in the community as citizens in all respects, to the same extent as any hon. member of this house, having the same rights and assuming the same responsibilities as all other citizens without discrimination or distinction of any kind.
Here I disagree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as to the acceptance of the Indian people by other Canadians as fully fledged citizens. I do not think there is that acceptance, or that there has been such acceptance for many years. We may pay lip service to the idea of accepting Indians as fellow citizens, but government at all levels, as far as my experience goes, has yet to recognize the Indians as citizens equal in all respects to their white counterparts.
Under the treaties themselves the Indians obtained a legal status inferior to our own. Under the Indian Act as it existed in the past the legal status of Indians was in my view reduced even further. The Indian Act which was passed in 1868 has not been improved to any great extent. While I do not propose to review the terms of the act, even if it were in order to do so, I wish to consider some aspects of the present act in so far as they

Indian Act
relate to the bill under discussion. Undoubtedly, in the past, some special legislation was required in order to protect the Indian. Nowadays, however, thousands of Indians are able to take advantage of the experience gained while they were in Europe during the last world war. They can read, they can write, and they have radios. In short, they now know that they live in a democracy, and they would like some of the benefits of that democracy themselves.
I am speaking now of the Indian people I know best, those people who live in the Yukon and in the north. Hopes ran high among the Indian people in those regions- and I believe they also ran high among the Indian people living in the more southerly areas of Canada-when they heard that they were at last to get a new Indian Act. That was a few years ago, in 1951 or 1952, I believe. They hoped at that time that they would get the vote, despite what the former minister said in 1951 to the effect that this was not anticipated by the majority of the Indian people. Nevertheless it is my belief that the Indian people did hope they would get the vote and be able to run their own affairs.
Some advantages were given to them by the new act, but Indian affairs continue to be run in most cases in the same manner as they were 90 years ago. The new act really did not give the Indians the vote. The courts have held that Indian property, both real and personal, off the reserve is taxable, but that on the reserve it is not. Under the Indian Act as it now stands the Indian, if he takes the vote, will be taxed on his land and personal property on the reserve, and must in addition pay succession and inheritance taxes. The Indian can now, with the consent of the minister, apply for enfranchisement, become a Canadian citizen and then have the vote, but he must transfer his land to another Indian on the reserve within 30 days and sell any improvement he may have made on it. If it is not sold within that period the land is auctioned off, and he must take what he can get for it. Once enfranchised, neither he nor his wife nor his children can ever return to the reserve. They receive compensation for the income they would have received had they stayed on the reserve for the next 20 years, but of course this is much less than the children would have eventually received.
These terms make the Indian people dread the process of enfranchisement, as distinguished from the right to vote. To them it is a threat rather than a privilege, and the section in the act which allows an individual or a whole tribe to be forced into enfranchisement without consent-section 112, to

which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate was referring-is truly a threat over the heads of the Indian people. It is difficult for an Indian to give up his only home and the only way of life he knows before he can receive the privilege of the vote; that is, under the process of enfranchisement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member mentioned my name, and I did not hear what he said about section 112. I was very interested in what he was saying, but there was a noise and I could not hear it.


Erik Nielsen: From my recollection of the remarks made by the hon. member yesterday I took it that he was advocating the repeal of section 112.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Erik Nielsen: In this I am agreeing with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, because I say this is truly a very real threat which hangs over the heads of the Indian people today. I was saying that it is difficult for an Indian to give up his only home and the only way of life he knows just to receive the privilege of voting under the process which section 112 allows. With his limited experience he usually feels the price is too high. He cannot foresee that without the vote he will never have a voice in running his own affairs or enacting the laws which govern him.
Not only is it extremely difficult for the Indian to obtain the vote, but he also lacks that fundamental right we all cherish so, the right to own property. Off the reserve the Indian may own property, but on the reserve he may not. It matters not whether the title for the reserve is held in the name of the crown or whether it is a grant; as long as the property is for the exclusive use of the Indians it is under the jurisdiction of the department of Indian affairs, and from their decision there is no appeal. The minister of the department may decide what the reserve will be used for, that is what portion will be divided into lots or sections, or whether it will be divided at all. She may decide where the roads shall run and what portion will be set aside for schools and hospitals. No Indian may hold even a small portion of his own reserve as his own. If the tribe votes a portion of the reserve to any one Indian the minister may, if she so desires, take the land from that Indian and give it to another.
I am pointing out these distinctions to give emphasis to my disagreement with the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there exists an equality of citizenship, because it is a far cry from equality. I am pointing out these distinctions to my hon. friend to show that there is

indeed a very wide gap between citizenship for the white person and citizenship for the Indian person in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member think that in saying this he is disagreeing with me? I could not agree more. I feel we should remove that gap.


Erik Nielsen: I took it from my hon. friend's remarks yesterday that he suggested there was an equality of citizenship. I made a note of his remarks. In speaking on the resolution my hon. friend said that the Indian people are Canadian citizens like all other Canadian citizens.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is true.


Erik Nielsen: We may be paying lip service to that ideal but it is not true in fact. In speaking on the bill my hon. friend said that the status of the Indian person was no different from that of an ordinary person. Theoretically that may be so, but in fact it is far from true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would permit me to clarify that. I was thinking of the status of an Indian under the citizenship act. I think perhaps in a broader sense the hon. member may be quite right in what he says.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister does take the land of an Indian she will pay the Indian the amount she decides for the house and any improvements he has made on that land. Even on the Indian's death his widow cannot stay on the land unless the minister consents to her presence, nor can the Indian's heirs remain on the land. The Indian cannot lease any portion of the land the tribe may have voted him without the minister's consent. He may, with the consent of the minister and of the whole tribe, surrender his land back to the crown and the minister may then dispose of that land in the manner in which she sees fit.
If the whole tribe desire to leave the reserve they cannot sell their reserve without the minister's consent. The department may even lease the Indian's land to a white man, if it so desires, for one year without the Indian's consent. In the act there is a section which says the tribes or bands may, if they get the government's consent, obtain control of the land on their own reserve and supervise its allotment; but as this consent can be withdrawn at any time it offers little hope to the Indian of ever getting permanent control of his property. The fact that the Indian must always be a tenant of the crown discourages him from improving his land or taking pride in it. In other words, the
Indian Act
minister of the department has complete control of all the Indians' land. The Indian, because he has no vote, has no real voice in the appointment of the minister, and from the minister's decision there is no appeal.
It may be of interest to the house to note that no transfer of property on the reserve is valid without the minister's consent; and this includes minerals, gravel, timber and oil; and that no property on the reserve-and this includes property bought with band funds-may be mortgaged or attached, and no order for seizure or execution of such property is valid, unless it is a chattel sold to an Indian under a conditional sales agreement. In the latter case the chattel can be redeemed.
Not only does the Indian not have any control over his real property, but in Alberta and Saskatchewan no Indian may sell or exchange either crops or cattle or anything he produces unless he first obtains the consent of the department. The Indians of the west hate this section. It is discouraging to get half way through the deal to sell your hay and then have to go 20 miles to find the agent and get his consent before you can complete the deal; and if the Indian agent refuses his consent there is nothing the Indian can do about it.
As to the question of the Indian's control over his money, any money an individual Indian has acquired is his own to spend on what he may want. Money that belongs to the tribe as a whole is known as band funds. There are no such band funds in the Yukon, even though there are bands. Indeed, there is no property upon which the Yukon Indian people could build up such funds, because they have no right to any of the land, there never having been a treaty negotiated with the Indian people of the Yukon, a lack which I sincerely trust will soon be remedied.
With respect to the band fund, the portion of this fund that is derived from the sale of surrendered land or capital assets such as oil, gravel, timber, etc., is called the capital fund, while the portion derived from the selling of jointly owned produce, leases, etc., is known as the revenue fund. This money is the Indians', and the department cannot spend it without the consent of the Indian council. However, many of the Indians feel bitter that they cannot make the department spend their money for the things they desire, such as hospitals, etc. If the department thinks them unnecessary the tribe cannot spend its own money on them. The only cash the Indian may actually receive from his band fund is under the new act, under which the department can, with the Indians'

Indian Act
consent, pay out 50 per cent of the capital fund to the Indians on a per capita basis. This is being done on oil rich reserves; otherwise the Indian receives none of the band fund as his own, nor can he compel the department to spend this fund in the manner in which he desires.
In the matter of electing their own chiefs, the Indians may with, the consent of the governor in council, elect a chief and an Indian council, but the election is at the option of the governor general in council and at his discretion. The council do not, unless the minister allows it, actually run the business of the reserve. They cannot pass money by-laws but only by-laws regarding relatively unimportant matters, and these can only be enforced if they are approved by the minister.
The department has complete jurisdiction as to schools, infants, and mental deficients on the reserve and it has complete jurisdiction as to all matters pertaining to an Indian's will. The courts may only exercise jurisdiction in an Indian's will with the minister's consent, and can make no order as to real property without his consent. The minister alone can grant probate or declare the will void. There is no appeal from the minister's decision in this matter unless the estate is over $500; and since the Indian does not own his own land, and most of his money is in the band fund, this is an exceptional case. If, however, the estate is over $500 the Indian may appeal the minister's decision to a court if the minister allows him to appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member permit me to ask him how he relates all these interesting facts to the bill itself which, as I understand it, is for the simple purpose of giving the vote to Indians? He may find it necessary to lay a background, I admit, but it seems to me that in dealing generally with the problems of Indians the hon. member is going beyond the principle on second reading of the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped
that I was not dealing generally with the problems of the Indian people but rather with the method of administration of Indian affairs by the department. I was attempting to show that this method of administration is one of the real reasons why Indian peoples should have to vote, so they may have some part in saying how these various things should be done.
I might simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that under the Indian Act the Indian definitely has a legal status inferior to that of the average Canadian. Nearly every aspect of his life is subject to the discretion

or consent of either the Indian affairs branch, the cabinet or the minister, and in neither case can he have a voice in their appointment or election at the present time.
In all fairness to the government this dictatorship that is imposed by the government is done for the Indian's protection, and it has been so for the past 90 years now. If the discretionary powers of the department were removed some of the poorer and less educated reserves could possibly destroy their assets. The more advanced and better type Indian, however, is being held back by not being allowed to handle his own affairs.
It is obvious that if the department acts truly in the best interests of the Indian, no harm can come to him just because the department has the right to control all his activities. However, the fact remains that if the department chooses to not act in the Indian's better interests, a great injustice can be done; and at present the Indian can do nothing to protect himself from this injustice, as there is no appeal from the minister's decision. The question is, how can the department protect the Indian and yet the Indian still enjoy individual freedom and liberty? One of the quickest methods I can see, Mr. Speaker, to accomplish this is by the house giving assent to the bill before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I rise to take issue with a statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in the part of his speech made last evening?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that he has been misinterpreted he might have an explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; it is very brief, sir. At page 1916 of yesterday's Hansard the hon. member is reported as having said this:
On this point I am afraid X am in disagreement with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) because it is not up to us to impose our own views and our own standards upon the Indian people.
Well, sir, I never said and I hope I never implied that I thought we ought to impose our own views and our own standards upon them. I have always taken exactly the contrary view, and in that regard I think I agree with the hon. gentleman and he agrees with me.


Erik Nielsen: I had no intention to impute such motives to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in past sessions I have had occasion to introduce bills similar in design and intent to the one we are discussing at the moment and the one which follows it. I am quite pleased to be able to express appreciation

and thanks to the minister for having indicated that this is the government's intention also, and naturally they will have a much better chance to pass now that the minister is responsible for the bills than they did when I introduced the same things on two or three occasions in the past.
I am very pleased to see this action being taken at the present time. I am sure that even though there are indications of opposition to it in some sections of the Indian population, as time passes the Indians will realize that there are beneficial things which are accruing to them from having been given the vote.
I regret that as an elected member I have to vote on such a question as this. I regret it only because I think it should have been done by the Liberal party when it was in office many years ago, and the right to vote should not have been cluttered up with taxation exemption waivers as was done in 1951 or 1952. It has always been my thought that there should be no impediments, no restrictions, no strings attached to the right not only of our Indian population but of anybody else in Canada to vote. That right in Canada should be inviolate and completely free.
There is a fear, certainly, and mistrust in some sections of the Indian population. This fear should be removed. I know the Prime Minister has said it; the minister has said it, and all of us who are familiar with the contents of these two bills have said it is a fact that no treaty, aboriginal or hereditary rights are infringed upon, and there is no connection between the right to vote and those particular rights in so far as infringement is concerned. But I still think it would be well for the minister to consider accepting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate yesterday, which had to do with the section which was contained in the bills I introduced two or three sessions ago; namely that in the act itself, which parliament enacts, it should be made clear by a separate section, or a subsection attached to it, that this is in no way an infringement upon or a detraction from the hereditary, aboriginal or treaty rights of Indians, so that in reading the Indian Act or the proposed amendments, when they are passed and become part of the law of the nation, the Indians will see that in the legislation it is specifically spelled out that there is no attempt to infringe upon those rights.
The Indian people who have this fear or this opposition to the particular proposal now before us are quite justified in this fear. They have plenty of grounds for fearing and for being mistrustful of us who call ourselves white men, because in the past we have had
Indian Act
a fearful record of having broken promises left and right with the Indians. Another reason for this fear and this mistrust or wonderment about losing some of their rights is that initially the right to vote under the law as it is now was connected with the taxation exemption section of the Indian Act. Because this connection was there I am quite sure the Indian people jumped to the conclusion that other rights and privileges were in danger of being taken away as well, and this is the main reason they have some mistrust of and opposition to some parts of this particular bill. Another reason for their opposition is the fear of what might arise out of it, or what they might lose, because they have lost so many things in the past as a result of promises made to them and subsequently broken, not kept or forgotten about.
Another phase-and this is the reason I asked the minister a starred question which was answered yesterday about the number of Indians who had signed taxation waiver exemption forms, when she said the number was 122-is that I think it must be mentioned in the bill before us that the 122 Indians who signed those taxation waiver exemption forms are going to have their taxation waiver forms invalidated by statute so they will no longer be in effect; otherwise we shall have again the two types of Indians when it comes not to voting but to taxation exemption. I hope the minister will look very carefully into this. I think it will require statutory invalidation of the taxation waiver forms that have been signed. The minister shakes her head and says no, it does not require that. I hope she will make a statement now-this may be stretching the rules-without closing the debate.


Mrs. Fairclough:: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have a legal ruling on that point from the Department of Justice, and perhaps I might refer to it in order to help the discussion along and so subsequent speakers will not misunderstand. I will read the ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady speak a little louder?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is from the Department of Justice. It reads as follows;
... in my opinion, an Indian who has executed such a waiver will enjoy the exemption provided by section 86 (1) of the Indian Act in respect of any liability for tax that would otherwise arise after the day upon which the proposed acts are brought into force by proclamation.


Frank Howard: That is very helpful, and eliminates a few comments I was going to make. I am sure these words will be sweet sounding to the 122 people who have signed these taxation waiver forms. If this matter

Indian Act
becomes a question of judicial decision, as might well happen because these things crop up from time to time, I hope the opinion of the justice department just read by the minister will be supported by the court. For argument's sake, if the question of whether or not this is valid should be taken before a court later and the court should rule against the opinion of the justice department, I think it would be extremely unfair to the Indians themselves and we would probably then have to correct the situation. However, that is something for the future.
There is also this point, Mr. Speaker; I am not sure whether the minister mentioned it in her introductory remarks. If she did I missed it, but if she did not I hope when she closes the debate she will indicate to the house that it is the intention to refer the bill to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs that is being established to deal with the Indian Act. As a matter of formality, if for no other reason, I think it would be quite proper to refer the bill to the committee. The committee will have the subject matter before it anyway, and I think that would be the correct thing to do. In addition, the standing committee on privileges and elections is already established, and according to the notice on the order paper the Canada Elections Act is going to be referred to it for study. Perhaps the other bill might be referred to that committee, or they might both go to the same committee inasmuch as they are related.
References were made to section 112 of the Indian Act, which has nothing to do with the right to vote, by the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Yukon. It is somewhat beyond the scope of the bill, but perhaps I might be permitted to make one or two brief comments in order that I may disagree with the attitude taken by them. I should like to make my opinion rather clear, because it can be so easily misinterpreted. I said in the committee last year and I say now that I do not think it would be wise to eliminate section 112 entirely. The only part that I think needs to be eliminated is that permitting the compulsory enfranchisement of Indians or a band of Indians whether or not they make application to be enfranchised. In cases where an Indian band may apply for enfranchisement as a band the section does provide for the establishment of a committee of inquiry, and I think it might work out well to leave that part of the section in the act which provides for the appointment of a committee to study and investigate an application for enfranchisement.
I think that would he preferable, rather than eliminating the whole section. I am not entirely persuaded one way or the other with

regard to leaving it in or taking it out, but I do think the compulsory features of the section should be removed entirely so that Indians will not have hanging over their heads the threat of suddenly finding themselves enfranchised, completely divorced from their way of life and forced to accept certain things they did not want in the first place.
In summing up may I reiterate what I think will be some of the beneficial effects arising from the passage of this bill and the one to follow. Not only would it be helpful to the Indian to have a sense of participation in his own affairs, in his own government and parliament; not only will he have the opportunity to become a member of parliament- I hope we will see members of parliament of the Indian race some day-not only will he be exposed to the best democratic ideas and be able to participate fully in the affairs of the nation, but there will be another beneficial effect. If for no other reason than that Indians will become a group of electors, we will see candidates and parties paying more attention to their affairs at the national level. We will see political parties and individual candidates wanting to understand and appreciate the problems of the Indians. We will see parties developing programs and platforms for Indians, and campaigns taking place.
All of this will foe most helpful, because I think members of parties represented in the House of Commons who up to now have not taken too much interest in Indian affairs will, if only for political reasons, come to understand and appreciate the problems of our Indian people and be able to evaluate them more correctly. As a result parliament will have a better understanding of the things that should be done so far as our Indian population is concerned.
Certainly that has been the experience in those provinces where Indians have the right to vote in provincial elections. I know that in my own province of British Columbia, where Indians have had the provincial franchise since 1949, the legislative assembly and the government as entities, not from the party point of view particularly, know more about Indian affairs than any government or legislative assembly prior to 1949. This understanding was assisted to a great degree by the fact that a full blooded Niska Indian from the Nass river region of British Columbia was elected to the legislative assembly, and as one who had lived in that region all his life he was able to give the assembly the benefit of his knowledge and understanding of the problems of the Indians. Because the Indians became a group of

voters, candidates and parties took an interest in them and studied their problems, and the government has a more attentive ear now than was the case before 1949.
I am sure this will be one of the results of Indians being able to participate in federal elections. I do not say that the government and the minister do not have an attentive ear and are not interested. I am not speaking in that sense. I am talking of parties and governments as a whole as they come and go, and of parliament itself. I think members of parliament will have a better understanding and be better able to deal in a fair and decent way with our Indian people, which certainly has not been the case in the past.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springiield):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this first opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough) on her visit last summer to the various Indian bands in western Canada. I know the Indian people of my constituency were most pleased to receive her, and I know that a great many of them had "beefs" which they were quite vocal in presenting to her and her officials. May I say that the minister acquitted herself admirably on this very strenuous trip, and it is certainly looked back upon by the Indians in my territory as a great event.
I should also like to congratulate the minister on bringing in this measure to extend the vote to the Indians without in any way prejudicing their rights and privileges under treaties. May I say that I am not a new adherent to the policy of extending the vote to the Indians. Ten years ago I introduced a similar measure in a model parliament. Little did I think at that time that 10 years later I would have the opportunity of speaking when it was being made the law of Canada.
In some respects it is rather paradoxical that we should be extending this further right of citizenship to those who should be entitled to be called our original and first citizens. It is presumed that the Indians came to North America by migration in prehistoric times from northern Asia by way of the Bering sea. At the time of the first settlement in North America, about four centuries ago, the Indian population of Canada was estimated at about 200,000. Since the advent of the Europeans, however, there has been a steady decline in this population which has given rise to the common phrase, "the vanishing red man". However, in the last half century there has again been an increase, so that today the Indian population of Canada is about 180,000. Of the 180,000 Indians,
Indian Act
slightly less than half will be eligible to vote, so about 80,000 will be eligible. Of these 80,000, about 20,000 already have the privilege of voting. This legislation, therefore, will affect about 60,000 Indians across Canada.
In my own province of Manitoba, there are approximately 24,000 Indians, 3,500 of whom are in my constituency. Of those, about 10,000 or 11,000 will be affected, and about 1,500 in my own riding. In the province of Manitoba the Indians have had the vote since 1952. I believe in the last provincial election their voting record was something like 58 per cent. I believe this is a very favourable percentage when we consider the location of the Indians and how difficult it is for them to get to the polls. I am sure that as time goes by this percentage will steadily increase.
I know there are those in this house who may feel that this step is premature or undesirable. I know there are some Indians who may feel very suspicious of this measure. However, I have written to the chiefs of the seven Indian reservations in my riding. May I say that I did not receive one reply unfavourable to having the vote extended to them. Often in the past these suspicions have been warranted. I know that those Indians who hesitate to welcome this measure extending the vote are doing so because they are afraid that in some manner it may prejudice their rights under the treaties. I believe the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have already stated unequivocally that none of these rights will be abrogated when this measure is passed.
In some respects I think the suspicions held by some of these Indians are only natural. I know that in 1945 some of them boycotted family allowances because they had similar suspicions. However, I understand that by 1947 some of those whose suspicions were strongest signed up for family allowances.
As early as 1869 provision was made to grant some measure of local self-government to the Indians. I believe they have had some experience which would assist them in exercising their vote wisely in federal elections. May I point out also that there is no compulsion in this bill. The Indians are to be given a further privilege of citizenship. Whether or not they agree to exercise this privilege is dependent upon themselves. I am sure that those who may at first be reticent about exercising the privilege of voting, as soon as they see we are sincere in extending this measure to them, will exercise their franchise. However, I think this

Indian Act
reticence is overexaggerated, especially in the light of the fine record of the Indians in the provinces where they have the right to vote.
As has been already mentioned by most of the previous speakers, many of the Indians are hesitant about receiving the right to vote while section 112 of the Indian Act remains. I feel in this regard it is only natural that they have tended to confuse the term "enfranchisement", as it is used in the Indian Act, with the term "franchise" as it refers to the vote. Of course this section 112 has never been used, and I believe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has stated that she does not intend to use it and will not use it. However I feel, like some of the other speakers, that perhaps it would do no harm to the Indian Act to have this section removed. I believe the minister has already committed herself to the removal of the section. In view of this fact I think there is no real basis for the Indians objecting on these grounds.
Under the terms of the agreements and treaties between the Indians and the great white mother, these sovereign people surrendered their independence and pledged their loyalty to the crown. In accepting these treaties the Indians were not often accepted as full citizens. In most cases they became wards of the state rather than citizens exercising all the prerogatives of citizenship and enjoying the rewards resulting from the cession of their lands to the crown.
It is very interesting to note that in 1670, during the reign of Charles II, instructions were given to the effect that Indians desiring to place themselves under British protection should be well received and protected. The British recognized the entitlement of the Indians to the lands in which they roamed. The royal proclamation of 1763 provided that no Indian could be dispossessed of his land without his consent and the consent of the crown, and then only to the crown. In accordance with this principle treaties were made with various Indian tribes during the opening of this country for settlement. Under the terms of those treaties the Indians agreed to cede the land to the crown and pledged their loyalty forever. The Indians in return were granted the reservations and other considerations.
Now, in reality when the Indians signed these treaties they lost their citizenship and their freedom. Since no provision was made for the exercising of the vote by the Indians, and since it was commonly accepted that wards of the state should not be given the privilege of voting, the Indians on reserves

never had this privilege, except in those instances which have already been enumerated.
In accepting these treaties I do not believe the Indians were always cognizant of the limitations contained therein, nor do I believe, in many instances, they were too concerned. They could not readily appreciate the legal phraseology of these treaties. However, what they did understand was the phrase so often used by our Indian chiefs; "the great white mother promised that as long as the sun shone, the rivers flowed and the grass was green, to look after her Indian children like minors". The government of Canada, I feel, has wisely made a determined effort to live up to this faith which the Indians have in us. The government has been consistently extending rights and privileges of citizenship, step by step, to the Indians. The giving of the right to vote to the Indians is just one more in a long line of progressive measures.
In 1951 the Indian Act was amended to permit Indians, at the request of the provinces concerned, to consume intoxicants in public places. Indians have been given this right in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon and Northwest Territories. The Indian Act was again amended in 1956 so that Indians could possess and consume intoxicants on reservations, after a local option vote to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is straying a bit from the subject matter of these two bills in mentioning the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians.


Joseph Slogan: I was trying to show how over a period of time the Indian affairs department has been extending further rights of citizenship. These rights, which we all commonly enjoy and associate with the franchise, have been gradually extended to Indians, and the department has also been assuming a far greater responsibility for the welfare of these Indian citizens than was actually provided for in the act.
Some people argue that the Indians are not yet ready for the vote. My contention has always been that the best way in which to get people to accept responsibility is to give them responsibility. If we look at education alone we will see that whereas in 1948-49, 23,285 Indians were receiving an education, in 1958-59 there was an increase of 15,551 to a total of 38,836. Surely this process of education is preparing the Indians for the wise exercise of their vote.
But most important of all, I think the vote will give the Indians a direct say in the government of their own affairs and in the

manner in which they are governed. They can then vote to change those who govern them if they are not satisfied with the manner in which they are governed and they can use the vote to register a protest against the policies of those who govern them. May I say it also gives them an opportunity to run for office so that they may take a share in this government.
In conclusion may I say that I am most happy that this measure is before the house. I am sure that extending the vote to the Indians will be hailed in the annals of their history as a major step in their emancipation to full citizenship. I hope that one of the ramifications of this bill may be that we shall have one of the Indian people among us as one of our colleagues after the next general election.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: I happen to have an Indian band in my riding. They are quite intelligent Indians and they are good Canadian citizens. They have taken their part in the affairs of Canada, both in peace and in war. They have a public school there. On coming out of that public school, with further education, two of the Indian band girls became school teachers.
The Indians have the vote as far as provincial matters are concerned and they feel discriminated against in not having the vote federally. I should like to see this bill go through so as to give to those Indians the same legal right as has any other Canadian citizen. The Indians are good citizens and they have proved themselves down through the years. Some hon. members spoke about technicalities with regard to this bill. May I say that we have a highly regarded Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whose department administers the Indian affairs branch. I should feel very happy to get the bill through and to leave the technicalities in her hands for justice and fair dealing to our Indian bands.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill now before this house because there is an Indian reserve in my riding, the Maniwaki reserve, which happens to be located within the limits of the municipality of Maniwaki.
Those Indians are personally known to me, as I have been their dentist for 25 years, and I am perfectly aware of the needs of that tribe.
I must say that the Maniwaki Indians are probably more civilized and cultured than many others in Canada, because they have had the advantage of living among civilized people.
Indian Act
However, we must admit that the white men took advantage of the Indians; they exploited them, as evidenced by what happened at Maniwaki. The town of Maniwaki is part of the Indian reserve of the same name, and, when part of the reserve was detached to form a municipality, the Indians were told to give up those lands and that the proceeds from the sale of those lands would be turned over to the reserve for their benefit.
The Indians had to give up part of their reserve. Well, what happened? A few years later, an appeal was lodged with the privy council which, in its wisdom, rendered a judgment to the effect that Indian reserve lands in Canada did not belong to the reserves proper but to the provinces, so that the Quebec provincial government demanded from the Indian affairs branch in Ottawa a refund of all proceeds from the sale of those lands, and the department did refund the money. The Maniwaki reserve was therefore deprived of part of its territory. Indeed, not only were these Indians dispossessed of a portion of their reserve without getting anything in return, but contractors were allowed to cut part of the best timber in that limit, without any authorization by the majority of the Indian band. Naturally enough, the Maniwaki Indians are somewhat mistrustful today.
Most of the Indians in Maniwaki are educated, some of them highly so, Mr. Speaker. One of them holds a diploma in electronics from the University of Toronto. I do not know of any white man in my riding who is similarly qualified. Some of them are teachers, or nurses, while others occupy various positions in the civil service. They are a highly developed type of Indian. Almost all of them speak three languages: French, English and Algonquin.
Having Indians in our part of the country is a considerable asset. Our district being a tourist area, Indians make excellent guides, for they can speak both English and French, and American tourists, more particularly, are interested in hiring them as guides on hunting or fishing trips. The Indian guide has a special appeal for them because his mentality, his customs and his way of life are different. In addition, he is particularly useful to any tourist who plans to spend several days in the woods. The Indian is also an excellent hunter, and can easily call the bull moose, a distinct advantage in my constituency, a great moose hunting area.
Recently I met a group of Indians of our district, and I must say to the minister and to the house that the Indians of the Maniwaki reserve are opposed to the right to vote.

Indian Act
Quite recently, on television, Mr. Rene Levesque interviewed a group of the most prominent members of the Maniwaki Indian reserve, all of whom stated they were opposed to the right to vote. They are sceptical about it and fear it because they are told it is a privilege being granted to them and one that Maniwaki Indians, at least, do not want.
I think the government would have been well advised, before introducing this bill, to hold a referendum or plebiscite among the Indians, and ask them whether they really want the right to vote.
Today, they are told it is a privilege being granted to them; but nothing guarantees them that in ten, fifteen, twenty or more years from now, voting in Canada will not be compulsory, as it is in some countries, and that Indians will not then be obliged to vote. Today, they don't have to vote, but they have no guarantee that some day the vote will not be compulsory.
Furthermore, we had an experience in the north of Maniwaki, in 1958. For the first time, Indians residing north of Maniwaki, at Forbes Depot, in the constituency of Pontiac-Temis-camingue, were registered on the voters' list and had the right to vote. The group was made up of about sixty families living in hunting territory and not on an organized reserve.
According to the law, those who live in hunting territory have the privilege of voting, like the Indians in the Northwest Territories.
For the first time, in 1958, the names of Indians were included in the voters' list, and they were allowed to vote. The election report of 1957 will bear me out.
In 1957, at Forbes Depot, in the constituency of Temiscamingue 153 voters were on the list. Eighty-four of them voted, 41 in favour of Mr. Martineau and 43 in favour of Mr. Hugh Proudfoot.
In 1958, it was the first time those Indians were voting. That year, Indians were included in the voters' lists and were urged to vote. What was the result? At Forbes Depot, with 337 on the list, only 89 exercised their franchise; 47 voted for Mr. Martineau and 36 for Mr. Hugh Proudfoot, 6 ballots were spoiled. Therefore, there were 5 votes more than in 1957.
(Text):


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would the hon. member permit a question? What election was this? When was it? I heard him say 1957-58? Is it in Quebec?


Rodolphe Leduc: This is from the chief electoral officer's report for 1957-58.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: To what Indians is the hon. member referring?


Rodolphe Leduc: I am referring to the Forbes Depot. They are not on a reserve. It is hunting territory, and they have been living there for a long time but they have never been put on the voters list.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that in 1958 steps were taken to allow the Indians to vote, and as indicated in the chief electoral officer's report, there was an increase of five in the number of voters.
We agreed to let the Indians vote, and we missed the boat. As you know, Indians in my constituency, just as anywhere else, enjoy a shot of liquor, and it was thought that if those people were given liquor, they would vote the "right" way. For a few days before the election, therefore, the Indians at Forbes Depot were plied with liquor and as a result-


Mr. Asselin:: Who did that?


Rodolphe Leduc: -on voting day, they were so sick-


Mr. Tremblay:: Give names.


Rodolphe Leduc: -that they were in no condition to vote.


Martial Asselin: Were the Liberals responsible for that? Were these the doings of Liberals?


Rodolphe Leduc: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Were these the doings of the Liberal party?


Maurice Bourget: For goodness' sake, answer his question. He was considerate enough not to mention names, why don't you let him go on.


Martial Asselin: Accusations should be specific.


Maurice Bourget: He did not accuse anyone. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gatineau has the floor, but I can hear three others speaking at the same time.
(Translation):


Rodolphe Leduc: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some members want me to mention names. I have accused no one, neither the elected member nor the defeated candidate. I have

pointed to no one; I just described what happened, and I feel sure, just as the Maniwaki Indians feel sure, that what was attempted at Forbes Depot will probably be attempted more smartly in other places once the Indians are granted the right to vote.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: A dishonest insinuation!


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Tremblay) should withdraw his remark. I am not sure whether you heard through the simultaneous interpretation system his interjection, but the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) had mentioned no names and laid no charge against either party. Under the circumstances, I see no reason why he should depart from the discretion and courtesy he has shown since the beginning of his speech, and I find it rather strange that he is asked to mention names when he is purposely avoiding it, out of regard for the dignity of the house.


Martial Asselin: They are insinuations.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member indicate the words about which he complains? I did not hear them.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval said they were dishonest insinuations; in my view, the expression is out of order and should be withdrawn. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: To whom were the words applied?


Maurice Bourget: He was addressing his remarks to the hon. member for Gatineau who has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who is accused of using an unparliamentary expression made an imputation of that kind, of course he will know how to correct the situation. I give him the opportunity to say, now, what he wishes to say.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member was speaking, I allowed myself to remark, not for his benefit but to give expression to feelings that gripped me as a result of what he had said, that his remarks were very much in the nature of dishonest insinuations-.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It would be quite improper for the hon. member to impute a dishonest
Indian Act
statement or motive to the hon. member who is speaking, and I trust he will withdraw any such implication.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if I observed that those were dishonest insinuations, it is because I thought so, but since the term is not parliamentary, I agree to withdraw it. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has simply repeated the expression in his apology. I would suggest that he either comply with the ruling of the Chair or indicate that he does not intend to do so.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I did not repeat what I had said; I spoke out, for the house to hear, the words I meant to withdraw.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has not withdrawn what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: As I heard the hon. member through the interpretation system he indicated that what the hon. member had said was in effect a dishonest imputation but that he was prepared to withdraw it. Now, to my mind that is a repetition of the offensive words.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Speaker, I submit with respect that the hon. member said that if your ruling was that the words were offensive he would withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is what he said I take it that the hon. member for Gatineau is fully satisfied with it.
(Translation):


Rodolphe Leduc: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, the Indians of the Maniwaki reserve do not want the right to vote, and I agree with them. I am not prepared to support this bill, because I am convinced that it is not by opposing the views of the Indians of Maniwaki that I will win their confidence and make them agree to other suggestions of a practical nature.
(Text):


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to congratulate the minister and the government for having brought forward this bill. I think the time is long past due when the Indian people, the original citizens of our country, should be given the right to vote in federal elections in their own country.
There is no question in my mind that the Indians and particularly the ones who live in my constituency will not be able to exercise their franchise properly. They have already demonstrated the fact that they know how to vote and can do so properly. They vote to elect their chiefs and band councils. The members of the band in my constituency

Indian Act
who voted in the last federal election-the ex-servicemen and others who were able to vote-knew how to vote; they voted 100 per cent for this government.
The Indians have a little doubt about the word "enfranchise". They are somewhat prone to confuse the meaning of that word with "enfranchisement", which is a word used in connection with an Indian leaving the band. One of those words in connection with the Indian vote should be changed. I believe the best way to describe the privilege this bill will give them is to say they are being given the right to vote in federal elections.
The Indians at times have difficulty in reconciling the idea of getting something for nothing because previously there has always been some catch to anything they got in a situation comparable to this, at least in the 22 years prior to 1957. The Indians were not at all certain that they were going to be given the vote without any strings attached. However, my people now feel that with this government at the helm they need have no fear about the government going back on its promise or about it introducing amendments to the Indian Act which would abrogate any of their treaty rights of which they are very jealous.
I thought I had a good1 little address all worked out but my friend the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan) happened to have the same thoughts I had and expressed them in his remarks and therefore my speech will be very short. I simply want to reiterate that I am extremely happy to see this bill brought into being which will give the original people of Canada their right to take their place in the economy of their own country. Again I congratulate the minister on bringing forward this legislation and I support it wholeheartedly.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say about this bill, since there are a few Indian reserves in my constituency.
First of all, I want to say that I will wholeheartedly support this bill because I believe it is the only way to grant Indians a right already enjoyed by all other citizens in Canada. Incidentally, I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) for introducing this bill. I believe it provides Indians with a more concrete way of submitting their requests to the authorities of the country.
I have had knowledge of a few instances, where Indians of my constituency have complained about the way they were being treated by certain firms engaged in the fur trading business in various Indian reserves. I

hope this bill will not only encourage Indians to take a more direct interest in their own affairs, but will prompt them to enlist the help of their representatives in this house when seeking to obtain fairer and more equitable treatment.
I have heard of grievances expressed by certain missionaries whose missions are located in my area, and I know that when those grievances were made known to the department, the matter was investigated. I hope that the fact of granting the right to vote to the Indians will prompt them to take an active part in the country's business, as a means of securing for themselves the just and equitable treatment they are entitled to as pioneer citizens of Canada.
Whether we like it or not, Indians are unquestionably Canada's pioneer citizens. If in the past we failed to honour certain commitments-I say if in general we failed to keep our word, I hope that any future agreement will be honoured to the letter.
The previous speaker said that, under this government, the promises that are being made in this bill will be fulfilled. In my view, it would be wise, therefore, to include in this bill all necessary provisions that would guarantee to the Indians the things that they are being promised by this government.
I am happy to support this legislation which will give the Indians of my constituency all the legitimate rights they are entitled to.
(Text):


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, when Indian affairs come before this house or before any place in the country to be discussed, immediately they capture the imagination, prompt the reason and stimulate the emotions of the people because there is something about the Indian that fascinates.
I can readily understand the reason why there is a tendency to depart from the question of the matter of the vote which is before the house today. We have often indulged in decrying modern Hitlers and Stalins in annexing other people's land but we never think of our own share in the tragedy of the Indian who dwelt for centuries in the land we now call our own.
Within four centuries we have taken away from the Indians all but a few paltry acres of their vast hunting grounds that stretched from ocean to ocean. The once powerful tribes no longer exist; the descendants, the remnants of the remaining tribes, are hived upon scattered reservations, some 2,226 of them in Canada, eking out an existence and getting sustenance from children of men who were their conquerors.

There will always linger in our memories the tales and legends of the deeds of their warriors and braves on the battlefields, and the eloquence of their chiefs in the long houses, the council houses, as they called them, and yet we cannot help but associate with these memories the sordid tale of cruelty of the strong toward the weak, those who deprived them of the homeland and who still withhold from them the vote of civilization that we prize so highly and prate about.
The Indian from experience has learned that the white man has two tongues, one for the Indian and one for himself. They have been hounded from pillar to post; they have signed peace treaties which have always been broken. They sought peace and never got it until at last they had no place to go. They left the wigwam for the warpath. The time came when all their young men were killed, and consequently they were subdued. With the promises of food, clothing and education for their children, they pitched their tents on the reservations. Today, we have in the bills before us an opportunity to rectify the long standing injustice that we have imposed upon them for so long, the denial to them of the full privilege of the right to an untrammelled vote.
The matter of their equation and transition to a place in our society does not have to be by integration; there can be an accommodation for them as, with their culture and way of life, in spite of all our good intentions, they persist in being what they are. Therefore, let us continue to help them help themselves only with a more abundant substance than heretofore. We are in all conscience obligated to the original natives of our land, to reinstate them in their proper place in our hegemony.
With respect to the bills now before us, it will be recalled that Indians once had the vote in this country. It was given to them by Sir John A. Macdonald back in 1884. After a period of time there was a change in the manhood suffrage in the country, as the minister pointed out in her presentation, and eventually the vote was taken away from them in 1903 by the Laurier regime. Since then they have been in this position. If they were in India they would probably be in the untouchable caste. They have been thought of as wards, but I never regarded them as wards. Down in our hearts we have always wanted to do the right thing by them. All our intentions of doing the right thing by them have been qualified in such a way that they are still in the position of not being equal to the white man.
There is the matter of the treaties that they have entered into. They made treaties 79951-0-122
Indian Act
with the government. Fortunately what we propose to do today is a culmination of all their troubles. Strange as it may seem, some of the Indians do not want the vote. They are fearful because of what happened in the past. They have been promised things but the promises were never realized. They have been deprived of some things that they prize most highly, and their fear is understandable. They still think of all the treaties that were made and broken. They have the idea that we cannot be trusted.
We are going to give them the vote. Let us give it to them unqualified, as we promised to do. I do not think we should say in the bill that the giving of the vote is not going to interfere with anything they enjoy today. If we tell them this they will think we are trying to palm something off on them. You know what happens when you are offered something and you are told that it contains everything that you want. You are a little suspicious that there is something underhand about it because the person is so emphatic in insisting that there is nothing wrong with it. The Indian cannot be blamed if he takes the same attitude. Therefore, when we give the Indian the vote let us give it to him without any qualifications. Do not let us arouse his suspicion by saying that it does not take any of his rights away. If there is any question about what the legislation means it will be properly interpreted in due course by the courts, and I have enough confidence in the courts to believe that they will read in it just exactly what it says, and that the Indian will get his rights.
Mention was made of the standing of the Indians in regard to the population of the country. I have been checking over the figures from the department and I see that Ontario still stands out with a population of close to 42,000. British Columbia has the largest number of reservations and bands, with Ontario next, and so on down the line. Even if all the Indians were given the vote they could not make a great impact on the country, and I do not understand why people should fear that they are going to upset anything. Let them take their natural place in the community, the same as the rest of us. For some reason or other there seems to be a fear that they cannot look after themselves. They are no different from any others. There are the good and there are the bad, the same as any other segment of our population.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned treaty rights in this country, and also the treaty with the Indians in Ontario, particularly the Six Nations. The difficulty with them is that they have a different set-up.

Indian Act
They claim that they have treaties with two countries through alliances with Britain and France and that they were allied with the British and the French in bygone years. The alliances and treaties that were made were honoured by those kings and were also recognized at the time of the conquest and the capitulation at Montreal. The Indians' rights were continued and the validity of their treaties accepted.
The treaties of the government with other Indian bands are in a different category. The Six Nations Indians claim they were an ally and therefore they have a different status from other Indians. They say that they have an unwritten agreement and in support of that they meet once a year at Niagara Falls and have a ceremony or celebration in which they walk across the border and back without let or hindrance. They can purchase what they want without any duty being levied.
There is an international relationship involved in the case of the Six Nations Indians. They are on both sides of the border. When the battle of independence took place and the Indians had to make a choice some of them chose Canada and most of them are on the Six Nations reserve at Brantford. There is a difference between their treaty and the treaties that other Indians bands in the country have. The rebellious element in the Six Nations Indians mostly live south of the border and they insist upon their status as a nation. They claim they are a separate entity and are not citizens of Canada. The Indian affairs branch has always been co-operative and have amicable relations with the Six Nations Indians who live in Canada.
The giving of the vote to the Indians on the Six Nations reserve is only giving back to them what they had from Sir John A. Macdonald. I believe if we pass this legislation and give them the vote it will go a long way toward securing for them the status which righfully belongs to them. We should set them up as a respected people who have had a vested interest in this land long before we did and accord them the dignity and prestige they deserve so that they may again have a culture of their own. Their way of life can fit into ours and we should not make them be something that they do not want to be.
(Translation):


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Indian affairs committee during the last session, I was able to learn a lot about Indians, and this knowledge was all the more valuable to me because in my

riding, unfortunately, there are no more survivors of the Indian people who in the past were the only citizens of this country.
The legislation now under consideration seems to me to be democratic to a high degree and I must admit that none of the objections expressed so far have either impressed or convinced me. First of all, the purpose of this legislation is to give the Indian the right to vote without any restriction. It opens the door so to speak to Canadian democracy for 175,000 people scattered throughout the country. It will allow those people to take part in the affairs of our country and will foster in them a sense of democracy.
In view of the purpose of this legislation, I think we must support it beyond all question.
I listened earlier to certain objections or certain restrictions made by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc). He mentioned some specific cases. I am not in a position to disprove his arguments nor to agree with him. What I saw with my own eyes is very different. In the county of Quebec, where I live, there is a Huron reservation and I must recognize that the Indians of that reservation often set an example for us white men. I have never thought and don't now believe that general conclusions can fairly be drawn from scenes such as those described by the hon. member for Gatineau. That would be altogether inconsistent.
My good colleague mentioned the possibility of a referendum. Of course, that would be a way to go about it. Still, if Indians in his riding who were entitled to vote did not even take advantage of this right in certain circumstances, for reasons that I know nothing about, how could we find out about the wishes of the same Indians through a referendum? This suggestion seems inconsistent to me and could not be considered.
As a matter of fact, I believe that responsibility for such legislation rests with parliament and that it is up to hon. members of this house to assume that responsibility.
The Indian problem is one of the problems of concern to hon. members, to parliament, and to the government. We have, with regard to that Indian problem, a legislation which has been progressively improved, a legislation which might, before long, call for other amendments or other improvements. The matter we are now considering, should be settled by the members of parliament, without subterfuge or evasion or any attempts to shift responsibility upon anyone else.
That is why I believe this bill must come to a vote. As I said the bill implies no restric-

tions. It widens the scope of activities of the Indians, and enables them, in a most direct and democratic way to have a say in their own affairs in so far as they are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I do not know a single basic objection that might be raised against this legislation.
Moreover, it is bound to give the Indian a greater feeling of pride. It will rid his mind of that sort of inferiority complex that is likely to develop in a group which sometimes feels that it is living under trusteeship in comparison to other groups of fellow citizens who enjoy full democratic rights.
I believe that by exercising this right, the Indian will feel closer to other Canadians and that there will be more fraternization between them. This legislation will mean a further step toward the Canadian unity we are all striving for.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said, and rightly so-the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) mentioned it, and I perfectly agree with him on this point-of the degree of culture which several Indian nations have reached.
I must say that as co-chairman of the Indian affairs committee last year, I was singularly impressed and even amazed by the degree of culture of the representatives who appeared before us to state their grievances and make the recommendations they wanted carried out through our Indian affairs legislation.
As to the standard of the briefs submitted to us, they were really remarkable and proved the very high degree of civilization attained by those Indian nations. They definitely feel that Indians and Canadians are brothers, that such a brotherhood is a kind of protection for their faith, culture and development, and I cannot see that in granting them the right to vote which opens to them, so to speak, the door of democracy, we are likely to create suspicion against us, especially when this right to vote, I repeat, involves no restriction of any kind and does not infringe in any way upon the legislation under which they are now living and upon the rights and liberties which it officially recognizes.
Mr. Speaker, I am not unaware of my incompetence in this matter, and that is why you will allow me, in closing, to voice an argument that carries the weight of authority. They are the words spoken on July 2, or 3 last, before our joint committee on Indian 79951-0-122J
Indian Act
affairs, by Reverend Kelly, chairman of the legislative committee of the native brotherhood of British Columbia.
From that issue of the report, I shall quote in particular from page 138. I believe the conclusions put forward by Reverend Kelly should be such as to put an end to any discussion on that problem and to inspire us to confidence in voting the measure introduced by the minister of immigration.
The Indians of British Columbia feel very strongly that they should have the federal vote on the same basis on which the provincial vote was granted them. Before this vote was granted to them, there was a fear in the minds of a good many of them that somehow the exercising of that franchise would jeopardize their status as Indians. By experience, they have learned that it has enhanced their position in the province, and they are now grateful for the day when this was made possible for them.
On the same basis, there are many Indians throughout the country who have raised their voices against the federal vote. They think that the extension of the federal vote would weaken their position in retaining their aboriginal rights and possessions. But careful consideration of the whole situation makes the executive committee of the native brotherhood of British Columbia, as well as the whole rank and file of the membership, feel that the British Columbia vote gave them a new appreciation of their position in the province, and that the federal vote would be equally beneficial.
In other words, Reverend Kelly stresses the educational value, a democratic educational value, involved in the exercise of franchise by British Columbia Indians, and that educational value is precisely the one which, today, causes those same Indians to wish to share in the benefits to which we are entitled through franchise. A little farther on Reverend Kelly said:
The provincial vote has been granted to Indians in the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. As we have pointed out, it has in no way interfered with their aboriginal or treaty rights, and we believe the federal vote will give them a greater sense of pride and responsibility in their place as citizens of Canada.
Since many of the members of the government now in power supported this position of granting the federal vote to the Canadian Indians, we are glad to bring this matter up and press for its fulfilment at this time. We are confident that the present Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, would be glad to have the opportunity of initiating the fulfilment of this long-delayed right of citizenship.
As we represent the British Columbia Indians, we can only speak for the native people of that province. We would like to say that we would appreciate if the federal vote were granted to our people on the same basis on which the British Columbia provincial vote was granted to them.

Indian Act
In other words, Mr. Speaker, you have there the expressed opinion of a prominent Indian who fulfils a very important function among his fellow Indians and who also speaks with a wisdom based on the soundest principles of philosophy and who emphasizes how valuable an experience it was for those Indians of British Columbia and probably for those of the other provinces to exercise their right to vote.
Therefore, I believe that that argument is stronger than all the others and disposes of the few objections against this bill. I read with interest, in particular the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), and I do not know-naturally this is a personal opinion-I do not know of any legal contradiction between this bill, as introduced, and the guarantees contained in the Indian Act. I do not find in this bill any restriction to the existing legislation and the slightest infringement upon the rights already belonging to the Indians of the country.
For those reasons I support this measure. (Text):


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I am sure the Indians living in the constituency I represent will receive very warmly the legislation that is before the house at the present time. I have two reservations in my area, both occupied by the Sioux Indians, and for the past few years they have taken an increasing interest in public affairs. In the first instance, this interest arose as a result of the right to vote in provincial elections. I have worked very closely with them in public matters, and it was always a very difficult problem to explain to them when federal elections came along why they did not have the opportunity to vote on federal issues. I have, therefore, no hesitancy at all in giving wholehearted support to the measure that is before us.
We have had a rather extended discussion on this matter and I do not intend, at this stage in our discussion, to rehash the trials and tribulations of our first Canadians. Suffice it to say that the time is long past due when we should take steps such as the step which is contemplated by this legislation to bring our Indian population into the stream of Canadian life.
This granting of the right to vote, of course, is not to be interpreted as a panacea. It is merely one short step in the direction of breaking down the isolation, the segregation and the paternalism of the reserve system and helping our first Canadians become integrated into the Canadian way of life for the first time. It seems to be a remarkable thing to me that it has taken so long for the white
tMr. Dorion.l
population, the majority population of this country, to come to grips with this problem of restoring our first Canadians to the rights of full citizenship. In this whole process I think that the right to vote is a helpful and positive contribution and will encourage not only the Indian population to exercise their rights as citizens but also the majority group of the Canadian population to take a closer, more intimate interest in the problems of our first Canadians.
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if this right to vote is going to mean anything in terms of helping the Indian in the direction toward complete citizenship, we will have to think in terms of the educational process involved.
We all know that one of the difficulties of bringing the newly independent nations into the democratic scheme of things is the educational problem involved in encouraging an appreciation of not only the mechanics of voting, the mechanics of exercising the right to vote, but also of the ideas and the values which lie behind cur democratic system.
Recently the department of Indian affairs has been making some encouraging advances in the field of education. If there were time in which to do so, I could quote statistics in this regard. However, I should like to suggest that if the right to vote is to be exercised in an intelligent way by our Indian population across the nation we shall be obliged to move into the adult education field on the reserves. We now have located on reservations schools which provide the facilities to begin what is known as a lighted school movement amongst the population on the reserves. By that I mean that not only can the children be helped in the educational process but the members of the older generation, the parents of the children, can be brought together in the evening through the facilities provided by reservation schools and can be helped in understanding what is involved in the right to vote and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
This leads me to one final thought. If we are going to resolve the problems that the years of isolation and segregation have caused in the Indian population, the communities surrounding these reservations must become actively interested in the Indian population. The right to vote is going to be welcomed by a vast majority of our first Canadians but unless there is an equally positive response from the larger communities I am afraid it is not going to help too much in the forward movement. Prejudice will have to go as well as the insensitivity that prevails to a large extent on the part of the majority of the population towards this minority group.

For example, I could mention the stereotypes indicating the attitude the majority has towards the Indians. They are to the effect that he is slothful, he is lazy, he is immoral and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is, of course, that our Indian population had a way of life that we destroyed and we took no steps to replace his nomadic tribal way of life by bringing him into close relationship with the white man's civilization. Discrimination, both physical and psychological, must end before our first Canadians will regain the feeling of human dignity and before they will enjoy their rightful heritage of once again feeling at home in their own country. This is, of course, a job for voluntary organizations on all levels of our Canadian life: on the national level, on the provincial level and on the local level. Church groups have a particular responsibility in this regard.
In passing legislation of this kind the government of Canada provides the means for bringing the Indian population out from behind what we might call the buckskin curtain, or the shadow of segregation in which they have lived for so long. But it is the voluntary groups, the communities in which these Indians live, which must provide the necessary point of human contact to give our first Canadians the sense of belonging.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: In
rising to speak today for a few short minutes in reference to the legislation now before the House of Commons, may I say that I feel I would be remiss in the discharge of my duties and responsibilities if I did not say a few words in reference to this legislation. In the first place may I say that I endorse it wholeheartedly. The reason why I feel I should say a few words in the debate is that there are two large reservations in the constituency of Bow River, comprising first the Blackfoot reserve near Gleichen, Alberta and, second, the Morley Sarcee reserve. The ancestors of these Indians roamed the prairies of Saskatchewan and Alberta in those days when the buffalo roamed the prairies and was their sole source of food. When the early settlers came from 1875 to 1885, during the time when the Canadian Pacific railway was pushing westward to bring together this great country which today comprises the ten provinces, large herds of buffalo roamed the prairies. That was the source of food for the Indian.
The import of the few remarks I have to make is that when the settlers came in, the buffalo herds disappeared. Then, of course, it was as a result of that situation that the white man was obliged to set up some type of reservation. It was this reserve to which
Indian Act
the Indian went, and by virtue of the treaties that set up the reserves and the Indian Act his rights exist today.
I feel the main reason why a person should voice his opinion and support this legislation is that over the years since the time the reservations were set up the Indian has, either directly or indirectly, received what I might call the castor oil treatment. He was told, "This is what is good for you; open your mouth; here it is." For the first time we have this type of legislation giving the Indian the right to express himself as to what type of schools he will have, what kind of hospitals he will have, how he will make his living and provide the food to replace the buffalo herds, what kind of law and order should exist in the reservation itself, what type of sociability he will have and what kind of political life he will have, and even to express himself in his own spiritual way as to what kind of religion he will have.
It is because of this fact that I endorse the legislation and congratulate the minister for presenting it yesterday. I might say I thought it was an excellent thing last year when the minister-for the first time that one reserve had had a minister visit there in 23 years-came to the reservation itself, sat down at noon and dined with the Indian chiefs, their councillors and the Indians themselves and heard the Indians express their ideas. I think it was that meeting between the Indians and the minister that prompted this legislation today.
Coming back to the tone of my first remarks, may I say that by this legislation I think we are for the first time getting rid of the castor oil treatment that has been given the Indians. In other words, for the first time he is being able to express himself.
While I am making these few remarks I should like to make a few suggestions. On the Blackfoot reserve years ago the prairie grass grew to a height of a foot and a half, and fed their cattle. In fact, every year numbers of cattle were brought into the reserve so that their supply of meat was kept up. Buffalo was originally the main source of food but beef was the food that replaced that food on the reservation. Then some years ago-although it is not so long ago-a new decision was made. That decision was such that the cattle were sold off the reservations. I believe that is one of the things the department of Indian affairs should look into. I am sure that, when the Indians have the right to express themselves by the ballot they will ask that the cattle that were taken off the Blackfoot reserve and the Morley reserve should be replaced. It may be because of-

Indian Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the fact that hon. members have gone a bit off the main topic of the giving of the franchise to the Indians in discussing second reading of these bills. But before the committee that has been set up there will be an opportunity to present such matters as those about which the hon. member is now speaking. I notice that there are other hon. members who wish to speak. I would therefore ask hon. members to keep as closely as they can to the bill so as to give everybody who wishes to speak an opportunity to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker, and I will let the subject drop, except to say that for the first time the Indians, when they get the vote, will have the right to express themselves with regard to the type of schools, the type of hospitals and other benefits they would like. Among the recommendations which I believe they will make when they are in a position to do so by the exercise of the ballot, will be for the provision of better housing and a better chance to express themselves in provincial affairs. I point out, in passing, as an example, that when the Alberta government paid out oil dividends the Indians did not receive cheques like the other citizens of the province.
All these things underline the fact that certain sections of the act should be changed. Take, for instance, section 98 which applies the burden of proof to Indians in certain types of prosecution. I think the Indians will express themselves through the ballot in an effort to see that these changes are forthcoming.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly endorse this legislation. I had the opportunity a few weeks ago of speaking to the Indians on the Blackfoot reservation. Some 100 members were present and they, too, if they were able to do so, would express themselves favourably in the House of Commons with regard to this legislation. Who knows, now that the Indians are to be given the right to vote, one of their number may sit in my place, or in the place of some other hon. member in the future to express himself in this chamber which has existed since the time of confederation.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: wish to say a few words on this bill. For many years I have tried to find out some valid reason why the Indians should not have the federal vote. I have in my riding a large number of Indians who have expressed themselves from time to time on the subject, and I have never been able to find a logical answer. I have heard involved explanations

as to why Indians should not have the vote, most of them tied up with complicated provisions in the Indian Act. I am very glad to see this Conservative government cutting through the red tape and giving the Indians the vote in federal elections. This is one of the first moves towards the eventual equality of the Indian population.
There are quite a number of Indians in my riding located in some seven bands some of which came to the area to escape persecution elsewhere and others of whom are original inhabitants. I mention in passing that among the bands in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is the Parry Island band which now has as its chief a very gracious lady, Mrs. Flora Tabobandong, who is giving leadership to her tribe.
As far as I can ascertain from discussions with the Indians in my riding, they are all in favour of having the vote in federal elections providing it does not interfere with any of their rights. As I read the present proposals, this will be the effect of the intended legislation, and the Indian population will clearly and directly be given this measure of equality along with other Canadian citizens. I am therefore very much in favour of this bill.


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I would just like to take five minutes to say a word in favour of giving the Indians the franchise.
In the Fraser Valley riding the Fraser river runs through the valley for about 150 miles, and on both sides of the river are many Indian bands, some large and some small. Generally speaking, these people are fairly well educated. Some of them are really well educated. The previous speaker mentioned a woman chief. Living right beside the town of Chilliwack is Chief Genevieve Mussell. She is a white woman, and she is chief of her band. She lost her husband some time ago and was then appointed chief. She has a wonderful influence on the Indians in the area. She has two or three sons who have gone to university. They have now come back and are citizens who are highly respected.
The other reason why I wanted to mention the Indians in my district is that years ago the Methodist church had a school right beside Chilliwack. Within the last few years this has been converted into a tuberculosis hospital. The hospital has done wonderful work, and its establishment has led to the presence in the area of many people who are well read and integrated into the society around them. If for no other reason than their degree of education, I think these people should get the franchise.

One of the things to which these Indians in my area object is the fact that they have lost some of their land. Take, for example, Chamiel reserve near Hope, where 20 families are living on no more than 488 acres; or the Popkum reserve, where four families are living on 369 acres; or the Cheam reserve, where 27 families are living on 375 acres. I have an extensive list here containing similar examples.
One of the problems we face in connection with the Indian people has to do with liquor. This tends to segregate the Indians, though we would like to have it otherwise. In my district white children and Indian children go to school together, and I think that is a wonderful thing. A parent-teachers association has been formed near Chilliwack, and this association is very interested in keeping the children in school as long as possible and attending to their welfare. It is also interested in the vocational training both of children and of adults. I may add that adult education is also very much needed.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I am much in favour of the Indians getting the vote, though certainly not at the expense of any aboriginal rights whatever.


Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: In rising to discuss this bill very briefly, I should like first of all to congratulate the minister on bringing in this legislation, which, in the minds of many people, is long overdue. After all, we cannot boast of our system of democracy in this country with impunity as long as we have citizens who do not enjoy the right to vote.
While the minister has given every assurance that none of the ancient rights of the Indians will be usurped or abrogated, there is still in the minds of many Indians, on the reservations especially, an inherent suspicion of the words "franchise" and "enfranchisement". When the term "the right to vote" is used there is no way in which there can be any misinterpretation of the meaning of this bill. Consequently, it should meet with the approval of the majority of those concerned.
Naturally, I do not want to anticipate what response this action will have in the minds of the Indians. We must realize that our responsibility does not end with the granting of the vote and that this action may, in effect, be the basis for further legislation. However, with this legislation there should be a tendency toward a greater feeling of equality and, naturally, integration.
The approach to this matter should be facilitated if we bear in mind that our Indians, both in history and in legend, have been recognized as a proud and independent
Indian Act
people, and that extending the voting privilege is one way of re-establishing the dignity of the Indian not only in his mind but in the minds of other citizens as well. It may well be that in the granting of the right to vote we may encourage a return to those characteristics for which Indians were respected and admired. Should this be the case, we must also be prepared to expect demands for further adjustments in the Indian way of life.
Having been given the vote the Indians will naturally want a freedom of choice in other matters as well. While the indiscriminate granting of some of the requests could not be considered without contravening the terms of the Indian Act, it is reasonable to suppose that after acquiring the vote the Indian may want to be in a position to purchase land of his own, to dispose of his products without the interference of the Indian agent and to have his children integrated in the provincial school systems. Last but not least, in view of the contemplated legislation in my own province of Saskatchewan which will provide a prepaid medical plan he may insist both on his own choice of a doctor and of a hospital as well.
I could advance this proposition at some length but in doing so I may be straying from the topic under discussion. Suffice it to say that I feel this legislation will meet with the general approval of the Indians and the majority of them will be pleased with this expression of our confidence in them.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) on bringing this bill forward to provide voting privileges to our Indians.
During world war I I had the honour of serving with 15 Indian boys in the First Canadian battalion, First Canadian Division. These boys were fine soldiers and served their country well. Those who came back from the first war have made names for themselves in business and in their various occupations. These men and their wives have been privileged to vote. No doubt many of their people are also topnotch citizens and deserve the same right. These privileges will no doubt give them greater responsibilities.
My brother owns the Huron-Bruce post in Southampton. He has many dealings with Indians in that- section and has always found them honest and sincere in all their dealings. I am wholeheartedly in support of this bill. (Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, there being an Indian reserve in my constituency of Roberval, the Pointe Bleue reservation, I would be remiss in failing to take this opportunity to heartily com-

Indian Act
mend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) for her initiative in introducing a bill to grant voting rights to Indians.
The reservation in my constituency is one of the most colourful spots in that part of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, and one of the main attractions of my constituency. The reservation is organized in such a way as to enable Indians to share to the greatest possible extent in the activities of other citizens living outside the reservation.
I think the legislation introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration fits in with the many democratic measures put forward by the Conservative government.
I am sure the Indians in my constituency, that is in the Pointe Bleue reservation, will appreciate the government's action, because it is one more proof of the democratic attitude of the Conservative government. The government's action will be all the more appreciated coming as it does after many other steps taken recently by the government in favour of the Pointe Bleue Indians. If I may be allowed to mention this incidentally, it is as a result of the Conservative government's initiative that the Pointe Bleue Indians now enjoy the services of an aqueduct and also the services of a very large school, a residential school which was recently built at a cost of over $750,000.
I do not think the Pointe Bleue Indians will have any objection to being given the same right to vote as other citizens enjoy in a democratic country. In any event, I have received no representations so far which would lead me to believe that those Indians are opposed to voting rights. I feel sure that as soon as the bill is passed, the authorities in charge of the Indian reservation at Pointe Bleue will study this piece of legislation, and will submit to the government, as they probably have already done, any objections or representations they may deem appropriate.
Nor do I think that distrust is a characteristic of relations existing between citizens of the Roberval constituency and the people living in the Pointe Bleue Indian reservation. I have never observed any such attitude of distrust. I think that kind of distrust is rather a historical factor and that too much emphasis is placed on that aspect of the problem.

A few years ago, I was watching a television broadcast on the problem of voting rights for Indians. The French T.V. program, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to say so, was definitely biased that is to say, it seemed to let the Canadian viewers believe that Indians were opposed to the franchise. I think the cross section made on that occasion was necessarily limited, and that it could not, assuredly give a full record of Indian views as a whole.
On the other hand, I think that the franchise which will be granted to Indians will be welcome, especially as it is not being introduced as a compulsory measure, and that Indians will consequently be free to exercise that right which is to be granted to them by the Canadian government, or not to exercise it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to observe that I fully agree with the very wise remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). He stressed the fact that the franchise granted to Indians, in accordance with this formula, simply aims at recognizing an individual right and will precisely be such as to dispel the mistrust that has been referred to, and which is said to be prevalent among Indians with respect to government actions.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the honour of having an Indian reserve in my constituency, but older people tell me that at one time there was one. I do not know that a single Indian resides in Megantic constituency at the present time. However this is not a consideration that could prevent me from taking part briefly in this debate.
Having heard many members from the government side, I will say that in November and early December, I had the opportunity to attend, in New York, the meetings of the general assembly of the United Nations, as an observer for the Liberal party.
During my stay in New York, I attended in particular the deliberations of the fourth commission, the one which deals with territories under trusteeship. I had an opportunity on that occasion, of hearing in particular the delegates of African nations who were asking for their independence, their freedom and the right to vote in order to administer the affairs of their own country.
Of course it was a responsibility of the government of Canada-and I am not dis-

cussing whether it is late or early to bring in this bill-at this time when all nations want freedom, to bring in this bill and grant to the first citizens of the Canadian territory the right to vote in federal elections.
(Text):
It was not the remarks I just made that prompted me to rise in my place today to take part in this debate. Yesterday afternoon I heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) raise the question of the 122 Indians who have signed a waiver under subsection (2) of section 86 of the act in order to secure for themselves the right to vote at general elections. He asked the hon. lady whether she had an opinion from the Department of Justice on the implication of the repeal of that section, and the hon. lady nodded her head, indicating that she had. This afternoon also the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised the same question and, if I am not mistaken, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) then quoted part of a letter to that effect.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the legal point of view. Subsection (2) of section 86 reads as follows:
Subsection (1) does not apply to or in respect of the personal property of an Indian who has executed a waiver under the provisions of paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Canada Elections Act.
On this section the intention seems to be that the Indian will have a complete right to vote; but what I am concerned with is this. The hon. lady said yesterday that 122 Indians have signed such a waiver. According to my own judgment-I might be wrong -it might be that those who have signed the waiver will, after the bill is passed and becomes law, be under the liability, I might say, of that waiver or will still suffer from it.
I now read section 19 of chapter 158 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which is the Interpretation Act and if I may I will read only the pertinent section. Subsection (1) reads as follows:
Where any act or enactment is repealed, or where any regulation is revoked, then, unless the contrary intention appears, such repeal or revocation does not, save as in this section otherwise provided-
And then there follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) seems to me to be the relevant paragraph. I will go back:
-such repeal or revocation does not, save as in this section otherwise provided,
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired1, accrued, accruing or incurred under the act, enactment or regulation so repealed or revoked.
79951-0-123
Indian Act
As I said, the repeal does not affect any obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred under the act. I may be wrong, and the minister in her reply will probably give us some light on that and will cite the opinion of the Department of Justice, but in my own mind the Indians who signed the waiver did incur an obligation or liability because they became subject to taxation. The repeal of the act, as the Interpretation Act states, does not affect that obligation. Therefore, I would think, although I endorse the bill completely because I am in favour of every Canadian having the right to vote, there should be provision in the bill protecting the rights and treaties and also making it clear that those 122 Indians will not in the future be affected by the waiver they have signed.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this Indian question. Where I come from in the Cariboo there are thousands of Indians. We have plenty of reservations; there are Indians all over the Alaska highway up to Alaska and I am very pleased that they are going to get the vote. These are smart men; they are good men. They have never had enough schooling, I will admit, but there will come a time and under this Conservative government when we will see that they go to school and that they get schools.
The Indian got a rough deal; he got it from the Hudson's Bay Company to start with and politicians were no better. They cheated him; they did not give him any of the best of the deal. I am pleased to know that when this legislation comes into force it will give the Indian the vote, and I am all for him. Thanks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now she will close the debate.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be some discussion at the committee stage of the bill but there are one or two things I should like to comment on now before we pass through this stage. I have been very much interested in the discussion and I think there has been a fine spirit of unanimity in the house. I certainly appreciate the assistance of hon. members on both sides of the house in supporting the bill.
With regard to some comments of a critical nature that have been made I have one or two things I should like to say. I have already read the opinion of the Department of Justice on the point raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and also by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) a few moments ago.

Indian Act
I should like to read again the opinion of the Department of Justice wherein it is stated:
... in my opinion, an Indian who has executed such a waiver will enjoy the exemption provided by section 86 (1) of the Indian Act in respect of any liability for tax that would otherwise arise after the day upon which the proposed acts are brought into force by proclamation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. lady would permit a question which may expedite things in the committee stage? It is nearly six o'clock. Could she have one of her officials check the point raised by the hon. member for Megantic with respect to the section of the Interpretation Act and give us further reassurance in the committee stage?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As a matter of fact, I had intended to do that during the dinner recess in any event. But I should point out to the house that once the bill is passed section 86(2) will no longer be in the act so I do not know to what a waiver would refer. In any event, I shall certainly have that matter checked and will try to have an answer for the house when we reconvene.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate made some suggestions with reference to a proposed addition to the bill which he thought would indicate more clearly the intention of the government with respect to treaty and other rights of Indians. It was suggested by him, I believe, that either by way of a preamble or an express provision therein the bill should indicate clearly that the conferring of the vote on the Indian does not in any way affect any of his rights, treaty or otherwise.
I appreciate that the suggestion was well intentioned but I do not believe I can accept it for in my opinion the proposed action is unnecessary. I think it would be misleading and might give rise to unforeseen results. Possibly I could explain that by saying that to accept the suggestion would be tantamount to admitting that the bill in its present form will jeopardize the treaty or other rights of Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. lady realize she has just given the classical argument against the bill of rights which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is proposing to introduce later?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not qualified to argue that point and I shall not do so. I shall just speak on the matter under discussion at the present time. I am unaware of any legal basis for the contention of the hon. member and I cannot conceive how the granting of the right to vote to Indians could possibly be a breach of a treaty in which the subject of voting is not mentioned. I

might add that none of the Indian treaties contains any reference to voting.
There are other matters which I might mention. I know that some Indians fear that this bill will affect their status or rights but, as mentioned yesterday, the Prime Minister has given the assurance that such is not the case. I have reiterated that assurance on more than one occasion and I am confident that if the bill passes the test of time will disclose to the Indians that their fears are groundless.
Several members have mentioned section 112 of the Indian Act and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that the bill should be amended to provide for the repeal of section 112. I have expressed myself previously on this matter. I am on record in the committee, outside the committee and outside the house on this matter and I have promised the Indians that at least the offensive part of this section will be removed. But there are conflicting opinions as to how this should be done. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned that he did not care whether the whole section was taken out or only the offending words. There is quite a difference of opinion on this matter. I feel that this matter should really be decided by the committee and should be thoroughly discussed. I am quite ready to accept recommendations after it has been discussed by the joint committee. I really think that if an amendment were proposed it could not properly be made under the rules of the house because an amendment to a bill must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed and, as the hon. member knows, the purpose of Bill No. C-2 and Bill No. C-3 is completely unrelated to section 112. I have promised that the offending aspects of the section will be removed and I shall certainly see that is done when the requisite study has been completed by the committee and the recommendations have been received.
Several other suggestions were made by hon. members but I think that practically everything else can be considered when the committee stage is reached. I might just say that the hon. member for Skeena made some reference to referring these bills to the joint committee of both houses on Indian affairs. I find this suggestion very hard to reconcile with his eagerness to have such legislation passed, an eagerness demonstrated, as he himself said, by his having placed on the order paper in successive sessions a similar piece of legislation.
Any reference to the committee would be delaying and I cannot see that any good would come of it because both bills are very simple bills. I cannot really see what there is to discuss in the committee. I am anxious to have

this legislation passed, as I am sure most members of the house are, and therefore I hope the hon. member was not too serious-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question at this point? Is it not true that under the rules it would not be possible to refer legislation to a joint committee?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think that is a point well taken and I thank my hon. friend. I must admit that it had not occurred to me but I do think it is a point very well taken. I thank him for the suggestion. With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think I shall let the case rest and deal with any other matters in committee.


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


Rodolphe Leduc: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not for a few moments, Mr. Chairman; there are one or two observations I should like to make and I think, in any event, we would not be prepared to have this clause carried before six o'clock because my hon. friend from Megantic, who is a distinguished member of the bar, has pointed out that in his view which I, as a humble student of the law fully share, the language of the Interpretation Act seems to make it clear that this liability, having been incurred under the law as it now is, and the Indians not being expressly relieved of it by this clause, would continue. However, as I say, neither of us is willing to put that opinion forward more than tentatively against the opinion of the Department of Justice.
I should like to make this other observation to the hon. lady. What conceivable harm could it do, in order to make sure that this liability which these people incurred, in order that these 122 people may be able to vote, to put an express provision in this bill to say that the liability will no longer exist when this bill becomes law? Whether or not it is an implication of the repeal that that would be the case, an express provision to that effect would remove all shadow of doubt. I do not want to labour this point.
My hon. friend from Gatineau, who has a number of constituents who are Indians and who have the vote and a number of others who are Indians and who have not the vote, has told us this afternoon that the Indians in his riding do not want the vote. They are 79951-0-123J
Indian Act
suspicious of it. We do know that suspicion exists in the minds of many Indians in many parts of the country. I think, sir, as I said on second reading, everything we can do to remove that suspicion amongst all the Indians, not just the majority of them-I am sure the majority of them do want the vote, of course-should be done. There seems to be no argument on the other side of the matter at all.
Nothing would be more unfair, nothing would be more contrary to anyone's conception of natural justice than to leave these 122 people, who were sufficiently patriotic, sufficiently democratic, sufficiently interested in the exercise of the vote to give up a right which all the other Indians continue to have, for one single day under even a shadow of any disability. I would urge the hon. lady, between now and eight o'clock to consider whether it would not be better to remove this beyond the shadow of a doubt by putting another provision in the bill which would remove this liability.
Frankly, I was very disappointed that the hon. lady should have said what she did about my suggestion with regard to putting an express provision in the bill, either by way of preamble or, as I think is preferable, by way of a declaratory provision. As the hon. lady knows, in the citizenship act the first provision is a declaratory provision. As I reminded the hon. lady when she was speaking a few minutes ago, the Prime Minister is proposing later in this session to introduce a bill to set out the rights of the rest of us. It does seem to me that a declaratory provision put into this bill, saying that the exercise of the vote under the Canada Elections Act, or some language to that effect, would not in any way jeopardize any rights, whether by treaty, by custom or by statute now enjoyed or prior to the enactment of the section we are now proposing in the bill were enjoyed by Indians, would solve the problem. It is one thing for those of us who sit in parliament to state that that is the law. However, I know that the hon. lady would not expect me to be as much impressed by her assurance or the Prime Minister's assurance or even by my assurance, that no one would ever do anything about this. If we could put it in the law, then let us put it in the law. Then, it will not be a matter of somebody's assurance.
I recall, of course, when the leader of the government was sitting over here he used to be very fond of talking, as did the present Minister of Justice, about government by laws and not by men. I admit that the hon. lady is completely right when she contends that this legislation, as it is, will take away no rights whatever. Of course she is right.

Indian Act
I accept that, and I am sure everyone in this house accepts it. There is no question about that. However, we have heard debates in this house at other times about the use of the French language. We have heard debates concerning other cherished rights of minorities in this country. None of those minorities want these rights to be based upon assurance; each of them wants those rights to be based upon the law. Here we are legislating in respect of people who do not yet have a vote, and who have no share in the procedure of electing us. We are making a law apply to them.
We know that many of them are suspicious of what we are doing. We think they are wrongly suspicious, in fact, we are confident they are wrongly suspicious. However, that does not alter the fact they are suspicious. I do think if we do everything we can properly do to remove that suspicion, we would be wise. I do hope that the hon. lady will between now and eight o'clock take one more look at this suggestion.
In so far as the third point is concerned, the question of repealing section 112, at some stage by means of an amendment to this bill, I think I will, in spite of the minister's confident expression of view that it would be against the rules to do so, put it to the test. Perhaps I shall do so after eight o'clock. I give the chairman warning now so that between now and eight o'clock he can bone up on the subject. Meanwhile, I should just like, since the minister said it would be contrary to the principle of the bill to make such an amendment, to recall to the hon. lady's mind, because it may have escaped her, that the Speaker himself, on second reading, used these words as reported on page 1915 of Hansard:
There is no principle in this bill.
If there is no principle in this bill, it does not appear to me it would be possible for an amendment to be contrary to the principle of the bill. As Mr. Speaker very properly pointed out, this bill is simply repealing a section of the present act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if I might answer the question that was put to me before the dinner recess. I inquired into the matter of the Interpretation Act and I am informed by the departmental legal adviser that the relative sections of the Interpretation Act were

considered seriously by the deputy minister of the justice department before he gave the opinion which I quoted this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the assurance that has been given by the hon. lady may I say this. Of course, I need not say that I am going to pit my legal opinion or even the opinion of my learned friends against the opinion of the Department of Justice. Eut before the dinner recess I in fact said that it seemed to us that there could not be any harm in stating expressly in the bill which will become an act of parliament that in fact these waivers are cancelled.
I also indicated on second reading and again just before the dinner recess-and my hon. friend from Megantic indicated the same point of view when he spoke this afternoon- that we feel that a declaratory provision should be put into this bill so that it would become part of the law. Incidentally, I think there is another reason why we should wish to put it in and it is this. In this bill and in the complementary bill, which we shall be considering, I expect, in a few moments, we are in both cases simply repealing something which is in the existing statutes. When this has all been done, there will be nothing whatsoever on the statute books of Canada to mark the fact that at this session of parliament we did confer the right to vote upon all the Indians of Canada. All we shall have done when the statutes are ultimately revised is to have repealed a couple of sections of statutes and there will be no landmark of any description marking this important advance toward equal rights for the original citizens of this country.
For that reason, and without labouring the point any further, I should like to move as follows:
That clause 2 be renumbered as clause 3 and the following clause be inserted as clause 2:
"2. The exercise by an Indian of a vote under the Canada Elections Act shall not deprive an Indian of any right or privilege whether by treaty, custom or statute now or hitherto enjoyed by such Indian and any waiver executed under subsection (2) of section 86 is null and void and of no effect."
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that you will conclude it is premature to make this motion until the committee has decided what to do about clause 1 of the bill and I think that is probably correct. However, I felt it was only fair, before clause 1 was passed, to give notice that, at whatever is the appropriate moment, that I wish to make this motion. It may be that there would be a desire on the part of some hon. members to make some comment on this proposal.


Jacques Flynn: I understand that the hon. member does not intend to move this amendment right now but wants to wait until after we have passed clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To be perfectly frank with you, Mr. Chairman, as I was speaking it occurred to me that you would probably rule that I could not move to insert a new clause between clauses 1 and 2 until the committee had disposed of clause 1. This whole matter is really one matter. I did have earlier another draft which would have substituted a new subsection 2 for the existing subsection 2, but it seemed to be so difficult to word it that I thought we might spend the whole evening trying to understand it. In order to make the point as simple as possible I took this course. I thought the committee would like to know what it was we proposed to do and that the minister and perhaps some other hon. members might wish to make some comment about this matter before we disposed of clause 1.


Frank Howard: If I may do so, I should like to make a comment or two on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and on a couple of other matters before we get to consideration of this matter at another stage.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether we have not the cart before the horse here. Should we not dispose of clause 1 before we decide what we are going to do about clause 2?


Jacques Flynn: Yes. I think we can hardly discuss an amendment which has not yet been put. However, it would be appropriate to discuss the matter which is contained in the amendment without referring directly to the amendment itself. I think it is in order to discuss the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as long as we do not discuss the amendment which the hon. member intends to move later on.


Frank Howard: That was my hope, Mr. Chairman. I hoped to make reference to it as a suggestion in passing. I must extend my apologies for not having been able to be here when the minister closed the debate on second reading. I had made arrangements to be elsewhere. I understand she made some comments about my suggestion that this bill should have gone to the Indian affairs committee which will be appointed shortly referring to it, as being inconsistent with the attitude I had taken previously and that in effect I was desiring to delay passage of it.
Indian Act
This resume has been related to me by someone else. If I have stated incorrectly what the minister has said, I hope she will correct me.
But if that is the general gist of what was said-and the minister nods her head so I take it that it has been correctly related-I would point out that it is still my opinion, now that we are in committee, that this committee should not be dealing at this moment with this particular bill but that it should have gone to the Indian affairs committee. After all, that was the purpose, or one of the purposes, of passing that motion yesterday to establish a joint committee. The terms of reference of that committee include the Indian Act. This is a part of it. In the committee proceedings of last year reference was made by delegations which appeared before the committee to the specific question before us now.
I have had the opportunity to have a preview look at some of the briefs which have been prepared for presentation to the committee this year and I may say there is a good bit of reference in those briefs to this self-same subject matter of the right to vote. I still think the bill should have gone to that particular committee for discussion and that it should not at this moment be being dealt with in a committee of the whole house. I do not think what I said is one bit inconsistent with what I had to say in other sessions or indicates a desire to delay the passage of the bill. Last year, as the minister may recall-and certainly a look at Hansard will bear it out-when I had the honour of introducing a similar bill I at that time suggested that the house should either refer the bill or the subject matter to the Indian affairs committee. In the session prior to that one I dealt with the same question.
I do not recall whether the discussion was on the bill to amend the elections act or the Indian Act, but it was on the same subject matter, and the recommendation I made then was that it should have been referred two sessions ago to the committee on privileges and elections for the purpose of allowing interested people to express their views. This opportunity is, of course, not afforded in the committee of the whole. I still think that that would be the proper course to take.
The suggestion which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has made regarding some of the provisions which might properly be included in this bill is, I submit, another reason for sending this piece of legislation to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs. We all know how difficult it is to amend legislation,

Indian Act
even when the government desires to amend its own legislation, in committee of the whole where there are potentially some 260 points of view which could be expressed. How much easier it would be to draft legislation of this kind if the bill had been referred to the joint committee where interested parties could express their ideas about the principle involved and where we could also have the benefit of some legal opinion as to whether or not the waiver forms would be invalidated by this legislation if it were passed.
It is possible that the form of amendment now proposed is not appropriate. The wording of such amendments is, as I am sure the minister will agree, best done by legal officials within government circles who have had a great deal of experience in this field. I am not saying that the proposed amendment is incorrect, but we all find in presenting amendments that they could perhaps be more correctly drafted by those people who have spent a great deal of time doing this work. In the committee we would have more opportunity to consider the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I am sure it is the wish of everyone in this house that the people who have signed these forms should not, under the legislation now to be disposed of, be placed in a position different from that of any other Indian. That is the desire of us all. This being so, I think we should say so specifically in the legislation, making it clear that this waiver form is not valid any longer. We should spell that out in the act. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, once this act passes into law there will be no reference in the statutes for Canada to any taxation waiver forms to say what they mean or what they do not mean.
A second point is this. A very large number of Indian people feel they have been unjustly treated by the so-called white men and by governments in particular. They were promised or guaranteed certain rights and privileges, and as time went on they discovered that these promised rights and privileges were withheld. For a number of years Indians were of the opinion that the so-called Jay treaty applied to them and enabled them to cross the border between Canada and the United States and to carry all the goods they liked with them, without being subject to duty. This is not strictly within the terms of the bill, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is relevant to the subject under discussion. It was not until this question was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada that it was ruled that the Jay treaty did not, in fact, apply to the Indians, because it had not been

given statutory authorization by the parliament of Canada. This is one case of the Indians having been promised that certain things would exist to their advantage, and then finding subsequently that they were not entitled to the expected benefit.
I do not wish to say positively that something similar will occur as far as these 122 Indians who signed waiver forms are concerned. However, I think it would be disastrous if parliament, having indicated that it wants to ensure that these forms should not have any validity, were to bring about a similar result by failing to make its intentions clear. I am sure this is the attitude taken by the hon. minister. It is the attitude of the Department of Justice. It is, I know, the attitude of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and it is our attitude also.
This is an actual commitment which we are making. It will be on record in Hansard for years to come, to the effect that the Indian people will all be in the same class, that is to say, not to be taxed in respect of personal property on the reserve even though a waiver form might have been signed some years ago. This is our intention, and if in years to come the question is taken to court concerning the validity of these waiver forms, once this bill has become law, it would be extremely unfair to the Indian people if they were suddenly to discover that the opinion expressed by the minister and obtained from the Department of Justice was held to be invalid by a decision of the courts.
What we are offering to the Indians amounts to a commitment, and if what I have suggested did occur it will be another of the white man's broken promises, and a further failure on our part to take advantage of another opportunity to show that we mean what we say. I would much prefer to see this commitment included in statutory form in order to ensure that the 122 people who have signed waiver forms will not be taxed. I would like to see this undertaking given statutory validity and so, I am sure, would the minister herself. I do not think we should take any kind of gamble with regard to a commitment made to the Indian people. I think the minister should indicate that she believes the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to be a sound one, and should agree to put it into the form of a statutory declaration. It may be that the words used by the hon. member are not the best possible words, but I do not believe the hon. member is insisting on the exact wording which he has put forward. It is better to make this declaration now in statutory form rather than find in years to come that we had a chance to guarantee it but failed to take the opportunity to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I can say to the hon. member for Skeena that I would be much happier if the amendment I suggested were drafted by the law officers so as to embody my ideas.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Commencement.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more at this stage because I simply propose to move my amendment. Perhaps I do not need to read it again unless the committee would like me to.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the hon. member would read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to read it. I move:
That clause 2 be renumbered as clause 3 and the following clause be inserted as clause 2:
2. The exercise by an Indian of a vote under the Canada Elections Act shall not deprive an Indian of any right or privilege whether by treaty, custom or statute now or hitherto enjoyed by such Indian and any waiver executed under subsection (2) of section 86 is null and void and of no effect.


Jacques Flynn: Before I put the amendment I should like to have the assistance of hon. members of the committee. Does anyone wish to offer a comment on the validity of the proposed amendment?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is no argument about the spirit of the suggestion but this whole matter was gone into very carefully by my department and the officials of the Department of Justice and these very arguments now being raised were carefully scrutinized. It was the impression of all those who considered the matter and it is my impression founded on the advice I have had that such an amendment is redundant and accordingly I think it is superfluous and I am afraid I cannot accept it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no disagreement between the minister and I or any hon. member of the committee about the spirit of this. At one time the Indians were guaranteed by the government certain trapping rights upon which no one could encroach. The Indians accepted this at face value and took the word of the government but it transpired that the Indians did not have what they thought they had. I think it is fair to refer to this as a parallel case because it relates to a commitment to the Indians on the part of a government.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I indicated I wanted to have the assistance of the committee on the validity of the amendment. If the hon. member wishes to discuss its substance he may do so on another occasion namely after I have ruled the amendment in order.
Indian Act


Frank Howard: I understood that is what you meant, Mr. Chairman. When the minister rose she did not talk about the validity of the amendment and I understood that you accepted it as being in order.


Jacques Flynn: I understood the minister to say the amendment was out of order because it was redundant.


Frank Howard: Only because of the opinion she was given by the Department of Justice.


Jacques Flynn: We are not discussing the value of the argument. We are on a question of order as to whether we should discuss the amendment itself or its validity. If anyone wishes to discuss the validity of the amendment I will hear him, but as to the substance of the amendment that will come later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the hon. lady at all to be arguing that the amendment was out of order. If the words the hon. lady used are looked at I think it will be seen that she said the amendment was unacceptable to her because she considers it redundant. I am not even prepared to argue the point whether or not it is redundant because I said when I moved the amendment that whether or not it was redundant it seemed to me a wise and prudent precaution to take, that it would remove all uncertainty as to the law.
It may be that it could be argued, but I have never before heard it argued, that redundancy is a reason for an amendment being out of order. It seems to me the amendment is a true amendment to this bill. We are simply taking out of the act a disability on the part of the Indians and we are also seeking to put in the bill a statement of the fact that the bill has a purpose, which the minister said was its purpose, and in carrying out that purpose we are not depriving the Indians of any right. It seems to me on that ground it is quite in order.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that this amendment has to be considered first in the light of section 86 of the Indian Act. The amending bill we are now considering repeals subsection 2 of section 86. It is in this subsection that there is a reference to the waiver of an exemption of tax. The hon. member moved an amendment in which he referred to a waiver of which the act will not speak any more. I draw the attention of the hon. member to this oversight in the drafting of his amendment. That is the first point I wish to mention.
Second, it seems to me the hon. member is on the horns of a dilemma. Either his amendment adds something to the bill and

Indian Act
I would therefore consider it goes beyond the scope of the bill because the bill is simply to repeal the section or, if it does not add anything to the bill, then it is unnecessary.
The hon. member mentioned that he had never heard of decisions ruling amendments out of order on the grounds of redundancy. I refer him to May's Parliamentary Practice, page 559, where it is stated that an amendment will be ruled out of order if it would have no effect or if it were unnecessary. For these reasons I feel I cannot accept the amendment and I would rule it out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would move:
That subsection 2 be amended by renumbering clause 2 and that a new clause 2 be inserted which would read:
Any waiver executed under subsection 2 of section 86 of the Indian Act is null and void.
I will write it out as fast as I can.


Jacques Flynn: Before I put the amendment I may say for the benefit of the hon. member that this changes does not affect in its final result the reasoning I gave. It may correct a certain fault in drafting to which I referred but it does not change the ruling I made one way or the other. Either the amendment would be unnecessary or it would go beyond the scope of the bill.


Mr. Creslohl:: On the question of redundancy or, in your own words, whether or not the amendment is necessary, perhaps the minister can tell the committee for the record whether, in her opinion, the spirit of this amendment is already inherent in the law as it exists at the present time. If it is not inherent in the law, then certainly I think some amendment to the law would be in order; but if the minister will state for the record that the spirit of this amendment is already inherent in the law as it exists today, then I would agree with the chairman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think the bill speaks for itself. I have already said- I said this afternoon-that the Department of Justice had ruled that any waivers that were outstanding would have no effect after this legislation comes into force.
My hon. friend refers to the law as it now stands. I presume he means the law as it will stand when this bill has been adopted. I can assure him that the best legal opinion I can procure assures me that the waivers will be null and void after this new bill has been adopted.


Gabriel Roberge: For a moment I should like to address myself to the point of order you raised, Mr. Chairman, when you indicated that you could not entertain the amendment. If I remember well what happened tonight,
[The Chairman.]
my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate moved his amendment when we were discussing clause 1 of the bill, and he did indicate as he went along he thought that maybe it was not in order to move his amendment at that time. I do not want to be unfair to you, sir, but will you agree with me you indicated that was your thought also?
Having said that, my hon. friend indicated he would move his amendment to replace section 2 as proposed. Having done that, we come along and I say with due respect, sir, you say it is not time to do that now because section 1 is repealed; it does not exist any more.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to pursue this line because I never said that. I agreed that the time was appropriate to move the amendment, but I ruled it out of order on other grounds.


Gabriel Roberge: If I may, sir, you ruled it out of order on the ground that clause 1 of this bill is repealing subsection 2 of section 86 of the Indian Act. I do not think I am wrong in saying this. Clause 1 of the bill actually before us is repealing subsection 2 of section 86 of the act. I say with due respect, if you had not indicated that the amendment moved by my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate would have been out of order on clause 1 he would have moved his amendment to clause 1 maybe in different language.


Jacques Flynn: Again, I did not rule that the hon. member should have moved his amendment on clause 1. I agreed that it could be moved there if it were otherwise valid. I ruled it out of order because I considered that it was either unnecessary, if it did not add anything to the act, as he says, or that it was going beyond the scope of the bill if it really changes something. This is the reason I ruled the amendment out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand you have not yet ruled the amendment now placed before you out of order. I would like therefore respectfully to submit an argument which I hope will convince the Chair that this amendment is in order.
Clause 1 of this bill, if enacted, will repeal subsection 2 of section 86 of the Indian Act. In other words, that is the whole purpose really of the bill now before us. Subsection 2 of section 86 is the present law and until both houses have acted and the royal assent is given will be the law, and as long as it is the law it has certain effects. What I am proposing here is an amendment to

the bill which, in addition to repealing subsection 2, will also cancel-and that is all it does-the waivers that have been executed up to now under subsection 2. Therefore, it deals with the same subject matter and is, I submit, an amendment doing something different from repealing the subsection.
Therefore, it seems to me it is not redundant, but it does something further which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says, in her opinion and in the opinion of the Department of Justice, is done by clause 1, but it is not done expressly by clause 1; it is only done by implication. All we have is an opinion of the law officers of the crown to which we must give, of course, the greatest respect. If the amendment I am now proposing was added to the bill, then we would have done something for certain that we are doing only by implication if, indeed, we are doing it at all. Therefore, I submit, on the ground that this amendment I am proposing deals with the subject matter of the bill and nothing else, that is to say, subsection 2 of section 86 and that it does something else about subsection 2 of section 86, or about the effects of subsection 2 of section 86, it is a true amendment and is in order.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I commend you on your interpretation of the amendment and on your ruling that section 86(1) is quite clear. It is a taxation section and it has to do with taxation, and it tells very clearly how the Indian is free from the taxes which other people pay, and it goes into great detail in connection with that and discusses nothing else but taxation.
We must keep in mind that any amendments must pertain to the matter under discussion, and section 86(1) pertains to taxation as it affects the Indian.
All the minister has done is to ask that subsection 2 of section 86 be repealed. Up until this time subsection 2 of section 86 does not give those exemptions from taxation to those who have already signed a waiver. All this bill does tonight is to take away subsection 2 and free from such taxation those who have signed a waiver. To add anything at this time would not only be redundant, but would be out of order. It would be out of place to put such a clause as this in the bill because my hon. and learned friend is trying to bring into this bill something which does not come under this section. He is talking about rights or privileges, whether by treaty, custom or statute now or hitherto enjoyed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is reading the wrong amendment.
Indian Act


David James Walker: There are so many it is hard to follow the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, I really think the minister, on reflection, will withdraw that.


David James Walker: The one that he has now moved is even worse, and is more redundant than the other. The first one made sense; this one makes no sense. He suggests any waiver executed under subsection 2 of the Indian Act is null and void. That has already been clearly set out by doing away with subsection 2 of section 86. My friend,
1	know is a wise man and a great exemplar of all the virtues in this house. We have not only my word for that but the word of a distinguished journalist, Mr. Arthur Blakely, who has called him an acrobat, a mummer, a pantomimist, a stage hand, a buffoon, a dramatist, a straight man, a farceur-I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, 1 did not hear you?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You may be sorry but you must also be blind.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Where are you, in police court?


David James Walker: I am reading from the Gazette of March 10, Arthur Blakely.


Jacques Flynn: We are discussing the validity of the second amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate and possibly I might read it to the committee. It is as follows:
That subsection 2 be deleted and replaced by the following: "Any waiver executed under subsection
2	of section 86 of the Indian Act is null and void".
I think I should give the committee my views on the amendment. If it tries to do the same thing as the first amendment then the reasons I gave for ruling the first amendment out of order would apply here also. But in my view there is something new in this amendment. In fact, it refers to any waiver executed under subsection 2 of section 86 of the Indian Act. I presume the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has reference to the act as it is now and not as it would be if we were to adopt this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It should be chapter 149 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that it means that all waivers signed under the act will be null and void and the result of the amendment would be to render null and void all waivers and would give Indians who have signed waivers hitherto the right to recover the taxes which they have paid up to now. If it does that, it certainly is beyond the scope of the bill. Either it is the same

Indian Act
thing as before and the same reasons apply or it is what I think it is and it certainly is more than ever beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore I rule it out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the title carry?


Frank Howard: I should like to ask a question on clause 2 if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Frank Howard: I appreciate it was carried, Mr. Chairman. I was a bit slow in getting to my feet and I would ask the committee to consent to reconsidering it. If they will not
1	will not bother.


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member should be given the opportunity to speak.


Frank Howard: I am just wondering about the necessity of this clause. A similar clause is found in the bill to follow and apparently the intention is to have these bills come into force by proclamation so that they will both come into force at the same time. I wonder whether the same end would not be met if this clause was not in the bill and if it merely came into effect by royal assent in the other place at the end of the session. Would both bills not come into effect at the same time? It is my opinion that they would. If clause
2	of this bill were removed and clause 2 in Bill No. C-3 also then both bills would come into effect by royal assent in the other place either at the end of the session or at some time between now and the end of the session. They would both come into effect at the same time. I am just wondering why it is necessary to say that they will come into force by proclamation by the governor in council. Is there any thought in the mind of the minister that there will be some delay in proclaiming the bills or is it the intention to have them come into effect during or at the end of the session?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is intended that they shall both come into effect on the same date.


George James McIlraith: Then you do not need this clause.


Frank Howard: But will that same date be at the end of the session when His Excellency normally gives assent to bills that have been passed by the house and the Senate?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would expect that
proclamation will be made just as soon as possible after the bills have received royal assent. I had not thought it would be otherwise.
[The Chairman.]


Frank Howard: That is a good assurance to have and I hope that is what occurs.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to utter two sentences. I should like to say that, notwithstanding the fact that I very much regret that the government did not see fit to accept this suggestion, which I believe would have been very reassuring to the Indians and would have removed all doubt as to the validity of the cancellation of these waivers, I am very happy that by passing this bill we have done our part toward giving the vote to all Indians in Canada.


Frank Howard: This, of course, is the unanimous attitude of the house, I am sure.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) have said. I can assure them and the house that these waivers very definitely are cancelled on adoption of the bill.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on the bill. I really believe that we are not ready to accept such a bill because I am of the opinion that most of the Indians in the province of Quebec at least do not accept the bill. They are afraid, and in spite of what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has said the fact that the proposed amendment was not accepted in the committee stage is another reason for the Indians not to be reassured. I am afraid that the Indians were not consulted before the bill was presented to the house. I believe we have no right to impose anything upon the Indians. They are the first citizens of the country. They have the first rights and we have no right to impose anything upon them without having consulted them first. I am sorry but I cannot vote for the bill as it stands.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word in reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). If his amendment had been accepted then the Indians would have had a great deal to worry about

because of the fact that it was such a hodgepodge, so uncertain and without meaning. Now the Indian knows exactly where he is. They have the exemptions under section 86(1) and certain people who did not have the exemptions have them now under section 86(1); so all the Indians have the exemptions. There can be no more worry about it. But if the house had accepted his first year law student amendment then the Indians would have had a great deal to worry about. I trust it will be quite clear to the Indians that this man is a bookstore lawyer. He is taking his law course by long distance from Newfoundland while he is sitting in the house and it would have been a pity to upset the Indians by adopting such an amendment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. lady cannot speak twice on this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure, sir, if the hon. lady has something to say we would give unanimous consent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was just going to answer the remarks of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). I just wish to assure him that none of the Indians in Quebec would suffer by way of this because there were no waivers signed by Indians in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the third time and passed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I believe when we were discussing Bill No. C-2 it was agreed that that discussion would cover both of these bills. This Bill No. C-3 really only brings the Canada Elections Act into conformity with the proposed amendment to the Indian Act in Bill No. C-2. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to leave it at that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, Mr. Speaker, there was a self-denying ordinance and, therefore, I do not intend to speak.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Canada Elections Act
On clause 1-Repeal.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to know from the minister if the Indians of this country have been consulted to see if they wish to have the right to vote or if it is being imposed upon them by the government without the wishes of the Indians being explained to the government.


Frank Howard: With due respect to my friend from Hull, I think he is quite a bit out of date in this particular case. This is not imposing anything on anyone. It would be an imposition if the ideas suggested by some members of the Liberal party were put into effect and the voting were made compulsory; then it would be an imposition upon the Indians to be forced to register and to be forced to vote. This is not an imposition. It has been an imposition for so many years to deny them the right to vote, but certainly it is not an imposition to grant to the Indians of this country freedoms that have been enjoyed by so many people in this and other countries, that is the right to have the franchise and select members of parliament.
If the Indian does not want to have his name registered as a voter, he does not have to do so. He is in the same position as anyone else. If the Indian does not want to vote on election day, that is his business and he does not have to do so. The same situation exists now in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia with respect to provincial elections. The Indians in those provinces have the vote. Some of them exercise it and some of them do not, just the same as non-Indians do. There is absolutely no imposition in this. It has been an imposition for too many years now and we are attempting to remove the imposition.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not agree as yet with the hon. member for Skeena. It is not an imposition at the moment, I admit. However, if this plan providing the right to vote is accepted, then later on a government could come along and say that the voting will be compulsory. Then it will be an imposition upon them because previously they would have had the right to abstain from voting. I know that most Indians in the province of Quebec do not want the right to vote because they are afraid of the white people.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Alexis Pierre Caron: They were treated in such a way by the white people since the white people came to this country that they do not believe us and they are afraid. I am not going back as far as Cartier and Champlain, but not more than 14 years ago they were gypped
13SS

Canada Elections Act
every time they had a contract to deal with the government. I know that the reservations in Maniwaki-


Mr. Martineau:: Who was in power?


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is in between 1930 and 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is not 14 years ago.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will admit that at the time it was the Liberal party in power in Quebec. I know that in the western provinces, during the time of the C.P.R. and the Riel rebellion, it was the Conservatives who were in power. The Indians were ill-treated at that time and they always have been. I think we have the right to take the part of the Indians. They have the right to be heard before we impose anything upon them. They have not been heard, and until they are heard I do not think we can accept any of these bills.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I must take issue with my hon. friend from Hull because the Indians, and those interested in their welfare, were certainly heard in the committee meetings which were held in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. After this committee had met and made its report it was found that one of the recommendations which emanated from the deliberations of that committee was that the vote should be given to the Indians. In the intervening time many groups of Indians have made representations, by briefs and by personal appearances, to the department. We have a record of the representations which have been made and the organizations from which those representations have come. We have a record in the department of representations in favour of the Indians having the right to vote, without restriction, from eleven different organizations. We have representations expressing opposition from seven organizations, but the eleven who are in favour represent a voting population of a minimum of 30,000 and the seven who are opposed represent a voting population of not more than 4,000. You have, therefore, 30 to 4 or 7J to 1 votes in favour of the Indian's right to vote.
I should like to point out what has been stated earlier in the course of this debate, and that is that this is not compulsory voting. The Indians may vote or may not vote as they wish, just as the non-Indian populace does. It is a pretty good vote in a federal election that turns out 70 per cent of the voters. In the various provinces in which the Indians have the vote provincially they have turned out a very good percentage, having consideration for the fact it is a new venture for them and that they have not been educated to it,

as well as the fact that in various parts of the country they are opposed to voting, as my hon. friend has said. If the Indians in the province of Quebec do not wish to vote, that is their privilege. If the Indians in the rest of Canada do wish to vote I hope it will now be their privilege to vote.


Mr. Martel:: Since we have heard a few remarks from the hon. member for Hull who seems to be the self-appointed defender of the Indians in Quebec, I should like to add a few remarks. I think I have more Indians in my riding than he has in his. I can tell him that most of them have been voting for many years because they do not live on the reservation. I think we can generally say that the Indians will vote on the reserve. The Indians who live on the reserve do not want the vote right now. Those who do not live on the reserve have been voting for years. They are for this measure. I am sure over the years all the Indians will approve this measure and will vote freely in every election.
In the riding of Chapleau which I represent the Indians vote federally and provincially only those living on the reserve, and there are very few living on the reserve. They have been given the right to vote and they have exercised that right; and to the surprise possibly of my friend the hon. member for Hull-and he can check the record-they have been voting Liberal in many cases except in the last election because, I suppose, of policy by this government. I am sure if he checks the record he will see that many of the Indians at Rupert House, Eastmain, Nemiscau, Mistassini and Waswanipi have voted in every federal election except in 1957 when their names could not be put on the list in time for that election. I do not know what the Liberals did at that time. They did not make the list in time. In the election which took place in June, 1958 they had the right to vote and many of them voted Liberal and Conservative as well.


Mr. Speakman:: I should just like to say a word or two in order to calm the fears expressed by the hon. member for Hull by reading a proposed resolution which was discussed thoroughly at the meeting of the Indian association of Alberta in a two day convention last fall. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the Indian Act provides for the provincial vote for Indians, and
Whereas the Indians in three provinces and the Northwest Territories have already accepted the provincial vote when it was offered to them by the provincial government, and
Whereas the removal of section 112 from the act would make it impossible for an Indian to become enfranchised against his will for any reason, such as taking the vote,

Resolved that the Indian association of Alberta goes on record as approving the principle of Indians accepting the provincial or the federal vote without any loss of treaty rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to make an appeal to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to do something which I know, under the rules, I cannot do and which can only be done by unanimous consent. I have the greatest possible respect for the views of the hon. member for Hull but I feel we are taking the right course in giving the Indians the right to vote if they want to vote. That is all we shall be doing by passing these two bills. However, I think it will be a very sad and unfortunate thing-and something the government itself and the hon. lady in particular will regret-if this act giving all Indians the vote is not marked in some way on the statutes. All we are doing is to repeal, as we are doing, a section in one act and a section in another act and there is no record anywhere of the fact that something positive has been done. I am going to make a suggestion, and the hon. lady can change this around in any way she likes. I will send a copy over to her right away so that she can read it while I am reading it. I would suggest that the hon. lady ask for unanimous consent to put into this bill a short preamble setting out its purpose so that there will be on the records of parliament and permanently in the statute books a record of what we are now doing. The way in which I have drafted it-and I am not wedded to the particular wording-is this:
Whereas it is expedient that the Indians of Canada should have the right to vote under the Canada Elections Act without jeopardy to any rights or privileges whether by treaty custom or statute now enjoyed by them and that the rights waived by certain Indians to qualify for the vote under the existing law should be restored.
Then it would go on from there "Her Majesty" and so on. I think it speaks for itself.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I recognize the good intentions of my hon. friend and I am sure we all feel the same way about these two pieces of legislation; but any such addition to either bill would be merely gilding the lily. However, this particular preamble suggested by my hon. friend in my opinion covers a great deal of territory without regard to what the implications might be. The main thing that bothers all of us-and has bothered us-is those 122 waivers that are outstanding. As I have said before, I am assured that those waivers will be null and void after these bills receive royal assent. For that reason I really cannot see any great virtue in it.
Canada Elections Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should try to point out some virtue in it. As a matter of fact, if the hon. lady wanted to drop the second part of it, the part that refers to waivers, and just put in the first part, that would be satisfactory. It is not the 122 that I am as much concerned about in this preamble as it is all those Indians, like the Indians for whom my friend the hon. member for Hull was speaking, who are suspicious of the whole thing, who think that the purpose of this legislation is a first step to take away their rights. If we just stop now at the words "enjoyed by them", it seems to me that first part has nothing more than a declaratory effect but it does declare what our intentions are.


Frank Howard: As with the last bill that was passed, I think we should keep in mind first the people who are to be affected by the bill. Primarily, it is the Indian people themselves. Others are affected in an incidental way and as time goes on they will be more greatly affected by the impact of the exercise of the vote by various Indian people across the country. But keeping in mind the people who will be affected immediately-and that is the Indian people themselves-and knowing that they have fears, that they wonder whether the right to vote is connected with any possible loss of treaty rights-of course we know that it is not-or any possible loss of their hereditary or aboriginal rights which they have had over the years and which have been recognized in law and in various statutes at different times. I think that putting in some few words similar to those suggested or with this intent would be extremely beneficial to the Indians themselves and once more would be a statutory declaration of this parliament that we are making with the Indian people a bargain that we do not intend to break. If we put it in statutory form to show to them as a further indication of our honesty, our sincerity and our desire not to have these commitments broken at some later date-and I do not think they are going to be broken- as a mark in the statute, if nothing more than a commemoration, as suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I personally think it would be a fair, decent and sincere thing to have expressed in this particular statute at this time.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: I listened very carefully to have just spoken and while I realize that the the remarks made by the hon. members who suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is well inten-tioned, I still cannot see its usefulness and its importance.

Canada Elections Act
It is a well established rule, I think, that when an act or part of an act is to be repealed, it cannot be done merely by implication. It has to be clearly stated. I can recall, although somewhat vaguely, the rule set by Maxwell in Interpretation Statutes. I am pretty sure that repeal by implication cannot exist without very serious reasons. I do not find anything in this bill which could be interpreted against the rights and liberties of Indians, as already set forth in the existing Indian Act.
If we had been given a concrete example to work on, and which would enable us to say: This is a situation that could occur; how could it be reconciled with this bill, and how could it be corrected unless the preamble of the present act does include the statement of principle which we are suggesting? Then, in that case, I would have been prepared to accept the hon. member's suggestion. But I fail to see how such a situation could arise. Moreover, I repeat, I fail to see by what implication resulting from this bill one could come to the conclusion that any right or liberty guaranteed by the existing Indian Act could be repealed. That is why I am ready to support the bill in its present form.
(Text):


David James Walker: Have you turned down the amendment as being out of order, Mr. Chairman?


Jacques Flynn: There is no amendment before the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could save the Minister of Public Works a small amount of time by saying that I have no right to move such an amendment, nor do I think a member of the government could move one without unanimous consent. But in the exceptional circumstances where there is, it appears, unanimity about the desirability of giving every possible assurance, I would just make this suggestion to the minister.
I fully agree with what the hon. member for Belleohasse has just said. This would not change the substantive law at all but would be a formal declaration by both houses of parliament that in conferring the vote we were not seeking either overtly or covertly to take anything away from the Indians. I think the hon. gentleman is aware that there have been declarations put into statutes before for this kind of purpose, and that they have often served that purpose very well. I was just hoping that everybody in this committee would wish to give the maximum assurance possible to the Indians.


David James Walker: I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that we do want to give every assurance to the Indians and that is why, even though he asks me to accept it voluntarily, his proposal would mean confusing the issue. All this bill is, is an act to repeal a section of the other act which deals with the disqualifications of certain Indians. Those disqualifications have been removed, and when one repeals a section of an act it is most unusual, I suggest, to insert a preamble.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


David James Walker: In addition to insert a preamble here would confuse the issue because this preamble states-
Whereas it is expedient that the Indians of Canada should have the right to vote-
They already have the right to vote, except the ones who are disqualified, and we are now removing the clause which disqualifies them. The preamble would therefore be a contradiction of what we are really trying to do.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I had intended to say something along the line taken by the Minister of Public Works, but I will just add one further word. While the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate undoubtedly has good intentions in wishing to put a preamble to this bill, the effect of the preamble will completely disappear, because immediately the sections are removed from the act the office consolidation of the act will be changed, and the preamble and everything else will disappear. Likewise, when the statute is eventually revised nothing will appear in either the consolidation or the revision, and the preamble would be absolutely useless.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.
Bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 17, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Walker-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of

which insurance policies may be issued under the Act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said Act.
(Translation):
Maurice Bourget: 
Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks at this time will be rather brief. However, I should like to express my wholehearted support of the amendment to the National Housing Act to provide more money for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans. This measure, I am sure, will be most welcomed by the construction industry in general all across Canada and I am sure it will also be welcomed by a great many people who are contemplating becoming home owners. There may be some areas in Canada where the supply of housing is catching up with the demand but there still exists in most parts of Canada today a considerable shortage of housing.
In rising to take a small part in this debate I do so with some background in the construction industry and I should like, as I go along, to make some suggestions to the minister which he might take into consideration.
First of all I wish to stress the importance of good housing for the health and welfare of our people and the need to provide healthful and pleasant surroundings in which to raise our children. Housing for Canadians is a broad subject. One could say much about the high cost of new homes today and tax burdens home owners have to carry and touch upon a number of other problems that are contributing to the high cost of


home ownership and home rental. These conditions are reaching the danger point at which even people in the medium wage brackets find it difficult to provide homes for themselves either by building or by renting without municipal or governmental subsidies.
Since this debate is relative to supplying mortgage funds for home building under the existing C.M.H.C. regulations I will confine my remarks to matters pertaining to the subject which is before us at the present time.
First of all may I say to the Minister of Public Works that his action in introducing an amendment to supply mortgage money to the house building industry is highly commendable and this assistance will be welcomed. It will result in far-reaching effects and will serve to provide employment for many thousands of Canadians.
The construction industry is the most important factor in Canada's national economy. No other industry can provide such a variety of jobs in such a short time as house building. The products of our forest, of our sand and stone quarries, of our lime, cement and brick factories, as well as other natural resources, are required immediately at the start of the construction of a house. This is followed by other products such as plumbing supplies, heating furnaces, oil and gas burners, and so on down the line, until the construction job is finished, when the merchants in most cases move in with the drapes, rugs, furniture and the cooking appliances, to make a complete job.
An average six-room bungalow costing between $12,000 and $14,000 employs on the job-that is, on the construction job-an average of eight labourers for two weeks, 16 weeks in all; two bricklayers for four weeks, eight weeks in all; four carpenters, four weeks, 16 weeks in all; two plumbers, one a week, two weeks in all; one metal worker; one electrician; two painters, two weeks, four weeks in all; two plasterers one week; one tile setter, one week; or a visible payroll of approximately $4,000 per house and approximately 2,000 manhours of labour not including the component parts that go into the house in the form of manufactured goods and other products I have already described. While those figures are only my own estimates, I think they are about the average for houses in the range of $12,000.
There is also another group of workmen employed in the preparation of the site, installing the sewers, the water, gas, building of roadways and doing the landscaping. I relate these things to try to show how important house building is in our economy and how important it is to make mortgage money available at all times for builders who

build on speculation and for private citizens who wish to secure direct loans and handle their own contracts.
I would like to say a word with regard to private citizens who wish to secure direct loans and handle their own contracts and build under the supervision of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspectors. At one time much of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation building was done in this manner and was done by small building contractors who, among other construction work they did, built some four to six houses per year, what might be called custom built houses. There has been a tendency in recent years for all or most of the mortgage money to be taken up by the larger developers, with whom I have no quarrel. However, I do feel that the house building industry would be more stable if there were funds available at all times for the individual potential home owner so that he could secure a loan and build on land he may own or wish to purchase, not on a development subdivision. I do not say that that cannot be done at the present time; it can, but in recent years, when Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation money became available, it was taken up in a short time by the big developers, leaving long periods when no funds were available. I would recommend to the minister that he give consideration to setting aside a small block of mortgage funds for house building of the type I have tried to describe on a year round basis.
This kind of lending has certain advantages, first to the home owner. He can select his own site especially in the smaller communities; he can save the legal fees by having the loan in his own name from the start, thereby avoiding the title transfer. He can also eliminate real estate commission; he can have the house built by the builder of his choice at competitive prices and thereby save money. The small building contractor will also have many benefits. First of all, it would keep him in the house building business, which is most important. It has been noticed in the last few years that house building is drifting away from the small builder and going to the big subdivider. If loans of that class were available the year round it would firm up the business of the small building contractor; it would make it easier for him to provide year round employment to his workers. It would encourage him to take on young men as apprentices, which is something badly needed in Canada today.
I cannot express too strongly the need of keeping the small general contractors in the house building business. They employ mostly union workmen; they pay fair wages and
National Housing Act
they teach apprentices in the building trade, all of which is necessary and can best be done by making year round mortgage funds available for what I have described as custom built houses.
I do feel that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should do more by way of research in the development of low cost houses. It is true that one was developed last year, and while I have no figures on how popular it was, I do not think it was very popular. There is a great market for low cost housing, and everything should be done to promote it in areas where there is an acute housing need.
I have also been a great supporter of the land development schemes whereby the municipalities and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would purchase land, put in the services and make it available to house builders to buy in one or two lots. Land assembly scheme is the proper term to use. This is a scheme which should be pushed a little harder than it is being pushed at the present time.
In closing, I will not speak about apartment building, but I will say that I do favour subsidized slum clearance projects in the larger cities where the need for better housing is most acute for people in the low income group. There are a great many other things that could be said in connection with housing at this time, but I should like to leave an opportunity for others who may wish to go into other phases of the business. All I can say is that the setting aside of this money, as the Minister of Public Works is doing, is going to do a great service to the Canadian construction industry. It is going to create many jobs and it will also provide homes in many parts of Canada where they are badly needed.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, first I wish to extend my congratulations to the minister on his appointment as Minister of Public Works. He will certainly carry the good will and good wishes of all members and I am sure that if he adopts the patience which his efficient predecessor displayed he will undoubtedly fill the office with credit and distinction. That one of the first items of business of his administration to come before the house should be housing is a good omen and augurs well for many people who are in need of better accommodation which, without government assistance, their low incomes would not permit them to acquire.
There is considerable agitation in various parts of Canada at present for speedy action on slum clearance and for the rehousing of families who live on very low incomes. It has been recently reported that houses built during the last five years exceeded net family

The hon. member for Hamilton South made a very fine speech on housing on the closing day of the throne speech debate and, with the exception of some statements he made on which I have some reservations, I wholeheartedly agree with his observations and I wish to congratulate him on his contribution to this subject which, so far as I am concerned, is still one of the important factors in the welfare of the community. I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that there are 1,300 government rental projects in his riding with respect to which the government puts up 75 per cent of the cost of construction of the dwelling. The remaining 25 per cent is not all contributed by the provincial government as stated by the hon. member, but I am sure this was just an oversight on his part. The division is 17\ per cent contributed by the province and 7J per cent by the municipality. In passing may I also remind the hon. member that it was a Liberal government that introduced the legislation which made the 1,300 housing projects in his constituency possible.
In its long and distinguished record of achievement in the field of social legislation the former Liberal government established one of the most beneficial measures for the people of Canada in the low income group when it enacted the National Housing Act under which thousands of Canadians were provided with low rental homes who otherwise would have been forced to live in slum type dwellings. Several hundred homes were built in my own constituency of Fort William and I am still a very strong advocate of rental homes for those who cannot afford to buy.
The intent of the resolution does not cover spending for the construction of homes for rent under the National Housing Act, but if the government wishes to improve the act I strongly recommend an amendment which would provide for a federal share of 75 per cent and include the cost of water and sewer installations and the construction of sidewalks which at present are left to the hard-pressed municipalities which can hardly afford an additional outlay of money owing to the ever-increasing difficulties of borrowing.
With a population of approximately 18 million, an estimated 150,000 marriages will take place in Canada this year. These couples are all potential home owners. All will become tenants of houses or apartments, and the demand will increase as the population grows. It is true that in 1959 the number of marriages in Canada dropped to 127,000 but I am glad to say that the prospects for 1960 are much

brighter and perhaps closer to the figure I have mentioned. I now wish to quote from a submission I have received from the lake-head housebuilders association. I commend this submission to the minister as worthy of consideration. They say in part:
One of the largest industries at the lakehead is in grave danger of suffering a serious depression, with consequent curtailment of purchasing power and lay-offs of employees. We speak of the housing industry which has an annual turnover in the lake-head of approximately $15 million, of which approximately $7 million is paid out directly to the citizens of the lakehead cities in wages alone.
We commend the government, which in the past years, under the National Housing Act, has been responsible for a steady source of mortgage moneys, not only directly, but also through lending institutions, which have been influenced by the fact that the government guaranteed repayment. There is a desperate need for a stable source of mortgage funds, so that planning may commence prior to the actual period of construction which, as you are aware, is quite limited in the lakehead due to the weather problem.
Up until the end of 1959 in the lakehead cities, there were only three life insurance companies and one trust company financing new house construction under the National Housing Act, and then to only a limited degree. No other life insurance companies, trust companies and other lending institutions, will advance moneys in the lakehead area because they find that due to its isolated location and distance from their regional offices, the costs of administration are too high. Up to the end of 1959 for this reason, most lakehead housing projects have been financed directly through either Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the banks. However, you can well appreciate that, in view of the fact that banks are limited to a maximum interest rate of 6 per cent and the National Housing Act's present rate is 6j per cent, there can be no hope held out for any real participation by the banks during the coming building season.
At this moment, there has been nothing done by the government in the way of indicating its program of lending under N.H.A. for 1960 and the three life insurance companies and one trust company which have loaned in the lakehead area have not yet committed themselves for one single loan.
One of the life insurance companies and the trust company have already stated that they will not be lending under the N.H.A. in 1960.
Local builders are receiving many inquiries from prospective purchasers who wish to build under the system which has been established in the last couple of years, but of course, no builder can give them any indication of what prospects they might have for obtaining financing. This, of course, leaves the builders and the prospective purchasers in a state of suspension. Unless the situation is soon resolved, many workmen temporarily laid off as a result of the curtailment of mortgage financing last October, simply will not be called back.
The letter goes on with more facts, but I see that time is limited and I will just leave that and proceed to the rest of my presentation. It is rather significant that the building volume in 1960 in most cities throughout Canada, including my own city of Fort William and the city of Ottawa, is the lowest since 1950. There are newcomers to be considered, and if immigrants are considered as well as the result
National Housing Act
of an adequate immigration policy being adopted, it will mean a greater demand for housebuilding than anticipated. In this event, even the estimated 125,000 new homes for 1960 may be short of meeting the demand. According to the Canadian Builder, a publication of the building industry, the battle for money is going to be fierce in 1960. I quote: House builders this year face the toughest battle for mortgage money ever fought in Canada.
It is obvious that the 60 per cent limit of appraisal value for conventional loans is not in step with present economic trends. It curtails too much the financial participation of the lender and makes too heavy a burden on the purchaser of a home. Thus, a potential purchaser must decide against buying or find someone who will make a loan on a second mortgage who, if found, invariably demands an excessively high rate of interest.
On Monday, March 7, I asked the minister the following question:
Would the minister consider doing away with the compulsory insurance feature on C.M.H.C. mortgages or at least reduce the insurance fee to a more reasonable figure in order to mitigate, to a slight degree, the crippling impact of this government's policy on the construction industry during 1960?
The following day the minister answered no. I believe it is time for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to drop the requirement which forces a home owner to insure the mortgage on his home. This is distinctly an added burden to the purchaser of the home and represents as much as $300 on present mortgages. It works in this way. The bank pays this fee to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and adds it on to the mortgage. In other words, the home owner not only has to pay an unnecessary fee, but he has to pay interest on it which, over the life of the mortgage if it be 30 years, will amount to something like $600.
It has been reported that in five years Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has accumulated $60 million from the mortgage insurance system, a scheme designed to protect the lender against default. However, the defaults have numbered less than 30 all told. In other words, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has collected $60 million in insurance premiums while payments to beneficiaries have totalled less than $300,000. It seems to me that this insurance scheme should be reduced by 75 per cent at least, if not removed entirely. The removal of this premium could stimulate the industry which, when properly organized, is a stabilizing factor in employment because there is no other industry of which I know that spreads the benefits of employment more evenly in the economy of a community.

National Housing Act


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jones):: Order-


Hubert Badanai: May I be allowed to proceed for just two minutes?


David James Walker: Yes, I should like to hear him, Mr. Chairman.


Hubert Badanai: If houses are not selling, it is not because there are no customers but because the down payment is too high. I should like to illustrate what I mean by citing what happened in the town of Atikokan, 130 miles west of Fort William and which is on the fringe of my constituency. On January 7 the weekly town newspaper carried an advertisement offering 20 new homes for sale at down payments of $500 instead of the usual $2,000 to $3,000. Within five days 18 of the homes had been sold. This is irrefutable evidence that Canadians everywhere are anxious to own their own homes. People close to the scene have made the statement that not more than one or two of these 20 homes would have been sold if as much as $2,000 had been required as a down payment. Past experience has proven that such high down payments just cannot be met by young couples trying to give their children a decent standard of living while still paying for furniture and other appliances.
What Canada needs today is a move toward lower building costs, better mortgage arrangements and more realistic building standards in housing. I submit that the government would do well to sponsor a national competition for a design and specifications for a home that the great majority of Canadians could afford. This might uncover a new design acceptable to Canadian conditions. The cost of such an undertaking would be small and the benefits to the national economy would be great. I urge the minister to give these suggestions serious consideration.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house would indicate the business for tomorrow and for as much as next week as he can?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot go beyond Monday unfortunately at this stage. Tomorrow I hope to be able to outline the tentative program for next week. For tomorrow we should like to proceed with this item, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the National Housing Act and then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with amendments to the Railway Act. If we could complete those resolutions tomorrow I think the house will then have done a fair bit of business this week. I should like to thank the house for completing the work on Indian affairs today.
Monday will be a private members' day. If by chance we could finish the National Housing Act amendment and the Railway Act amendment, we would then consider the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of judges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. If it would facilitate the business of the house and would help the government at all, if the resolution stage on housing is completed any time during the day, as far as our party are concerned we would be quite prepared to go right on with second reading of the bill if the government wished to do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.