1962-03-13

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been asked by the president of the chamber of commerce of Beaumont, Quebec, to explain the presence of two of his colleagues and eight Progressive Conservative members of parliament from Quebec at a luncheon called to announce a steel complex for the district of Quebec, and is he aware of the statement of the mayor-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member completes his question I wonder under what administrative responsibility the Prime Minister would be asked to explain the presence of hon. members, even hon. members of the government, at a luncheon.


Lionel Chevrier: Since you bring this point to my attention Mr. Speaker, I would point out that yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question in connection with this matter, which can be found at page 1695 of Hansard, and the Prime Minister's reply was:
I do not know how the hon. gentleman, knowledgeable as he is, knows what knowledge four ministers of the crown had several months ago. All I can say is that there is no basis for any ascription of knowledge respecting this company to the government.
My reply was that the statement was made by the president of the corporation, and now this morning this appears in the Montreal Gazette-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I assume there is something in the paper to the effect that the mayor of Beaumont has addressed a communication, but I am not satisfied what administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister is involved in what is so far as I am informed -and I am subject to information on this matter-was a private luncheon, an invitation luncheon.


Lionel Chevrier: Would Your Honour allow me to complete my point?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I would certainly allow the hon. member to complete his point, but it seems to me he is addressing himself to
something other than the point of order on whether it is a matter of public administration that is involved or whether it was a private luncheon party on invitation. It seems to me that it is just left undetermined in the newspapers. If the hon. member can assure me that he takes the responsibility for saying the ministers were appearing in a ministerial capacity involving the government, then I would permit him to go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour would allow me to complete the question you will see this is covered by the statement I am trying to make. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the statement of the mayor of Beaumont that the Secretary of State forecast last December 10 that a steel industry would be built in Lauzon, with business offices in Beaumont.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I still fail to see the connection with the luncheon party. If the hon. member has a question about the building of a steel plant in which the government is involved, perhaps he would ask that question, but I do not know that the representation of a mayor about attendance at the luncheon-


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Hees:: Now we are going to get the full treatment. Here it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say that the government's big majority in not going to howl down the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor on the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for preserving the rights of this vigilant and active opposition party.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: And misguided.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question put by the hon. member for Laurier to the Prime Minister had to do with an observation made by the Secretary of State, who is a member of the government of Canada. It may be that in announcing this proposed plan the Secretary of State had in mind certain accommodations and policies which the government of Canada was going to evolve in order to encourage this industry.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Churchill:: What is your point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do not know; that may have been involved. Surely the hon. member for Laurier is entitled to ask the Prime Minister if a statement made by one of his ministers in regard to a matter vitally affecting the economy of a particular area in Canada is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no objection to such a question, but that is not what the hon. member for Laurier was asking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my question of the Prime Minister. I expect that he will give a reply.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the two of them cannot agree on what the question was, I am sure I am not going to reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think Your Honour will find that there was no difference in the question and my reaction to the question. The Prime Minister is mistaken-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whether or not the Prime Minister was mistaken is not a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Just give up; it is a bad day. (Translation):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
According to this morning's Gazette, Mr. Albert Patry, mayor of the city of Beaumont, stated that the Secretary of State announced at a dinner held in Beaumont last December that a new industry would be set up soon in Lauzon, with offices located in Beaumont. Has the minister any comment to make in this respect?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secreiary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this question is put to me because I felt a while ago that it should be directed to me.
I remember somewhat vaguely of having mentioned that, according to information given to me, a plant would possibly be set up in the Lauzon area, with administrative services in the parish of Beaumont.
I expressed the hope that if this project was sound it would be carried out.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
What part did the minister take in that affair of the Sulphur Converting Corporation of Montreal and what significance had his presence at the meeting in Quebec city?


Mr. Pigeon:: Ask that of the deputy minister who encouraged that in Quebec.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on my arrival in Quebec city I was advised that there was a reception. I went to the reception, I sat down and listened; I was rather surprised, I got up and I left.
(Text):


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there seems to be serious doubt about the soundness of the project of the Sulphur Converting Corporation, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to warn the people of Canada against the danger of investing their money-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has misinformed himself with respect to the administrative responsibility of the federal government. The question as I heard it relates to the sale of securities, which is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as federal authorities and members of parliament are involved I believe it raises a question affecting the public interest, and I feel the federal government might be interested in the project. That is the idea underlying my question.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. member says about public interest is quite true, but that does not make it a matter of federal jurisdiction. It is a question of law enforcement or the sale of securities, either of which comes under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the Minister of Labour take notice of a statement by Father Turgeon, parish priest of Lauzon, to the effect that the announcement of this project had brought large numbers of unemployed workers from surrounding districts to Lauzon, who now have to be looked after by the St. Vincent de Paul society? Does the minister propose any immediate measures to come to the assistance of this community?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: That is the first time I have heard about this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you look into it?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Is the minister aware of the fact that a deputy minister in the province of Quebec, encouraged by the minister of trade and industry, Hon. Mr. Rousseau, strongly supported that project of a plant, which was also approved by several former Liberal members of parliament in Ottawa?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am trying to be sympathetic toward these questions about the Sulphursomething corporation. Even if the Secretary of State is aware of the alleged fact, I am still not sure that it is a subject matter for a question at this point in our proceedings.
(Translation):


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State concerning the matter which was brought up by questions from certain Liberal members.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the fact that the project in question originated in my constituency and was sponsored by two former Liberal candidates, one Liberal member and seven or eight Liberal organizers?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I rather think the last question comes in the same category as the one asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this rule-obeying group I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Does the minister wish to comment on the statement made in Victoria last night by our unpredictable Premier Bennett to the following effect:
B.C. won't be bribed by Ottawa into returning Columbia river downstream power to the province. We don't need any of their money. We can finance them both by ourselves, thank you.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and everyone else that the government has no intention whatever of bribing anyone; and if, as the statement seems to indicate, Premier Bennett is not asking the federal government to provide money for some purpose, I think he must be about the only person in Canada who is not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received an application from Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, chairman of the British Columbia power commission, for a licence or licences to build the High Arrow, Duncan lake and Mica creek dams in the Columbia river basin?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is one matter that the Minister of Finance does not handle; this comes to the Minister of Public Works. Applications have been received under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to construct dams on Mica creek, Duncan river and Arrow lakes; they have just been received from the British Columbia power commission. These applications are now under review by the officials of the department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Another supplemental question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kootenay East.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have now converted the supplementary question I had intended to ask the Minister of Public Works to a regular one. In view of the apparent cart before the horse procedure of Dr. Keenleyside in dealing with Columbia river matters, will the minister inform the house whether he has been informed that Mr. Paget, water controller for British Columbia, has not to date issued a licence to the British Columbia power commission for the building of the dams, application for which has been made to his department?


David James Walker: As I understand it, this esteemed gentleman is a provincial official of the British Columbia department of lands and forests, and the permits issued by him are a provincial matter. The province of British Columbia has not been in the habit of consulting me in connection with their purely provincial matters. I therefore apologize for not being able to give an answer to that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



SONS OF FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence this question. Has the minister received a communication from the attorney general of the province of British Columbia requesting the assistance of the army in the East and West Kootenay areas for the Doukhobor problem?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I did receive a telegram from Mr. Bonner, the attorney general of British Columbia, the material part of which read:
Would earnestly recommend Canadian army immediately station appropriate units in the East and West Kootenays for practical training in army's current domestic role.
People in Kootenays and government of British Columbia would welcome federal co-operation of this nature as complementary to efforts of provincial and municipal enforcement agencies now fully engaged in this area.
Following receipt of this telegram I telephoned Mr. Bonner and pointed out to him that it was apparent that the reason he wished troops to be stationed in the Kootenays was that they might aid the civil power. I stated he should follow the regular procedure as laid down in the National Defence Act, sections 218-228. Section 219 in particular reads:
The Canadian forces, or any unit or other element thereof, or any officer or man, with materiel, are liable to be called out for service in aid of the civil power, in any case in which a riot or disturbance of the peace requiring such service occurs, or is, in the opinion of an attorney general, considered as likely to occur, and that Is beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress, prevent, or deal with.
This section and the others referred to place squarely on the attorney general of the province the responsibility for requisitioning military assistance if, in his opinion, it is required. I assured Mr. Bonner that if assistance was requisitioned in the manner laid down by law, it would be provided in a matter of hours. I further advised Mr. Bonner that in my opinion I had no authority under law to send in troops to assist the civil power unless they were called for in the circumstances as laid down in the National Defence Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does this in effect mean there has to be a state of martial law declared before the minister sends in troops?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no such thing as a state of martial law, as I understand it.

The National Defence Act is clear. If military assistance is required by the civil authorities, the procedure is clearly laid down; they' request the nearest army commander for that assistance, and he is obligated under the National Defence Act to supply it.


Mr. Erharf Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that ever so many minority groups in Canada are deeply concerned about the irresponsible and reprehensible activities of the Sons of Freedom community in Canada, is the Prime Minister in a position to assure the house that the government will undertake and support no measures that will violate the basic spirit underlying our bill of rights?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman often indulges in adjectival exaggeration, and this is a further example. He must realize that all statutes of Canada are subject to the bill of rights.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that offences committed outside of Canada are not subject to prosecution in Canada, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether the two members of the Department of External Affairs who are alleged to have engaged in improper activities in Indo-China continued to enjoy diplomatic immunity even after their offences were discovered?


John George Diefenbaker: What I said yesterday had no reference to diplomatic immunity. The question arose whether the act of smuggling committed by civilian personnel in Indo-China constitutes an offence under any of the laws of Canada. None of the statutes which are relevant in this connection, namely the Criminal Code, the Narcotic Control Act and the Customs Act, applies to wrongful acts committed outside Canada. It is not a question of diplomatic immunity at all; it is simply the fact that civilian personnel stationed anywhere in the world who commit offences are not liable under Canadian law even though they are Canadians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does this mean that if the offence is committed in another country, and they are not liable to punishment under Canadian law, they can commit offences without being punished for them providing they have diplomatic immunity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a legal opinion, and there is ample precedent to say that it is not in order to seek the answer to a legal question on the orders of the day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am in a curious mood today, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to ask the Prime Minister another question. Did the two employees of the Department of External Affairs who engaged in smuggling operations escape punishment in Indo-China by pleading and receiving diplomatic immunity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking the same question in a different form. He is asking the Prime Minister for a legal opinion on the status of the two employees.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Speaker. 1 am just asking for the facts concerning a certain situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member given notice of the question? It is perhaps a question that might go on the order paper, inasmuch as it asks for information of past events which may not be at hand.


[Stage Direction]
st. George's, nfld.-reported change in
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a protest from the Royal Canadian Legion at St. George's, Newfoundland, regarding a report that the Canadian National Railways station at St. George's is to be reduced to a flag station? If so, can the minister advise what action has been taken?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter from the secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion at St. George's inquiring about some rumours concerning a change in the status of the station at that point. I immediately transmitted a copy of that letter to the management of Canadian National Railways, and expect an answer very shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister given any consideration to extending the winter works program in the national parks beyond the end of April?
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the present winter works program in the national parks carries on to the end of April. I can assure the hon. member and the house that we have made the decision to extend the program to the end of May, which brings it into line with the municipal incentive program of my colleague the Minister of Labour.
Most of the winter works program of my department takes place in the national parks and it also includes the important camp site and picnic grounds programs. These programs, as hon. members will appreciate, are important to provide the necessary recreational facilities for the Canadian population and our growing tourist industry. I can assure the hon. gentleman and members of the house that the provincial governments have been advised to this effect.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain how to put this question. However, I think I am doing it in the right way by saying this. Protocol being protocol I should like to express through you, sir, what I know is the happiness of all members of the House of Commons at seeing in the Speaker's gallery Mrs. Jagan, wife of the premier of British Guiana, who is on an unofficial visit to Canada. We hope she enjoys her stay here and her visit to the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is he now in a position to comply with the motion I introduced several weeks ago concerning correspondence exchanged between the Department of Transport, Quebecair officials and other persons?
1738	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the officials concerned to have these documents produced as soon as possible. As I told the hon. member the other day, the matter is not wholly under my jurisdiction, but I shall attend to it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that three letters at the most were exchanged between the parties-


An hon. Member:: If you know, why do
you ask?


Lionel Chevrier: -and could he see to it
that this correspondence is tabled as soon as possible?


An hon. Member:: You are being very inquisitive.


Noël Dorion: I am glad to hear it. This will make things easier for me.
(Text):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Indian agencies-
618. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $136,000.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, last evening for a considerable length of time we were treated to some remarks by the hon. member for Niagara Falls which I must say, as minister, I found gerry-waring-excuse me, I mean very wearing on the credulity. The remarks which were made in two separate interventions in the debate by the hon. member occupied almost an hour and were filled with inaccuracies, innuendo and allegations. I should like to deal this afternoon for a short time with some of those allegations. I think I should refer, first of all, to the remarks of the hon. member as recorded on page 1728 of Hansard:
-I have never before in my life seen such an obvious and barefaced collusion.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member probably knows more about collusion than about tenders and business practices, because the one tender submitted displays what I regard as the most flagrant and obvious example of barefaced padding of a contract that, in my business experience, I have ever encountered.
There were several remarks made by the hon. member with which I should like to deal, and the first of these has to do with the employment of one Mr. Paul Brett, who is now employed as a forester in the Indian


affairs branch of my department. Mr. Brett, it is true, was in the employ of Mr. Johnson to whom the hon. member referred. This employment terminated on March 31, 1961. However, Mr. Brett had, a month or more previous to this time, made application for the position of forester with the department, under competition properly advertised by the civil service commission.
I am told that there were a dozen or more applicants for the position. He won the competition, taking the examination in the usual course under the civil service commission. As hon. members of this house are aware, in this case the department accepts the person who is selected by the civil service commission. Mr. Brett was then appointed to the staff of the Indian affairs branch. He took up his employment with the branch, not as the hon. member says on April 1, but on May
1.	This is one of the inaccuracies which have been built into the story the hon. member produced for our edification last evening.
There are other matters with which I should like to deal as I come to them. For one thing, the hon. member made the allegation-I suppose that is too broad a term to use; made the statement-that Beaufort Industries did certain things. I find it very difficult, in jumping around through this speech, to discover which Beaufort company she is talking about, because I find there was a Beaufort Industries incorporated in 1958. I do not know if this company discontinued' its activities, but it was taken over by Beaufort Holdings in January, 1962, a full month after tenders had been called for this timber. Then a new firm, Beaufort Industries, was incorporated on January 19, 1962. We have, therefore, Beaufort Industries No. 1, Beaufort Industries No. 2 and Beaufort Holdings. I presume we can assume that in the first part of her remarks, when she is building up her story, she is referring to Beaufort Industries No. 1. Then when she starts to talk about the ultimate tender which they submitted she is talking about Beaufort Industries No. 2, which was finally incorporated on January 19, 1962.
However, to return to her statement, I find she is reported on page 1725 of Hansard as saying:
At this point I might say that Beaufort Industries Limited is a company of all Canadian directors and shareholders, located in Vancouver, and has been cutting timber for a long time in the Tsimpsean I.R. No. 2 reserve, in the reserve area, and cutting it very successfully.


Miss LaMarsh:: I wonder if I might interrupt the minister. I had risen to make certain corrections in Hansard, but the hon. lady had started her statement. I had not said last evening they had cut timber in this reserve,, but near it. If the minister wishes to make

her statement prior to my being able to make those corrections, then I would like her to know she is referring to things that were inaccurately reported.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I accept the correction, but I was about to declare that I know of no basis for the statement that Beaufort ever cut timber on the Tsimpsean reserve No. 2, and I might say further that the department has no record of any previous dealings with this company in respect of any Indian timber.
There are several other points to which I would like to refer. As reported on page 1727 of Hansard the hon. member said that the advertisement which was inserted in the newspapers calling for tenders had been changed to read "February 13", and that no notification was given to the Beaufort company. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have here two newspapers, the daily Colonist of December 22, in which the original notice calling for tenders was advertised, and the following day's edition, December 23, in which a revised notice appeared in the same paper extending the date. This was the only notice that was given to any tenderer and it was obviously well known to Beaufort Industries, as it was to the other companies which were interested in this tender; because in the intervening period between December 23 and January 19 representatives, or let me say a representative, of Beaufort Industries was in my department on several occasions and referred to the fact that the date had been extended.
I might direct attention further to the fact that had the original date been adhered to, up to that time Beaufort had not even received consent to their ultimate incorporation. Undoubtedly the extension of the date benefited them to a greater extent than anyone else. This extension was made in response to the suggestion of our officials in Vancouver, who had received representations from several persons who allegedly were interested in submitting tenders, drawing attention to the fact that one month was scarcely sufficient time for them to prepare and submit their tenders.
As recorded on both pages 1727 and 1729, the hon. member also referred to the fact that Beaufort had tendered on some 8,000 acres of timber which were not included in the tender of the successful tenderer, and the question was asked why we put up only 4,760 acres for tender and excluded the other 8,000 acres. The 4,760 acres contains 85 per cent of all the merchantable timber on the reserve, amounting to 160,500 hundreds of cubic feet. The 8,000 acres referred to is
13, 1962	1739
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration mostly marsh and rock and contains only about 15 per cent of all the merchantable timber, amounting to 24,000 hundreds of cubic feet.
Quite apart from the fact that this area was hardly worth logging on a commercial basis, it was considered that the timber on it could well be reserved for future logging operations by the Indians themselves, if and when they wished to do so. I might also say that in this submission presented by Beaufort, quite apart from the fact that it included these 8,000 acres, the tender contained a clause in their proposed contract which would allow them to withdraw from the extra 8,000 acres if the timber proved unsuitable for operation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. lady will admit on this point that it would be only with the department's permission?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Why include it in the tender in the first place and then, as I said before, pad the tender price up to make it look like an attractive offer on the basis of something which they were subsequently to attempt to withdraw? It seems to me, talking about red herrings, this one is at least slightly pink.
Now, there was considerable discussion with reference to the construction of a road and some other matters that were included in the tender of Beaufort which were not stipulated in the call for tenders, and accordingly not quoted on, by the other tenderers.
Any company which engages in lumber operations must build roads to carry out its purposes. Of course one company may build a road in one direction and another company may build one in another direction, and if it turned out that the Indians would like to have a road built in a direction other than that which might have been indicated by another tenderer, then of course that would be taken into consideration.
I might say that I do not intend to pursue this matter because I believe it is one that should be discussed by someone who is familiar with the terrain which, as I understand it, is a very difficult part of the country stretching from the place where logging operations would take place to the head of the inlet. Whether or not a road in that particular locality would be of use to the Indians is a matter on which I am not qualified to judge. I understand that at present there are no vehicles there. In the long run there may be, but there are none at the moment and, as nearly as I can calculate by looking at the map, the road to be constructed would cover a distance of some 15 miles.
The hon. member also referred to what she called the stunning regularity with which Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Brett's names came up. I might say that she herself certainly made
1740	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a point of repeating these two names throughout her tirade last evening, but she referred to Mr. Johnson as an employee of the department. On more than one occasion she used the phrases "when he left the department" and "a former employee." Mr. Chairman, Mr. Johnson was never an employee of the department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The firm of which he was a principal tendered along with some eight other firms in 1958 to provide a survey of certain forest potentials in British Columbia. He was the successful tenderer, as he had been when he was previously engaged by the department of Indian affairs under the former regime in 1956. At that time I understand there was no public call; it was just two firms which were asked to submit tenders, and Johnson's firm submitted the lower of the two quotations. I would suppose, Mr. Chairman, that since this company was engaged by the former government, that proves that their reputation and integrity is above reproach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Consequently when they won the subsequent tender in 1958, in competition with seven others, I can find no particular reason to quarrel with this arrangement.
Another statement was made by the hon. member which is reported at page 1727 of Hansard. She said that Beaufort had been advised that it had won the contract as high tenderer. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not exactly the case. As a matter of fact when the tenders were received, as is usually the case the tenderers had representatives present, and at that time Beaufort were advised that it appeared they had submitted the high tender but that both tenders with their supporting documents would have to be examined before a decision could be made. This is just slightly different from the hon. member's version.
I must say in all honesty that throughout the remarks which were made there is just enough semblance to the true facts in many cases to make it very difficult to say "This is wrong, and this is right". This matter of whether or not they were told they had won is a very good example. The hon. member's words were, "They were told they had won the tender", whereas the actual words that were used were that they had obviously submitted the highest tender but that the various tenders had to be examined before a decision could be made. This is what makes it so very difficult to draw the line in all these allegations and statements which have been made.


Mr. Chairman, the hon. member had quite a bit to say about a number of things. She said, for instance, that last autumn an offer was made in writing by Beaufort in the amount of $791,000, and she wanted to know why it was that this amount was so close to the successful tenderer's amount of $792,000. As a matter of fact no such tender in a specific dollar amount was made by Beaufort. Under date of August 11 they wrote a letter to the department and offered to purchase at $7 per thousand. Someone else has done the arithmetic which arrives at $791,000, but no such amount was mentioned then or subsequently by them as a dollar amount for the offer which was made.
The hon. member has also said that she wanted to know why it was that the tender call said it would not necessarily accept the highest or any bid. Mr. Chairman, anyone Who has had a great deal of experience with tender calls knows that this is pretty standard form. It was, however, a form which the Beaufort company chose to ignore by sending in a submission on an entirely different basis and one which, as I have said before, served to pad their price to an almost unrecognizable degree.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That means the Indians would get more.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not necessarily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then what does the hon. lady mean by "pad the price"?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will tell you precisely what I mean by that before I finish. As a matter of fact I see no reason why I should not tell you right now-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a good idea.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -because if you add to
the bid of Shoreline of $792,000 the 30 cents per 100 cubic feet which was offered for the training plan, you get $792,000 plus $48,150 or $840,150. They had not included this amount in their tender, but Beaufort did include the amount, and they did not include the amount at 30 cents per 100 cubic feet. They showed the cost of training at 50 cents per 100 cubic feet. They also included the 20 cents rental per acre-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. lady confirm this point? The Shoreline bid was for $6,000 a year and the Beaufort bid was for a maximum of $20,000 a year, or $200,000. That is the difference between 30 cents and 50 cents.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. lady.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sure there is a difference between $60,000 and $200,000. The hon. lady is supposed to be an accountant.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I was supposed to be, and that is why I get so confused with these legal statistics which seem to be so much at variance with those which are accepted common business practice. To go back to this matter of the evaluation of the two tenders, I have now given the committee the figure by Shoreline, with the training plan, of $840,150. If you take the bid of Beaufort, their stumpage amount is $631,950, and you add to that their estimate of the cost of their training plan, which is $80,250, and possibly the hon. member will realize that in putting in the $80,250 as against the $48,150 of Shoreline I have recognized the differential which she mentioned. Then you add to that the rental of 8,000 acres at 20 cents per acre which they submitted as a contract, amounting to $16,000 and you still only get $728,200 as compared with Shoreline's $840,150. As I said before, the rest is padding.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is, the roads and planting are the padding; is that what the minister is saying?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will come to that, too. I draw to the hon. member's attention that I sat quietly last night and listened to her for nearly an hour. I made one or two small interventions which I thought were pertinent to the debate. I think perhaps she should contain her soul in patience until I finish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall try to do so.


An hon. Member:: Take your medicine; it is free.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not very hard to take.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was also said that the contract for Shoreline was on a one year basis. Again this is wrong. The contract was on a 10 year basis. I fail to understand where this one year came into the matter, because the contract was exactly the same for both companies and each of them contracted for 10 years. So all this reference which creeps in here two or three times is wrong. As a matter of fact it must have been sold to the Indians too, because I see it is in their resolution which mentions the one year, whereas the actual term is 10 years.
The hon. member referred to the resolution which had been submitted by the chief of the band. I might say that this resolution did not come to me; it was sent to the Prime Minister, and I secured a copy of it. But apparently at the same time it was sent to the Prime Minister it was also sent to the hon. member, who in that event had it before I did. It seems
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to me that if action is expected the resolution should be sent to the head of the department concerned, but apparently this is a new system. In any event, of the first three items which are now asked for by the band, none were in the call for tenders.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Shame.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me I heard the hon. member say "shame". Possibly I should point out to her that the officials of my department consulted with the chief and with the band before the original tender was put out, and the terms which the chief of the band required to be in the tender were placed in that tender. These other matters have been raised not only subsequent to the calling of the tenders but subsequent to the eventual consideration of the bids. In other words they are an afterthought.
I submit that a story has been very carefully built up here for the purpose of creating a false and distorted version of the facts. Unfortunately this false version appears to have sold to the Indians. The fact is that the general terms of the call for tenders were, as I said a moment ago, worked out with the members of the band council. They made no reference to the building of a road between Tuck inlet and Fort Simpson. The question of the road is therefore outside the terms of the tender. This having been said it should be added, I think, that whichever bidder is awarded the contract will be obliged at his own expense to construct a suitable network of logging roads in order to get the timber out of the area. I mentioned this earlier in my remarks this afternoon, and it is a fact well known to all foresters and logging people.


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, at this point, but I must tell her that her time is expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I see it is the wish of the committee that the hon. lady should continue.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might as well do this all at once instead of in two parts.
This area cannot be logged in any other way, and the cost of logging roads should properly be regarded as part of the cost of operation, not as part of the price paid to the Indians. As a matter of fact, the remark was made in an offhand way by one forester who had taken a look at these tenders that if the Indians took the extra $160,000 which they would get from Shoreline they could build the road themselves.
The call for tenders did not include a requirement to replant the area which is to be cut, for the reason that the timber cruise
1742	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration report for the area in question stated that the area would regenerate its own forest cover by natural means, and that artificial reforestation was not necessary. I am told that the problem in this area, because of the heavy rainfall and so on, is to stop the trees from growing, not the replanting of them. It is true that replanting is engaged in in certain parts of the country and in connection with certain types of logging operations, but I do not propose to go into that matter now because I do not think I am any more of a forestry expert than the hon. member for Niagara Falls is.
There was a reference to the fact that the call for tenders included only 4,760 acres as against the extra 8,000 acres. I have already dealt with this, but I just might add that the Indians themselves were aware of that fact at the time the call for tenders was put out. The timber cruise report made it clear that there was very little marketable timber on the 8,000 acres and that this parcel should not be included in the call for tenders. I said this a few minutes ago but I repeat it now because this was a fact which was well known to the band members.
I might just make a brief reference to the concluding part of the resolution which was received from the band affirming the band council's refusal to accept any tender which did not conform to the four stipulations laid down. My only comment on this is that if these were to be essential features of any successful tender they certainly should have been stipulated in the call for tenders before it went out. We can hardly justify calling for tenders on the basis of one set of criteria and then awarding the contract on the basis of another set.
So in order to clear the air-because it certainly is well fogged up now-I should like to say that though the Indians were consulted on the details of the original call, they now appear to be dissatisfied with the terms on which that call was issued. As we know, they have now listed four conditions in their council resolution, three of which are new. The fourth does not apply. There is the term dealing with the requirement of a road from Tuck inlet to Fort Simpson; that dealing with reforestation which, I have said, is not considered necessary or even desirable in that area, and finally the extension of the area to cover 12,620 acres instead of 4,620 acres.
As I said yesterday in reply to a question on orders of the day, and as I repeated last evening, immediately I received word of dissatisfaction with the awarding of this tender, some ten days ago, I gave instructions to the department to have the commissioner in British Columbia visit the band in question
[Mrs. Fairclough.l

to discuss the matter with the chief and his band members. I may add that in the meantime I have received conflicting reports from a number of people in British Columbia with regard to this matter. I have had two reports from Indians, some from people engaged in the forest industry, and others from persons otherwise interested. They do not all point to the same conclusion.
Therefore I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East, who said last night that he thought it would be a good idea to get this whole thing cleared up as speedily as possible. I think he is quite right; the issue is certainly well befogged now. So in view of this and in fairness to the Indians, who are after all the owners of the timber, we have no alternative in my view but to cancel the original call for tenders and the bids relating thereto and start all over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the best applause I have had from the opposition since I have been in this post.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Remember when you cancelled your immigration regulations?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is what probably would have occurred in any event. I am still awaiting a report from the commissioner on his return from the reserve. As hon. members familiar with the area will know, this is a remote place. It is difficult to get into. The commissioner probably would have been there last week had conditions been suitable for travelling to that part of the country. He is there today, I understand, and I expect to have a report from him when he has ascertained the wishes of the Indians, and this time we had better get them in writing. We shall then, I expect, if the Indians wish it, issue another tender call with specific stipulations. The tenders which will then be received will be considered on the basis of the conditions set out by the Indians and incorporated in the tender call. If there is further padding I can assure the committee that we will have to slice it away once more in order to arrive at comparative values.
Nevertheless, as I said last evening, although this particular item is not properly included in the supplementary estimates which are before the committee for consideration, I am pleased to have had an opportunity to present to the committee as much information as is presently available. I admit this is probably not the whole story, and I do not think the whole story will be known until we receive the report from the commissioner on his return from the Tsimpsean reserve.
I do not think, though, that I need to apologize for the consideration which I have

given to the affairs of the Indians. They have never lacked a sympathetic ear when they have come to me as bands, as associations or as individuals, and they never will lack a sympathetic ear as long as I hold this portfolio. 1 do not claim 1 am the only person in this chamber who is sympathetic toward the Indians or who is concerned with their welfare. I am sure that practically every hon. member is also concerned that the Indians should receive a square deal, and that is what we try at all times to provide for them.
This tender call has resulted in a flare up, and the whole issue is beclouded by charges and countercharges which I do not think are particularly good for the final resolution of the problem; nor are they good for the Indians themselves or for the trust which they must of necessity place in those who are attempting to administer their affairs if the best of conditions are to finally evolve for them and their children.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I roundly applaud the minister for her decision to cancel the contract as let and to call it again at the desire of the Indians. This is in keeping with the highest traditions not only of many things the minister has done but also with the traditions which are required of a member of the privy council and particularly a person responsible for the trust with respect to Indians.
Last evening and again this afternoon when the minister commenced her remarks I was somewhat startled by the vehemence with which she attacked the address I made last night. I explained last evening that I was raising this matter as one of urgency, although the minister indicated she did not wish it done. I felt it important to raise the matter because I felt there were a lot of facts that should be placed in the possession of the minister before this investigation concluded.
I rose at the beginning of this debate to attempt to correct some of my remarks as they appear in Hansard, and I should like to proceed to do that at this time. Some of them are erroneous, and I regret the fact that when I reached the debates office last evening it had closed.
At page 1725 of Hansard of March 12, in the left hand column, approximately half way down the page, in the paragraph beginning with the words "within a matter of two weeks" the following sentence appears:
He suggested that negotiations be conducted directly with the superintendent and the bands and chiefs council-
That phrase, of course, should be "chiefs and band council".
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
In the right hand column on page 1725 about halfway down the page the reference to "Indian superintendent" should be "Indian commissioner".
In the lower right hand column on page 1725 the reference to Beaufort Industries Limited as a Vancouver company should be corrected to indicate that it is a Victoria company.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, there is a proper place and time in the proceedings of this house for an hon. member to make corrections. This is not the proper place for the hon. member to attempt to correct her remarks-


John Whitney Pickersgill: She can make corrections at any time.


Ernest James Broome: Just a second. Sit down and be quiet. Let someone else finish his remarks before you interrupt. The hon. lady should wait and make her corrections at the appropriate time. When orders of the day are called she should stand up and make corrections-


Lionel Chevrier: Don't be afraid; she will stand up.


Ernest James Broome: I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has already had an opportunity to do that today.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe the corrections the hon. lady is making relate to the debate now proceeding, and since reference has already been made to some of these comments I shall permit her to proceed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The following is the phrase to which the minister referred. At the bottom of page 1725 in the right hand column I am reported as having said that the company has been cutting timber for a long time on the Tsimpsean reserve. Properly the word "reserve" should be dropped out because it was in the reserve area. While the minister indicated that the department is not aware of the company doing any work in the area, it did in fact recently complete a Masset operation in the Queen Charlottes, very close to this land. It was a very successful operation, well known in British Columbia forestry circles.
In the upper left hand column of page 1726 where I refer to Mr. MacGregor as the acting superintendent, the reference should be to acting commissioner.
In the lower right hand column of page 1726 I am reported erroneously as having said there was a call for tenders made on September 15, 1961. That should be "December" as is reported further along in the paragraph.
One final correction-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interject an observation at this point. I do not wish to interrupt her corrections, but with regard to the last correction she mentioned she said the call was sent out to Beaufort and to another company. This was not correct. The call was in the newspapers. It was not sent only to individual companies. It was a public advertisement.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With reference to that, the minister may be advised that I was informed that a call had been received through the mail. I was so informed yesterday by an official of the department. I was informed that it had been sent directly to individuals who had been writing the department and who were interested. I was informed there were individuals who got it through the mail.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is true, but it was a public call advertised in the press, as distinct from a call sent to specifically selected individuals or companies. As the hon. member has now said, it was sent to more than these two companies. That would be only common courtesy when companies had been making inquiries with respect to a given project. They would, of course, be notified if and when public tenders were called.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This was the point I made earlier, that they did in fact receive the call with a specific date by which tenders were to be in, on January 13 or January 16, and they were not notified by mail of the change. The change only appeared in the printed advertisement in the newspaper.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. The change appeared in the printed advertisement in the paper; no one was notified.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: One other correction. At page 1728 in the upper left hand column I am reported as having said:
In fact it should be remembered that Mr. Johnson-and Mr. Brett had been associated with Mr. Johnson-
That should read:
In fact it should be remembered that Mr. Brett- and Mr. Brett had been associated with Mr. Johnson-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not understand that correction.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The statement which reads that Mr. Johnson-and then there are dashes -and Mr. Brett had been associated with Mr. Johnson should read that Mr. Brett- and then following the dashes-and Mr. Brett had been associated with Mr. Johnson, the chief forester of the Vancouver office.
At page 1730 there are two substantial errors. In the right hand column at about the middle of the first solid paragraph I am recorded as having said:
I would suggest to the minister that notwithstanding what I am advised by the department-
If I did in fact say that I was in error. It should read:
According to what I have been advised by the department-
As it appears it completely reverses the sense of what I meant to say.
Further down in that column I am reported as having said:
It was Beaufort that brought to the attention of the department a fact that anyone who obtained foreshore rights would in fact be giving the Indians access ultimately to the ocean.
The word "giving" in that sentence should be "denying". So much for the corrections.
There were also a number of suggestions by the minister to the effect that I had attempted to colour the evidence which I put before the house. There were her references, including that to the employment of Mr. Brett, who it appears now was employed a month later than I had indicated to the committee. The information about the date of his employment was supplied to me by an individual in the Indian affairs branch to whom I spoke yesterday just before coming into the house. If it is in error, I am sure that it is his innocent error and mine as well.


Ernest James Broome: What was his name?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not think it is necessary for me to give it. I believe the minister knows who it is. There is no secrecy about it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a matter of no importance, in any event.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On the question of Beaufort's incorporation, may I say that I am not a solicitor for nor in any way associated with Beaufort. However, I had made inquiries with respect to this matter and I am informed that the company's solicitor believed that the company would not have sufficiently wide objects and therefore a reconstitution was made in the company in order to broaden its objects. At least in so far as I am concerned it appears to have no significant importance, and appears to be a matter on which the minister was grasping for straws in trying to answer the suggestions which I put forward last night.
As to the question of why 8,000 acres were excluded and only 5,000 acres were put in the offer, as I think I pointed out, in 1954

and 1956 the department saw fit to offer all of the land; and as the minister told us frankly this afternoon it was because of the cruise report which was prepared by Mr. Johnson's company for the department that only 5,000 acres were offered. I was told yesterday that it would appear ridiculous if the government were to offer the whole area. They now know they have someone who wishes to purchase the whole tract. It would seem to me that what they have been told by a number of individuals who are experienced in forestry is that if in fact all the timber is not offered at once, the Indians will never be able to sell it because it is not economic to go into such rough terrain to take it out, and it will just remain there.


Ernest James Broome: Who are these experts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The reference with respect to roads is, I think, an important matter, as it is obviously of great importance to the Indians. I have not visited this reserve. Perhaps the hon. lady has done so. However, it is apparent from the maps that it is just south of Alaska. Bad weather prevails much of the year. In fact the successful tenderer has indicated that there may be a time when he will not be able to carry on any operations up there. I am informed there have been at least some Indians who have died when travelling off the coast on the way to Prince Rupert, which is the northern settlement. This will give them a real safety factor, and is something which ought to be considered.
I do not for a moment suggest that Beaufort, in saying that it would spend up to half a million dollars in building such a road, is doing this out of sheer kindness of heart. It is a logging road. It is for the purpose of their operations, which they think it would make more efficient. But it would appear that it would be of great and lasting benefit to the Indians of the band. In the alternative, the road offered by Shoreline was a three mile road which it was alleged could be built for $50,000 and which comes in from the Big Bay area, right through into a stand of better grade timber.
Whether the minister thinks there is any difference between a $50,000 offer and a $500,000 offer, I do not know. However, the Indians appear to feel that there is some difference. I believe such a road would be something which the Indian affairs branch will never build itself because of the terriffic cost. I am informed that a number of individuals in the department, both here and on the west coast have repeatedly said that such a road could not be built, and yet the minister has just said that someone else has said that the extra $160,000 offered by Beaufort could
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be used by the Indians to build their own road. The department itself has said it could not be built. Mr. Beaufort has put engineers in and taken aerial photographs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, that was not said at all.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The minister did not say this. I was told this by a representative of the department yesterday.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. If the hon. member will permit me to say so, I think what was said was what I said earlier, namely that it was difficult terrain and it would be difficult to build a road in that area. However, I do not think anyone at any time said that it could not be built.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That was the suggestion made to me yesterday. Again, with respect to replanting may I say this. The minister goes back to the cruise report, and I appreciate that this may be all the department has. But sight should not be lost of the fact that the cruise report was prepared by the Johnson company, that is the company which is owned by the man who was the successful tenderer under another corporate name. Of course it will cost him and every other timber man in the whole of the west a considerable amount of money if it became a standard practice to require replanting. Every timber man who went in to cut on Indian land or any other land then might be required to replant, and it would cost several million dollars a year. There is reason to say that no one who is in the lumber business on the west coast wants a requirement that there be replanting. This is an important offer as well from the point of view of employment of the Indians because, as is apparent, elderly people, those who are not particularly strong, women and children could be used in planting seedlings, and not just able bodied men.
There is another matter to which as yet no reference has been made. I refer to the number of people to be employed. The successful tenderer says that he will employ in the first year only 10 Indians, and that when he is fully going he will employ 20 Indians out of 32 men. The Beaufort plan indicated that they would employ about 100 Indians. That makes a considerable difference in the wages paid to and the skills learned by the Indians on the reserve.
Yesterday the minister said something else about which I meant to ask her last evening, but there was not time in which to do so. She said that before March 7, which was the date of the resolution, she had ordered an investigation. I do not think she favoured the committee by telling us the reason. This tender was opened on February 13. On February 21
1746	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Beaufort was advised by telegram that it was the lowest tenderer. From February 21 to March 7 nothing appears to have occurred.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If I may answer the questions as we go along I think we might save time in the long run. Earlier in my remarks today I explained that matter, when I said that upon receipt of information to the effect that the Indians were not satisfied, I then ordered an investigation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. The minister has said she is going to recall tenders. As I said before, I think this is an excellent idea. It will be to the satisfaction of the Indians, who are really the only people concerned or the only people with which this committee need concern itself. However, the minister made some slighting reference to my humble experience with tenders. I have had some experience at least as a municipal solicitor. I am well aware of the fact that there is almost always a provision to the effect that neither the highest nor any other tender is necessarily the successful one. Certainly in my remarks yesterday I pointed out that it was usual to have a clause providing that the department may refuse to accept one or the other or both. However, I suggest to the minister that if she wishes to avoid what she calls padding, certainly one of the most important things is also to avoid conditional tenders, that is tenders which are called and which are accepted should in fact be proper tenders which are unconditional. In my humble legal opinion, in any event, neither one of these tenders should have been accepted at any time, since they were both conditional.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I agree with the hon. member on that point.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is one other matter I should like to mention. I hesitate to try to lecture the minister, but the letter which was produced yesterday, and about which the minister made a most offensive suggestion that I might have removed something from the files of the department-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I never said any such thing.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I am being oversensitive.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I just asked if it was on the files.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When I was reading from a photostatic copy of the letter the minister asked, as reported on page 1725 of Hansard:
May I ask the hon. member from what document she is reading?


I told her from what I was reading and then the minister said:
May I ask further if this is a document which was gleaned from the files of the department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That does not say it was removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Gleaning" is removing.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course no such thing happened at any time. However, the letter does indicate a rather shocking condition, Mr. Chairman, and that is that this man Johnson, on the letterhead of the company which was appointed as a consultant to the department-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under contract.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is right; but on the same letterhead this Mr. Johnson offered, on May 30, to peddle this information. His work had been completed on March 31. If the minister has not seen this letter I shall be happy to send it across to her.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not dispute the right of the hon. member to produce this letter. My question was merely directed to ascertaining whether the letter was on the branch files and had not been drawn to my attention. This was my sole reason for asking the question. I do not have access to the files of individual companies. Of course if someone has seen fit to make this information available to the hon. member, she is quite right in bringing it forward if it supports her argument.
However, I do suggest that in my position I do not necessarily have control over all the industrial firms who may, at one time or another, have business with my department. I have not any particular spies out who are trying to find letters which may come from persons who at one time or another were under contract to this department and who subsequently pursued their activities with other industrial corporations.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I might say with respect to the 100 Indians that I never at any time saw this information given by letter, by word or in any proposition, from the Beaufort company. This is the first I have heard of any offer to employ 100 Indians.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is something else about this letter. In my opinion it is rather shocking that anyone could be employed by a government department, get information and then go out and sell it. I know that some of the people with whom I have been talking on the west coast have gone to the Indian affairs branch on the west coast and have been told it is the Indians' information; it

is not a public record. Here is a man who is getting paid more than $4,000 for this particular timber cruise-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He tendered for it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But he was paid out of public funds for it, and then he turns around and tries to sell that information. I should like to read this letter into the record so those on the west coast who may be interested may know what kind of man they are dealing with. This is on the letterhead of F. J. G. Johnson and Associates (Ltd.), with the same Howe street address, that is the same address as the company known as Shoreline. It is addressed to Westport Export Company, headed "Re Acquisition of Exportable Standing Timber", and reads as follows:
Dear Sirs:
Further to our meeting on May 29, 1961, I record herewith a proposed basis of co-operation that we hope will result in your company obtaining cutting rights on exportable timber stands.
We propose that you retain F. J. G. Johnson and Associates (Ltd.) on a minimum fee basis for the purpose of negotiations and field work.
We herewith submit a schedule of minimum professional fees.
Day Hour
Consultant (F. J. G. Johnson) ....	$75	$10
Supervisor or party chief (J. Cotter) $50	$ 7
I do not know whether that is the same man as J. Cotten, who is with the Shoreline
company.
	Day	Hour
Forester party chief 	$45	$ 6Cruiser 	$35	$ 5Technicians, typists, draughtsmen,	$ 3All disbursements at cost	
On the successful completion of negotiations, an additional fee of 25 cents per Mbm, based on "acquisition" will be payable to our company within 14 days of the receipt by your company of official scale and royalty accounts, covering the timber acquired by us on your behalf.
We estimate that the total cost of professional services and disbursements will in no case exceed a maximum of 5 cents per Mbm, and with regard to the Tsimpsean I.R. No. 2 containing approximately 5.000 acres of merchantable timberlands with a net volume 11" D.B.H. -t- of 114 million fbm, these costs could be expected to be in the neighbourhood of 1 cent per Mbm.
Bearing in mind your company's interest in Masset I.R. No. 1 and Yan I.R. No. 7, located on Masset inlet, Queen Charlotte islands, comprising a total of approximately 24 million fbm of standing timber, we suggest that we conduct negotiations directly with the superintendent, band chiefs and councils concerned. With regard to Tsimpsean I.R. No. 2 which has previously been advertised for sale, we suggest the regional office of the Department of Indian Affairs be approached for a direct sale, and failing this, that we apply for the timber to be put up for sale by sealed tender.
Every effort will be made to bring all negotiations to a speedy and successful conclusion, in order to keep initial outlay to a minimum.
Trusting we may be of service to you.
Yours truly,
F. J. G. Johnson & Associates, Ltd.
13, 1962	1747
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
You will note that the letter is signed by Mr. Johnson. Now, he is selling information which he had obtained. I do not know whether he becomes a civil servant or whether there is any sort of secrecy imposed when one becames a consultant of a federal department. However, it is one of the most reprehensible and shocking breach of confidence I have ever seen. Here is someone who has been paid out of public funds and then tries to peddle the information elsewhere. This is the reason, I suppose, for the fact that in the lumber industry in both the United States and Canada it was being said all last summer that Johnson would wind up with this timber; when Johnson was trying to obtain United States financial support to help him exploit the Indians.
I am delighted that the minister has seen fit to let air into this matter; that she has seen fit to cause an investigation to be made, and that she has assured the house there will be a recall for tenders in compliance with the desire of the Indians. I would only ask that when such tenders are called they be unconditional tenders, and that the department be scrupulously careful in looking at those who are tendering to ascertain who they are, what their experience is and whether or not they have information, privileged information from departmental officials or otherwise.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting document which the hon. member has read into the record. However, it does not alter the fact that there is no such thing as a direct scale arranged between a firm of consultants and the superintendent and the chiefs of the bands. Any such transaction must, of course, pass through head office, and it would normally be handled in the proper fashion. Surely the hon. member does not expect the department or the minister or the government or anyone else to decide what are proper business ethics and at what time information gained in the course of fulfilling one's contract with another department or a department of government, should or should not be used.
But in so far as the information being secret is concerned, I might tell her there is no secrecy about the information gained by the Johnson company in pursuance of its activities, which I reiterate it carried out under contract won from seven other tenderers. There is no secrecy about it at all. These findings were published and were public knowledge. Anyone can get this information, and since it is available to anyone I suppose the company itself would think
1748	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration it had a right to use this information. Certainly we have no way of policing the activities of these companies. I am not competent to judge whether or not this is a breach of business ethics, but in any event I would be pleased to see that the hon. member's views on the actions of the company in question are drawn to its attention.


Mr. McQuillan:: I listened last night to the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and I was shocked at the manner in which she endeavoured to smear the names of two respectable citizens in the city of Vancouver. She mentioned the name of one Thomas Ladner as a director of Shoreline Lumber Limited, and she went on to say that Mr. Ladner was "the son of one Leon J. Ladner"-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not say "J". I did not know that.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: -whom she described as follows:
-who is probably known to many of my hon. friends opposite as the chief fund raiser of the Conservative party in Vancouver.
Well, Mr. Chairman, he is not known to me as that. In the first place I want to point out to this house that Thomas Ladner is a respected lawyer in the city of Vancouver. He is a man who had a distinguished career in the navy in the last war. He was highly decorated, and he has served as a police commissioner in Vancouver. He is a man whose name I believe it worthy of me to clear of any imputation made against him in this house. Mr. Ladner telegraphed me this morning and said:
X read this morning the report by Bruce Phillips of the Province Ottawa bureau of a charge allegedly made by Judy LaMarsh, M.P., concerning a company having the name of Shoreline Lumber Ltd., and advising that I am a director of that company. This is to advise you that neither I nor any member of my family ever had or will ever have any interest in this company. I hold my directorship in a purely professional capacity in the same manner as such qualifying directorships are held by me in dozens of other companies. I do not follow the business affairs of the company. No representation to any department of government in Ottawa was made on behalf of the Shoreline company by me, Mr. L. J. Ladner, Q.C., or any member of this firm.
I think that sets that record straight.
Now, as to the allegations of professional misconduct-and that is the only thing I can term them-made against Mr. F. J. G. Johnson, I shall not deal with them too fully. However, let me point out the fact that for many years Mr. Johnson has earned his living as a professional consultant forester in British Columbia. I might add that in British Columbia about 92 per cent of the forests are owned by the province. We have


many professional foresters now practising in consultant capacities who previously worked for the British Columbia forest service. They have gone into private practice and, by virtue of the knowledge gained by them when working for the British Columbia forest service, they have been able to make quite a decent living. In some cases former members of the British Columbia forest service are now senior executives of large companies, and I do not think anyone would suggest for one minute that they should not make available to their companies the knowledge they gained of the forest resources of British Columbia when they were employed by the forestry service.
So far as these various bids are concerned, I shall not waste too much time dealing with them, as the minister has stated that new tenders will be called. But I have taken advantage of the minister's offer to review these bids, as did the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and I may say I have had quite a bit of experience in examining timber business sale tenders. Having done that I must emphatically tell the house that in my opinion the bid that would have given the greatest net return to the Indians from the sale of this timber was made by Shoreline Lumber Limited. That is my judgment based on what I can ascertain by looking at the tenders which the department was kind enough to show me. Their bid was $792,000 for the timber and the comparable bid of the Beaufort company, as nearly as I can analyse its complicated tender, amounts to $516,000. In other words there is a difference of $276,000 in net dollar return to the Indians.
Perhaps the Beaufort company did undertake to build a road to Tuck inlet which the Indians might think would be of some residual value to them, more so than the roads which the Shoreline company would build. However, I submit that for $276,000 the Beaufort company could afford to build many, many miles of road on that reserve and in that area. In fact no matter how I look at it, having examined the tenders I come to the conclusion that the Shoreline bid was a better bid for the Indians than the Beaufort bid.
Much has been said about the Beaufort company's training plan. Well, any company working on Indian reserve timber and which under the terms of its contract is required to employ as much Indian labour as possible, is going to be concerned about a job training program. In its own interest it will be concerned to see that those Indians working for it are well trained. As a matter of fact there is no reason to believe that the Beaufort company would have instituted a training plan that would have provided any more for the Indians than that offered by the Shoreline company.

So far as reforestation is concerned, perhaps I am a little ignorant about the coast of British Columbia. I only happen to have lived all my life there and to have logged in almost every area of it. I notice the statement has been made that reforestation is urgently required up there, or words to that effect. The government of British Columbia are very concerned about reforestation under the sustained yield policy. I do not believe they have ever planted a tree in the provincial forests along the coast north of Alert bay. There is no need for it; God and nature do the job much better than man can. The real problem of reforestation up there is that after a number of years the regrowth is so thick that what it actually requires is thinning. Therefore if the Beaufort company had really been sincere in their concern for the future of the forest on this reserve and the future welfare of the Indians, they might have left a few hundred thousand dollars to be paid to the Indians for thinning at some future date.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is my hon. friend suggesting that these 8,000 acres, which on one hand we are told are just scrub, do not need replanting?


An hon. Member:: No, they do not.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I doubt whether anyone, even the hon. member for Niagara Falls, could successfully grow trees on that so-called scrub area.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not about to try.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: The soil conditions are such-


Michael Starr: Don't underestimate her.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the committee of the line in the old poem, "Only God can make a tree". The addition of this hypothetical sum for reforestation that the Beaufort company used was padding. There is no question about it; they padded up their bid. The figure of 60 cents per 100 cubic feet, or approximately $1 per thousand feet board measure, is just trying to kid the troops; it is trying to kid the Indians and the departmental officials, but I do not think the company was successful in doing that. I think in their negotiations with the Indians some representatives of this company have been speaking with a forked tongue. As far as the roads used for the actual logging operations are concerned, there is no reason to believe that the residual value of the roads left by one company will be any greater than the residual value of the roads left by another.
To come back to these 8,000 acres upon which the Beaumont company placed a value, from the best information that was available
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration it apparently was not considered to be much of a forest area. The Beaufort company did not undertake to log it, as far as I can see. They asked to have the area included in the licence for which they were applying together with the other 4,000 acres. All they undertook to do was to pay an annual rental of 20 cents per acre on these 8,000 acres -


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If the department approved.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. lady's interruption.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member ought to be honest-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Michael Starr: Withdraw.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This particular clause says "if the department approves".


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I cannot hear three hon. members at once. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has the floor.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, the hon. lady said the hon. member should be honest. The hon. member knows and can say more about this subject in one minute than she will know in her whole life.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has the floor, and I will hear him.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. lady will not attempt to attach the stigma of dishonesty to me again.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I regret that remark. I do not at any time suggest that the hon. member is not honest. I believe he is. But I ask him to be fair at least in reference to this particular clause, because it is only with the approval of the department.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: This company placed a fictitious value on their bid wherein they undertook to take over these 8,000 acres and pay an annual rental of 20 cents per acre per year until such time as they decided whether or not to take some timber off the area, if there was any commercial timber on it. If there was any commercial timber on it they assumed they would get it for the upset price they bid for the timber in the area that had been advertised.
I do not think the department would have been wise to agree to this sort of proposition, because they would have held that timber for 10 years under the terms of the contract, and at the end of 10 years, if they
1750	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration did not decide to log it, they would have left it as it was when they acquired the licence. If they did decide to log it they would have had the full benefit of the stumpage value of the 4,000 acres they acquired; and who knows, five years or three years later the timber on those 8,000 acres, while today it is not considered to be merchantable, might be worth twice as much per thousand board feet as the timber on the 4,000 acres now being considered. I have seen that situation occur many times in my experience on the coast of British Columbia.
A number of other remarks were made concerning this timber. It was suggested that this was going to provide easy access for the Indians to Prince Rupert. It is not quite as easy as it sounds, because they would have to travel across a neck of land and then leave their boats at the head of Tuck inlet, which I do not think they would choose to do. A great deal was made of the fact that they had to go out on stormy waters. The Indians have been going out on those stormy waters for generations, for thousands of years, and usually the only time they have suffered a mishap was when they had been to Prince Rupert and were on the way home.
A charge of collusion was made in this committee last evening. The hon. member made it plain that she was not charging collusion against the minister, but she implied collusion of the officials of the department with outside interests. It is very clear to me that the basis for the compaint the hon. member has been making is the fact that departmental officials refused to enter into collusion with the people for whom she is acting as spokesman in this chamber, in refusing to sell this timber on a direct sale basis. That seems to be the whole basis of this complaint, that the department refused to sell this timber to the Beaufort company as a direct sale. To my mind the term collusion could properly have been used if they had agreed to sell this timber as a direct sale to the Beaufort or any other company.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat what I said last night-perhaps the hon. member did not listen-and I say it again today; that I am not acting for anybody. I have no connection with any of these companies. In my view the two bids should have been rejected and a new tender called for. That is still the position I take. There are only one or two questions I should like to ask to conclude the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. lady allow another hon. member to have something to say?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to ask the minister why it is necessary to have an export licence for such timber.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not a matter which comes within the ambit of my activities. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Harold Edward Winch: I fully realize we have spent some three and a half hours on this subject, but in view of the statement made this afternoon by the minister in charge of Indian affairs I should like to make a few comments.
First of all, I can assure the minister that we in this group are most happy that she has found herself in agreement with the proposition that we tried to promulgate in the space of only ten minutes last night when we submitted that this was such a serious question that it should be clarified and handled immediately in an appropriate manner. We are therefore very happy that the minister has adopted our point of view and informed the committee that in view of all the circumstances she has issued a cancellation order with regard to the entire situation. The old tenders will be cancelled, new ones will be drawn up, and these, I presume, will be in specific terms so that anyone who tenders in future will have to do so on the strict basis of the tender.
May I express regret, however, that the minister did not undertake to do something which I still consider to be essential. Even though she has announced the cancellation of everything that has been done in the past there is still an odour of the past which has to be cleared away. In order that this may be done I strongly believe that a much clearer explanation should be forthcoming as to the manner in which the Indians would have got greater ultimate benefit by the acceptance of the bid on the basis of which this tender was previously awarded. The minister spoke for almost an hour, but I can assure her it was difficult to pinpoint any part of her remarks which might have conveyed that information. How would the Indians have received greater benefit by the acceptance of the one tender as compared with the other? I still believe that this has not yet been made clear, despite all the minister has said. There is still a nasty smell there, and it has to be cleared away. I sincerely hope it will be.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls, when she rose to ask a question, probably had the same thing in mind as I had. I remember what the hon. lady had to say last night in her contribution to the discussion of this important subject. She said that on one of the tenders appeared the statement that the terms were subject to the obtaining of an export

licence. That is matter which in no circumstances comes under the jurisdiction of the hon. lady. I cannot understand how any tender can be marked in that way, let alone be accepted by the department. That is matter which comes within the jurisdiction of a certain council in British Columbia and, I think, of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not remember the minister making any reference to this important aspect. Why should there be a tender containing that provision?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed-


Harold Edward Winch: I shall be very brief, and the hon. lady can reply all at once. I do feel strongly that something has to be said here. It has not even been intimated so far, but I think it had better be said. There is rapidly increasing belief, based on a growing volume of information in the last 24 hours, that what has basically caused this turmoil, this problem, is a fight between two companies, the Beaufort Industries and the Shoreline Timber Company, and that behind it all is party patronage-one Liberal and the other Conservative.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No Liberals at all involved.


Harold Edward Winch: One Liberal and one Conservative. This might just as well come out into the open. I do not know why it has not come out before, but I am going to say it. This is what is behind it all-the receiving of timber rights, the receiving of cutting rights which, in the final event, comes within the jurisdiction of a government agency. This might as well be said, and if the hon. member for Niagara Falls has not heard it or does not know it, then I do not believe it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: On a question of personal privilege, there has been some suggestion by the hon. member that he does not believe I have not heard such suggestions. I have, in fact; but as I assured the house last night there are no members of my party concerned with either of the companies as far as I am aware. As far as I am aware, the two individuals connected with the Beaufort Company are still at least nominal supporters of the hon. lady's party and not of mine, and I know of no individual involved in any way who is a Liberal.


Harold Edward Winch: I am surprised at the hon. member getting up in that way on a question of privilege. I said that this is the situation as it has come to my attention. I have such high respect for the hon. member for Niagara Falls as to believe she is not so naive as to state what she just did.
26207-1-111
13, 1962	1751
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Once again may I be permitted to reject the imputation which the hon. member is making. I say on my word of honour as a member of this committee, and as a member of the legal profession, that I know of no Liberals who are in any way involved. I ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to name any if he knows them.


Harold Edward Winch: No. I am now becoming even more confident of the correctness of the information which has come to my attention, in view of the fact that I have made no personal attack on the hon. lady who represents Niagara Falls. I have made no charges against her. I have not even said she has any knowledge of the situation. I have merely said that she must be a little naive if she does not believe that in the circumstances this is what lies behind the situation. Well, that is the situation and it is coming more and more into the open. Perhaps, now, it will come still further into the open; so let us face it and let us hope that because of certain work and studies made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls more light will be thrown on this matter. I wish to heaven that I had the hon. lady's sources of information. Maybe I could do a better job in this house if I had, but companies do not make their papers available to me. I think the hon. lady has done a service by raising this question. I hope others to the best of their knowledge have been able to do the same. I will go this far. If the minister had not made the announcement she did at the conclusion of her hour long statement this afternoon I was going to urge the house to refer the entire matter in all its complexity to the joint committee on Indian affairs of the house and Senate. That is not now necessary because of the minister's statement.
I hope it will be made clear in the new tender that its detail, meaning, limits, operation and method of handling are to be free of political considerations so that no one can point a finger at anyone in the civil service charging that political activity occurred with respect to a matter affecting the Indians who come under the charge of the people of Canada through a department of government represented in the House of Commons by the hon. lady.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I must say I agree with him. I also agree that conditional clauses are not a good thing. I do not condone this and I am sorry it happened. I can assure the committee it will not happen in the future. Hon. members will realize, of course, that these calls are prepared and go out. They are not the type of
1752	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration detail that necessarily comes to the minister's desk. My intervention in this matter occurred only alter protests were raised.
We shall try to make it clear to the Indians what the situation is so that they will understand the matter. I agree with the hon. gentleman that this is basically a fight between two companies. It has been attended by a great deal of, let us say, extracurricular activity. Lobbying methods, publicity methods, and so on, were employed, but that is the usual thing. We have had this before in other contracts. We try to iron out these things and as I mentioned before we always endeavour to get the best deal for the Indians.
With regard to the hon. member's charge of political considerations entering the question, I must plead innocence. Possibly I, too, am naive but I did not even know who were the principals of these companies until the protests were lodged. I still do not know who the principals in the companies are. I know only the names that were mentioned in the debate last evening. I suppose it would be possible to find out by writing to the provincial secretary and asking who are the directors of the company but I do not think I would do that-


Harold Edward Winch: You can ask your own office in Vancouver.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have not had an opportunity to do that, of course, although if I wished to do so I could call the Vancouver office by long distance telephone. However, I would prefer to judge this thing on an objective basis and it is on that basis that I propose to take the action I indicated previously. I hope the final outcome will meet the satisfaction of hon. members of the committee, in the first instance, but that primarily it will be in the interests of the Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before this matter terminates there are a couple of points I wish to raise. I do not wish to deal with anything that has happened but there are a couple of points that trouble me about what may happen notwithstanding the very wise course the minister has decided to take in this matter, and I commend her for taking it.
One point concerning which the minister did not enlighten us-and this was dealt with in the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls-is the question of what the status of the department is vis-a-vis the Indians, whether there had been a surrender and, if so, what the nature of the surrender was, and if not, why not.
I was not here yesterday and have not had time since reading Hansard to examine the statute and see what the statutory provision is. Perhaps the minister could tell


me immediately what it is. My recollection is that it would be possible to make a contract for one year without having a surrender but not for a longer period. However, that may not be the case.
Whatever the legal situation is it seems to me that before any attempt is made to make any contract with a new contractor a surrender should be made or, if a surrender is not necessary, a resolution should be adopted in very precise language. That language should be embodied in the tender call and strictly adhered to in the matter so that there would be no ground whatever for complaint or misunderstanding. I suggest to the minister that that be done before any attempt is made to call for tenders from anyone.
The second point I wish to make which in my opinion is also very important is that the minister cannot satisfy me and I do not think she can satisfy any member of the committee by saying that export permits are a matter for another department. The minister is a trustee for the Indians and she should not have asked for a tender before clearing up the matter of export permits in her capacity as trustee for the Indians. I do not know why export permits are necessary and I must say I was rather surprised to hear it. Surely timber is not a strategic commodity and surely it is not in short supply in Canada. There may be some quirk in the act or it may relate to some provincial regulation that the federal government is seeking to enforce although I doubt whether any provincial regulation would apply to an Indian reserve. I think the minister ought to clear up the matter and tell the committee what the situation is.
It is really perpetrating a fraud on the Indians and on the contractors to suggest that they can make contracts to cut timber for export until they know the terms and conditions under which it can be done. It is not good enough to say it is a matter for some other department when the minister ought to be dealing on behalf of the Indians with that other department to make sure that a contract of this nature can be carried out.
I am not seeking any answer from the minister now. What I am doing is recommending that before the matter is proceeded with further this question be completely cleared up and that it be indicated in the tender call that the timber can or cannot be exported, and by whoever is successful. If the Department of Trade and Commerce is going to be allowed, if it has the power, to discriminate against one tenderer as compared with another, that is a pretty state

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
of affairs that ought to be cleared up before any transaction of this kind is undertaken. There were implications that there might be something in that which I hesitate to believe, but it is not good enough to brush it off. I know they do not act like it but hon. members opposite are supposed to be members of a government with collective responsibility. In this instance I suggest strongly to the hon. lady that she act like a member of the government and not like an independent power.
The third point is that I do not think anyone can feel very happy after listening to the letter read by the hon. lady for Niagara Falls. It is quite true, as the minister said, that when I was minister this firm was retained. It is also true that since the present minister took office this firm was also retained. I have no criticism of either of these things because there is nothing in connection with either of them to my knowledge that anyone could criticize, but it does seem to me to be extraordinary conduct for someone, immediately he has completed a contract, to provide information which other people seem to have been told was confidential information-
Mrs, Fairclough: Published information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if it was published information why did not the hon. lady correct something-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did. I already said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said that the information was published?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I said the information was published. Perhaps I should not use the word "published". It is public information. It is available to anyone who asks for it and it is public knowledge that this information is available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say I did not understand that from what the hon. lady said. If that is the case, of course, that quite alters the situation. However, I did not understand that from what I read of the debate last evening. I tried to listen attentively today. No doubt the hon. lady noticed that I was endeavouring to follow her remarks closely. I was really quite concerned about it. If the information is equally available to everyone, that alters the situation. However, it seems to me that it is still likely to create a bad impression for someone, the moment he fulfils a contract in a professional capacity, to be forming a company and bidding on this business on the basis of that previous experience. I do not say that if the information is equally available to others it is necessarily wrong.
26207-1-111J


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the point made by the hon. member is a very important one. Does he make that last statement without qualifications, namely that this man in the course of his business-and I take it quite properly-having obtained certain information which is not confidential, is limited in his use of it? Is that what the hon. member is saying?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is this. There is apt to be a misunderstanding if a company is formed so quickly afterwards by someone who has had this kind of professional connection. I think the hon. member for Greenwood has a sense similar to my own in these matters. I would take it that he would prefer not to be associated with such a matter so soon after he had had this professional connection with the department. It is apt to give rise to the kind of thing that has arisen in this case. But what I think is certainly very dubious procedure if the letter that was read was an authentic letter, was for these gentlemen to go out and suggest that this firm could use its influence to get a contract for another company and get a percentage on it. I did not like that. I did not think that we had that sort of thing here. I have read about these people in another country. However, I did not like it at all and I did not think the hon. lady liked it either.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. I did not like it either, regardless of whether or not it was proper business procedure. But in any event, as I said a little while ago, he would not have gotten away with it because he could not have possibly made good his offer.
With regard to the matter of surrender may I say that, after all, this is a crop that is being taken off. It is not the surrender of land as land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: However, the details of the contract will be presented to the band and efforts will be made to ensure that they understand the implications of any future tenders which are forthcoming.
With regard to export permits may I say that I think the hon. member has sufficient knowledge of governmental affairs to know that the Department of Trade and Commerce would hardly give an export permit to an unknown person for an unknown type of material. If my information is correct I think the line is drawn with regard to timber as to the type which it is expected to export. For instance, I think there may be some difficulty
1754	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in some places in getting permits to export fir, but with regard to some other types of lumber the acquisition of an export permit is almost automatic. Again I am not sufficiently well versed in the affairs of export permits and the department's activities in this field to make a firm statement. However, I do not think this is a field in which the department can secure for a third party a permit to export X products in X quantities. Therefore, I really cannot agree with the hon. member there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out that I do not regard the Indian affairs branch as exactly an unknown quantity. After all, the price that the minister can get-and that is what she is doing; she is acting as trustee for the Indians-for this timber is perhaps going to be dependant upon whether or not it can be exported. Therefore the minister as superintendent general and as trustee should find out from her colleague first whether or not export permits for this tract of timber in these circumstances will be available. On that fact would depend the kind of business transaction she could make. She is not like anybody else; she is not like the minister in any other department. She is a trustee in a very special sense. That is something of which I am sure she is well aware.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am quite willing to explore the proposition which has been put forward by the hon member. However, before I leave this debate-and I presume it is over now-I may say this to the hon. member who has just taken his seat and who expressed concern about whether or not the information was available to all parties. I refer him to page 1725 of Hansard-I have now looked the matter up-and the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I think he will find that she said that the department, in letters of May 24 and June 25, gave Beaufort the same information as that contained in the letter which was read.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I make one inquiry of the minister. If in fact, all of this information which F. G. J. Johnson and Associates Limited obtained is readily available, can she speculate why Mr. Johnson was of the opinion that it was saleable information?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: For all I know, he may have written the letter in response to an inquiry. I do not know what went on previously. I am not a mind reader. I would not indulge in speculation on this matter.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 618 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to discuss something further under this vote, Mr. Chairman. It is not on the same subject.


Gordon Campbell Chown: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to private members business, in pursuance of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-6, to incorporate Cochin Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Nugent-Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Benidickson:: I was a member of the committee that examined those who are interested in having this bill passed. I am not rising in order to take any objection to the passage of this particular bill. I have received no specific complaints from anybody or any indication that anybody should stand in the way of its passage. However, it was brought out that the applicants for this charter were reluctant to spend even $50,000 for the purposes of getting information as to the feasibility, as it was called, of their program, despite the fact that, having regard to the proposed share capital, we have in contemplation a $4 million company.
My information is to the effect that this is the first time the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines has been prepared to grant a charter before the applicants for the charter had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to invest a modest amount of their own money in a feasibility study of the project. I am informed that if that is to be the policy in the future, a precedent of some consequence may be established here.
The suggestion was made that now that we have a national energy board, parliamentary responsibility is practically removed. I cannot believe that is the intent of the statute or we would not be insisting that a parliamentary charter is required in connection with the pipe line business. It was also brought out that the circumstances are perhaps unusual this session. The applicants may have come to parliament without some of the advance work or preparation of feasibility studies that have been presented in the past because there may be an inclination to believe that we might not be here for very long. I think the committee was prepared to be generous, having regard to these circumstances.
Then I do point out that we have notice on the order paper today of a bill for the incorporation of another pipe line company. I believe the government should look at this

matter. They amended the pipe line legislation, and I think we should be informed soon as to whether or not it is the wish of the government that henceforth it will be possible to obtain a charter for a pipe line company without the applicants having probed very deeply into the feasibility of the project; that they should come forward with practically no personal investment prior to the application for a charter. I am told that a charter of this kind, just assuming that the present applicants do not do anything else, has a considerable commercial value. If hon. members will look at the clauses of the bill they will see that, while we are told the intention is to build a particular pipe line from town A to town B, there is nothing in the bill to restrict the applicant to the building of a pipe line over that particular route.
While I am not proposing to oppose this particular application, in large measure because of the uncertainty of the length of this session, and while I have no animosity towards the applicants-I know none of them- and no one has approached me who has an interest in another pipe line to indicate that this pipe line application should be opposed. I do believe this question should be examined by the minister concerned. He should be very careful in the future as to whether or not people, without any feasibility studies and with practically no investment except legal fees, should be able to come to a parliamentary committee and obtain a charter, thus obtaining something with the substantial value connected with a charter of this kind. We should consider carefully whether or not they should be able to obtain this charter without restriction, and convey that to persons who are not referred to in the list of applicants for incorporation.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to follow up the remarks made by the previous speaker. I have been told that a charter of this type has extraordinary commercial value. I have been told further that it is most unusual to have the House of Commons and Senate asked to give powers in such a bill without any particulars as to what is to be done once the pipe line bill is passed.
I recall that on the introduction of this bill certain statements were made by the sponsor. I draw attention of hon. members to the fact, as I gather the previous speaker did, that nowhere in the clauses of this bill are we told the specific purpose for which this bill is being enacted. In the past nine years we have incorporated quite a number of pipe line companies. If my memory is correct, in all of those bills there was at least some outline
Private Bills
of what was going to be done, where the pipe line was going to function and for what purpose.


William Moore Benidickson: No, that is not so.


Harold Edward Winch: In most of them, I think you will find a specific statement of the purpose of the bill. You will find general powers, yes. I am referring particularly to the bills we have dealt with in the last two years. In this bill you will also find certain absolute powers. I know we should not refer to the clauses at the moment, but hon. members should look at the powers set forth in clause 6. This clause grants absolute powers not only for development, for operations, maintenance, control, leasing, mortgaging, hypothecating, and so on, but also powers of a provincial nature, an interprovincial nature and an international nature.
I say therefore that when we have a bill in which the particulars are not set forth, that is the building of a pipe line from town A to town B or whatever it is, we have a responsibility to ask the sponsor for the most complete information in connection with the bill. I think, too, we have a responsibility to ask the minister of the crown for his advice about passing such a generally all-powerful bill of the nature of the one before us.


Mr. Nugent:: I wish to give the committee a little more information. Apparently the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was in the standing committee, found the evidence given was not such as to satisfy him on the feasibility of the project. With all due respect, I think that perhaps we did not give quite enough information about the people forming this company. Information was given that this will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bannister Construction Company Limited, which is a purely Canadian company. It is a very large company in the pipe line contracting business and has many years experience in the building of pipe lines throughout Canada, from Canada to outside countries, and so on. They have very competent engineers and economists. They are always studying this question of where and when a potential market for transporting oil or gas or petroleum products may arise, because that is the sort of thing they have to investigate in order to plan ahead for their own pipe line operations. I suggest that when these gentlemen come into the house and say that they see a potential market here, it is not quite fair to say there is no feasibility study at all and that there is an additional sum of $50,000 to $150,000 which they will have to spend after they are incorporated in order to justify what they believe now, by really examining the market and examining

Private Bills
in detail all these things with which they have some experience and about which they have some reason for believing, are very feasible.
However, this question of whether they should have done this extra detailed feasibility study is complicated by one point that I do not think was brought out too clearly here, although it was before a Senate committee. In Canada there are in existence several pipe lines which have powers about the same as this one and which, having a dominion statute, could find it necessary to go before the energy board of a province, or the national energy board where it is between two provinces, and we would find such companies perhaps being empowered to do something that had never been contemplated when we first granted the acts to incorporate them.
Not only that, in this particular field certain of these gentlemen have a very good idea of potential market that may or may not be large enough to warrant starting construction now, but which they feel is going to be large enough very soon to require a pipe line and have the capacity to support a pipe line. They feel that since this is such a natural prospect there is nothing to stop anyone else now having a pipe line from taking a look at it and jumping to the national energy board to ask for permission to do this. In order to complete their move with the national energy board they have to be incorporated and it seems to me to be good planning on their part, once they are satisfied that there is the potential and that it is worth while going after, to get into a corporate position so that they would not be behind the eight ball if anyone else took up the idea once it became public.
I suggest, in order to be fair to these gentlemen who have seen the potential and are prepared to do this, we should allow them to get their corporate status so that they would not be in an unfair position with respect to anyone else who would want to seize on their idea and beat them out of it.
As to the particulars in this bill, we have not asked for a specific power to go from Hughenden, Alberta to Melville, Saskatchewan. The feasibility study might possibly extend the line a few miles past Melville. Since this is a new and growing industry there is every possibility that in years to come there will be a necessity or a need to extend the pipe line further, and I suggest it would be unduly restrictive on the company to come in and ask for a specific line from one point to another and then, following the feasibility study, have to come back to parliament to amend the bill so that it could change that again.
[Mr. Nugent.J
I suggest that the powers conferred by this bill are not out of line. I took the trouble to check the other statutes and, having done so, I found nothing in this one that was out of line with the general powers conferred on other pipe line companies, and I do not think it is so broad a power that it would be abused. I suggest there must be a certain amount of flexibility and I suggest to hon. members of the committee, in that this is a new sort of project in a new area where there is an increasing demand for propanes, butanes, and the like, that this company does need as much flexibility as is provided, and I hope hon. members can see it that way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Provisional directors.
William Moore Benidickson: Members of the committee will recall that I asked counsel for the proposed company to what extent they had looked at precedents and to what extent this bill closely followed the pattern of previous pipe line bills, particularly recent pipe line bills. The hon. member for Vancouver East said that in relation to some previous bills he thought this one was open to criticism because it did not specify the route. I do not think that has been a customary practice in the incorporation of these companies.
However, if we do not have the feasibility study and if we do not have a particular route, as in the case of railroad licences, I would like to know why these companies come to parliament at all if we are simply to be a rubber stamp and take the attitude that the national energy board will look into this later. I think the minister should review the parent act to see whether we should take up our time in the House of Commons in this way when the pattern is the same as in previous bills dealing with routes "within or outside Canada" interprovincially or otherwise. I do not know why we should seek to deal with these matters whatsoever.
In connection with clause 2 I would raise this question for the committee. To what extent is it a departure from recent pipe line bills? I find a rather important one here, particularly important to those of us in the House of Commons who remember when the Conservative opposition had a great deal to say about "Canada first" in connection with pipe line activities. That was the cry right across the country in the 1957 and 1958 elections-protecting Canadians and protecting assets such as pipe lines for Canadians. They created a great horror around the country with respect to the word "export", but now this sponsor has indicated to us that the right to export is the same although we do not know over what route.

To me it seems significant that the last pipe line bill seeking incorporation of a company last session-although there may have been others and I have indicated I was not a member of the committee for some years-contained the following as clause 2, which became section 2 of the act of incorporation:
(1) The persons named in section 1 of this act shall be the first directors of the company.
I am referring to the Aurora Pipe Line Company, the act respecting which was assented to on July 13, 1961. Therefore it is one of the most recent pipe line measures passed by the house, and it has an additional subsection (2) in section 2 which reads:
All the directors of the company shall at all times be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.
There is nothing of that kind in this bill. I had not looked at the precedents before going to the committee meeting but had relied on counsel for the company to point out to me in what way this particular bill differed in so far as some other recent parliamentary incorporations were concerned.
I just point this out to hon. members on the government side who talked so much about keeping these matters Canadian. Now they are apparently prepared to accept this form of incorporation which is in no way comparable to what was in the bill to which I refer.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On that I would first point out that these are all Canadian citizens. It is all Canadian money. It is going to be a subsidiary of Bannister Construction Company, a company which has always had all Canadian directors. Perhaps they felt it was not necessary to put that clause in, not having any other plans. I wish that had been asked of the company's solicitor in the committee. I never thought to ask it, but I am sure that is the situation. These are Edmonton residents; they are Canadians; it is a Canadian company and intends to remain that way.


William Moore Benidickson: There is not anybody here so naive as not to know it is possible to transfer shares from a Canadian to a nonresident. At any time it is possible for the shareholders to vote the election of directors, and regardless of what the present intention is, or regardless of the fact that at the moment the people seeking incorporation are all Canadians-I am not in any way questioning their good faith or anything like that-let us not overlook the fact that unless a clause of that kind is included there is nothing to prevent the incorporators selling their shares after the company is incorporated; there is
Private Bills
nothing to prevent the directorate of the company being composed of non-Canadians.
I am not insisting that they be Canadians, but I am pointing out that in days that I very well remember there was the hue and cry on the part of the people who form today's government that these pipe line companies were being transferred to foreigners and that we should be insisting on Canada first as I remember the slogan. I do not think in this kind of bill that principle is receiving the support necessary to protect the country in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Power to construct and operate pipe lines.
William Moore Benidickson: With regard to clause 6, Mr. Chairman, again when I refer to the precedent of the Aurora Pipe Line Company of last year I find they asked for extraprovincial and international pipe lines, but not interprovincial pipe lines. What is the significance of asking for interprovincial pipe lines in one bill and not in another?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think Aurora was designed to carry a line from Alberta into Montana strictly across an international boundary, whereas this pipe line is designed, in the first instance at least, to carry these products from the province of Alberta into the province of Saskatchewan. It may in the future go further, but that is why it is interprovincial at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 6 (a) some legal counsel for whom I have a great deal of respect have said that this clause is much broader than had been possible in some previous pipe line bills. One of the points that was drawn to my attention was that paragraph (a) of this clause says that the rights will extend within or outside Canada to do such and such. It was pointed out to me that in some other bills it was specifically stated that the powers would be confined to certain geographical areas or to certain provinces.
Frankly, I was not very impressed with the fact that we are being unduly generous here when we do not refer to provinces, because the bill of last year to which I referred did, of course, mention some provincial boundaries. It practically took in the waterfront because it mentioned Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I do not think this is particularly significant; I think the main thing is whether or not we are going to

Pension Act
grant these charters automatically without having very much information presented to us concerning the feasibility of these projects.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Madeleine Francoise Hankowski- Mr. McCleave.
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps orders Nos. 2 to 103 could stand today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member suggesting that these orders stand without any direction as to printing them on the order paper?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think it would be convenient if they were held off this Thursday but restored next Tuesday and thereafter at the proper times.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some economy involved and I am trying to estimate when the house may be ready to deal with these matters. If they stand off the order paper until Tuesday next, would that meet with the wish of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PENSION ACT


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-21 to amend the Pension Act (judicial appeal).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my charge by the introduction of a private members' bill, now numbered C-21, is that the present members of the pension commission are not carrying out the intent of parliament and that the Pension Act as now constituted is, I believe, contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The purpose of the bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, is to give an applicant for a pension under the Pension Act the right, where the pension commission or an appeal board has ruled against his or her entitlement, to have the decision reviewed by the courts, first on any question of law respecting the interpretation of the
[Mr. Benidickson.l
Pension Act, and second on those controversial issues of fact which must be weighed, as the courts are used to doing, in the knowledge of human conduct and intention. An ancillary purpose gives the commission itself the right to refer any question of law to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The bill applies to the Pension Act that principle of the rule of law that, to the degree and most possible, the decisions of an administrative tribunal or commission which touch the person, property or rights of an individual should be subject to review by the courts.
The United Kingdom has applied this rule of law to as many of its boards, tribunals and commissions as possible in the tribunals and inquiries act, 1958. The British parliament found it was necessary to protect the rights of the individual by guaranteeing an appeal to the courts from arbitrary tribunal decisions. I would submit that a study of only a few decisions handed down by our present pension commission would convince the people of Canada that this branch of the department is in the hands of bureaucrats who circumvent the law because of their powers under section 65(3) of the Pension Act. Section 65(3) of this act states:
Except as hereinafter otherwise provided every decision of an appeal board of the commission is final.
I submit that this section of the Pension Act conflicts with and is contradictory to the intention of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which to me means that every individual in Canada is entitled to the protection of the courts.
The introduction of this bill probably would not be necessary if I felt that the present members of the pension commission were capable or qualified to perform the duties expected of them by the past and present members of this house. It would seem that the present commission feels that it has the right, under the present Pension Act, to substitute the commissioner's views for the views of parliament.
It is obvious that the basic purpose of the statute is to protect service personnel against the risks to which by reason of their service they were, or are, exposed. There are two main principles which I believe the people of Canada through their members of parliament expected the commission to keep before them; first, that of basic fairness to the taxpayers of Canada, and second, justice to those who have served and are now serving in our forces.
I charge that the commission is not adhering to either of these principles and I would be quite prepared to prove my point in a court of law with evidence presently in my possession. A study of the speeches of

ministers and members of parliament responsible for the implementation of this act would confirm that the pension commission in the interpretation of the various provisions of the act should do so with a view to extending the broadest and most liberal application, consistent with the intention and terms of the statute. In fact, such words have been uttered by our present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) as well as by others who held that portfolio before him.
I am sure the people of Canada feel there can be little argument against the nation's providing compensation to a man or his dependants for any disability or death which arises out of, or is caused by, the performance of his duties.
In order to give direction to the commission as to the intent of parliament, section 70 of the act was inserted in 1948. It is commonly called by veterans the benefit of doubt section, and reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
Ordinarily, one would assume that such a clause in the act could not be misinterpreted. It is very clear and broad and, as parliament intended, gives the administrative machinery the power to adjudicate claims with all the justice and fairness to which our service personnel are entitled. However the real test of any legislation is in its administration. In many instances the results of the administration under the present pension commission are a mockery of justice and an insult to the present and past members of this house who were charged with formulating the present Pension Act.
The effect of the present legislation has been to establish a tribunal so powerful that its members are a law unto themselves in regard to any application for pension from members of our armed forces. In this branch of the department, as in others, it is government by commission, not by the elected representatives of the people. It would appear the members of this tribunal are not concerned with the thoughts or intent of the members who drew up this act, otherwise they would have reviewed the committee minutes and Hansard when this act was passed and amended. The intended broadness of interpretation was expressed on those occasions by many speakers, including the ministers in charge of the department.
It would also appear that the members of the pension commission pay no attention to 26207-1-112
Pension Act
other aids under our statutes which would assist them with interpretation if there was any doubt in their minds. I refer now to section 15 of the Interpretation Act which applies to all our laws, with the exception of the criminal law, and which states:
Every act, and every piovision and enactment thereof, shall be deemed remedial whether its immediate purport is to direct the doing of anything that parliament deems to be for the public good, or to prevent or punish the doing of anything that seems contrary to the public good; and shall accordingly receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the act and of such provision or enactment, according to its true intent meaning and spirit.
This section of the Interpretation Act was inserted on the basis that the law as it existed perhaps did not do justice to some person, or group of persons. Therefore parliament gives the person or persons affected a right and a remedy.
A judge, I am informed, looks for the person whom the law was intended to benefit. In connection with the Pension Act, it would be a veteran or a veteran's dependants. In applying the law he gives the right and the remedy to these persons. A court gives to the words used by parliament a large, fair and liberal construction so as best to ensure the object of the act which, in the case of the Pension Act, is to give the veterans and their dependants rights and remedies which they did not have before the act was passed-in other words, justice.
The Pension Act as amended is a remedial statute. To illustrate how small and narrow the thinking of some of the members on the pension commission can be, I would refer hon. members to the evidence of the vicechairman of the Canadian pension commission, as recorded on May 18, 1961, in the minutes of proceedings on veterans affairs. Referring to one case, the reason for the decision was as follows:
He went across the street and delivered the message, stepped out of the door and was hit by a truck. If he had been hit going in the door, before he had delivered the message, he would have been pensionable; however, he was hit when he went out the door, and he was not pensionable.
In a communication from the chairman of the pension commission, I am informed that the commission in making its decisions is governed by certain guiding principles largely based on precedent. If the statement of the vice-chairman to the veterans affairs committee regarding the individual who was hit by a truck after he came out of the door is an example of a precedent used by the commission in establishing a ruling for other cases, we can understand why there is such widespread dissatisfaction with this method of adjudication, because the reason for the

Pension Act
decision is ridiculous and asinine; it could only be dreamed up by very narrow-minded persons.
I further charge there is no consistency in the reasons for the decisions handed down by this board of bureaucrats. I refer once again to the additional remarks of the vicechairman of the commission as recorded in the minutes I made reference to a few moments ago. As reported at the bottom of page 281, he states in part:
However, if on the other hand he was warned to go on mess parade and then slips on the steps of the mess hall, since a mess parade is not obligatory .. . that is not a valid reason and if he was hurt, he would not be pensionable.
There are many cases on file where the decisions of the board are absolutely contrary to the information given to the members of the veterans affairs committee by the vicechairman of the commission. I have the records of one case dated June 20, 1955, which in part state as follows:
On leaving the mess hall, he tripped on a small obstruction on the landing in front of the mess hall door and fell down the exterior mess hall steps. The board found that the evidence established that the accident was sustained during service in the course of carrying out his duties and that the injury must be considered to have arisen out of, and to have been directly connected with, his service, within the meaning of section 13 (2).
Either this decision was wrong or the information given to the committee by the vicechairman was wrong. The two statements are in direct contradiction to one another.
Bill No. C-21 is a bill to amend the Pension Act to provide the veteran and the serviceman and their dependants with an appeal to the courts from a decision of the pension commissioners on points of the interpretation of law. The bill also provides that the power given the board to define its own constituting act shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of Canada. In my opinion, a commission is the poorest judge of its own measure and particularly in this case where the members of the board have no specialized knowledge. There is a principle of British law that every member of the public has a right of access to the courts to determine his rights under the law. Let us see that our service personnel are granted this same privilege.
I am aware, I may say at this point, that the Royal Canadian Legion has, on occasion, not agreed with what I am saying today and that at its Edmonton convention held two years ago the Legion asked the dominion executive council to bring in a report on the desirability of establishing an appeal from the pension commission to an independent authority. The veterans welfare advisory committee decided that such a vote was not desirable for the reason-and I quote in part-

that "The present legislation and procedure is basically sound". I suggest it is not basically sound, because it is contrary to the British theory of constitutional law which states that the subject always has a right of appeal to an independent judiciary body. Section 5 (5) of the Pension Act reads as follows:
The commission shall determine any question of interpretation of this act and the decision of the commission on any such question is final.
The question I would ask at this point is: how is the executive of the Royal Canadian Legion going to force members of the pension commission to interpret the Pension Act in a basically sound manner, or in the way parliament intended in the first place?
The executive of the Legion in another part of their report make this statement:
The pension commission interprets the benefit of doubt clause to mean that the veteran must create the doubt.
Surely the Canadian Legion does not agree with such an interpretation. In fact, a reference to their objection on this very point is made in each of their briefs dealing with section 70 of the Pension Act. I have three briefs here and in each they disagree with this interpretation of section 70 by the commission. Time does not permit me to place on the record extracts from the briefs.
I direct the attention of hon. members to words spoken by the present Prime Minister when he was the private hon. member for Prince Albert as reported at page 5895 of Hansard of July 12, 1956:
-I believe that in such a case as this consideration should be given to the amendment of the Pension Act so far as interpretation of the law is concerned so that recourse to the courts will be available to any aggrieved person to ascertain in the courts whether or not that person comes within the ambit of the legal definitions provided in the Pension Act.
May I conclude my remarks on this measure by quoting a portion of a letter I have received:
Our Canadian veterans and servicemen preferred, and still prefer, to die on their feet. Dead-their widows and fatherless children are required to live on their knees before the officials of the Canadian pension appeal board.
I solicit the support of all hon. members of the house and particularly veterans in the passing of this bill.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather lengthy bill considering that it is a private member's bill. While we may not agree with all the details set forth in it nevertheless I believe the general principle of the bill is sound and because at this stage we are concerned only with the principle I should like to indicate my support for the measure.

I cannot, however, go along with the sponsor of the bill in his remarks about the pension board. I feel we should debate this bill on its merits and not on the merits of the personnel comprising the board or their competence to administer this legislation.
I support the bill because I believe it is basically sound that every person should have the right to appeal to a court of justice if he has a grievance. Without that, as the hon. member said, we have government by commission.
My own experience with the pension board has been somewhat different from that outlined by the hon. member. Hon. gentlemen know there is one matter about which I have complained over and over again. But by and large my experience with the pension board is that they have gone all out wherever possible to give favourable consideration and to extend the benefit of doubt in cases I have brought to their attention. I think that is even more true of the present board than it has been in the past.
However, I feel we must all agree that there is difficulty when a body confines itself to the interpretation of just one set of laws. There is a tendency to become routine and mechanical in the judgment of different cases and to overlook the relationship between the law that body is administering and the greater body of law which might be related to it. The sponsor of the bill mentioned the relationship of the veterans charter to the Interpretation Act. That is certainly one consideration; but there are others. I feel there is a general spirit which pervades all the laws included in the veterans charter and that general spirit, I think, reflects the spirit of parliament itself. When there is a conflict between the letter and the spirit of any particular law I think that should be subjugated to the overriding spirit of the legislation as a whole.
Apart from that there is the overriding spirit of the British North America Act which is our constitution and certainly all our laws should be interpreted within that framework. The one exception to which I referred a while ago, a question which I have frequently raised in this house, is in relation to the interpretation that has been placed on veterans legislation with regard to Newfoundland veterans. The terms of union are part of the British North America Act and therefore part of our constitution. I feel that any interpretation of veterans legislation should be interpreted in the light of our constitution.
I believe the present legislation, worded as it is, is cast in language sufficiently broad to include Newfoundland veterans under the veterans charter, but the pension commission that existed at the time of confederation when 26207-1-112J
Pension Act
this problem first arose chose to interpret it in a very different manner. Regardless of the fact that the definition of a veteran under the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and the War Service Grants Act is broad enough to include a Newfoundland veteran the wording is not clear in the Pension Act. Although it could be interpreted as being broad enough to include Newfoundland veterans the pension commission chose not to interpret it as being sufficiently broad. Consequently Newfoundland veterans are treated as Canadians who served in the imperial forces rather than as Canadians who served in the Canadian forces.
I use that example to illustrate the point brought out by the sponsor of the bill that there is need for an independent authority to examine decisions from time to time. It is only human to make wrong judgments. Certainly every Canadian, especially now that we have a bill of rights should have an opportunity of taking his grievance before a court of law.
I do not intend to speak at length. Time is passing quickly and I know other hon. members wish to express their views. I support the general principle of the bill because I feel it is in line with the bill of rights and provides an additional safeguard for the veterans. It is one more step toward ensuring the welfare of our veterans. The principle of the bill is in line with the spirit of legislation we have already passed.
With respect to the charges that have been laid against the personnel of the pension commission I presume the minister will have something to say on their behalf.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I read this most interesting bill very carefully. I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the welfare of veterans and their dependants. I know his motives are lily white. It is evident the hon. member has given considerable thought to the problem and has spent considerable time in the preparation of the measure now before the house. The vigour of his remarks is further evidence of his deep concern for the matter and his quite unusual attack on the personnel of the Canadian pension commission is evidence of his strong feelings in the matter.
I might say that the principle and purpose of this bill have been discussed over a great number of years by veterans organizations and other people concerned with the welfare of the veterans and their dependants. The very same principle and purpose have also been discussed by trade unions all across Canada in reference to various workmen's compensation acts. It is natural for the subject

Pension Act
repeatedly to arise and for persons to consider that there should be an appeal to the courts against a decision of the commission and of what the hon. member would term- and I can well understand his point of view- established bureaucracies. However, the veterans organizations throughout the years have studied this question.
I have had some experience with the Canadian Pension Act since 1939 as an active officer of the Royal Canadian Legion, as a member of this house and as a member of the veterans affairs committee. I have listened carefully to these arguments because they merit careful consideration whether they are in support of the principle for amendment to the Pension Act or to the various workmen's compensation acts across Canada. However, in every case to date the discussion has ended, as the hon. member has pointed out, in the organizations in question-and I also mention the labour organizations-rejecting the principle and purpose of the bill as not being in the best interests of the pensioner and dependants or, shall I say, of the person on compensation. They considered-and I am just repeating their views-that there was a greater hazard to these persons directly concerned in providing for an appeal to the courts than there was in improving the legislation. I must say this. While on occasions I have differed with the Canadian pension commission in their decisions, as I am sure have many others in this house, we must remember that the Canadian pension commission is a group of citizens who are all veterans, and who have been given the responsibility of administering the Canadian Pension Act. Without doubt, from our point of view, they err on occasions.
However, I was rather surprised to hear the usually genial and mellow member's caustic comments on this occasion. As I said, the commission members are all veterans and I am sure they have at heart the welfare of veterans. The chairman, as a matter of fact, is an appointee of the present government. I think he has rendered good service as chairman of the commission, as have other members of the commission throughout the years. We must remember that the decisions of the commission are in the main based on medical evidence and on hearings that are held and the various procedures under the Canadian Pension Act to which effect is given. As I said before, while on occasion without doubt we differ with them in their decisions, the members of the commission have no reason whatever to deny an applicant a pension on any personal ground. It is human to err. They are required to make their decisions on the

basis of the evidence before them, and I am quite confident that they make their decisions according to their best judgment.
In my opinion, the remedy for the situation is this. I quite realize that improvements can be made in the Canadian Pension Act. In my opinion and, I believe, in that of the members whom I have the honour to represent in this distinguished corner of the house, the remedy is to amend the Canadian Pension Act so as to clarify certain sections and, in so doing, to remove a certain measure of ambiguity that exists at the present time, thereby strengthening the hands of the Canadian pension commission.
I think the hon. member has rendered a service by bringing to the attention of the house a bill highlighting this problem. I trust his bringing this matter to the attention of the house will cause the government to pay particular attention to the problem presented at this time and to bring in amendments that will clarify the Canadian Pension Act and thus will make the work of the Canadian pension commission less subject to criticism and easier for its members.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest that the hon. member send copies of his bill and copies of today's Hansard to the dominion officers of the various veterans organizations across Canada and that he also ask them to make recommendations with respect to amendments to the Canadian Pension Act in order to achieve the objective which I am sure is the desire of the hon. member who introduced the bill and of all other hon. members in this house.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-Indian agencies-
618. Operation and maintenance-further amount required. $136,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: When we were about to rise at five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I asked that this particular item be not voted on at that time. I did so, sir, because-and I hope you will

agree with me-I hate to disagree with the minister in certain statements she has made about whether or not we are in order on one aspect of the matters now being discussed. I would draw your attention to the fact we are now discussing vote 618 of the supplementary estimates. This vote is for $136,000 for Indian agencies, operation and maintenance.
If I could put it briefly, Mr. Chairman, it has always been my understanding that when a supplementary estimate deals with operation and maintenance of Indian agencies, we can then raise matters of policy upon which we would like to have information. On that understanding, therefore, that I am speaking only because of vote 618, there is a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in her capacity as the minister in charge of Indian affairs. I do so, Mr. Chairman, because it is of the utmost importance in every way that there should be established the finest possible relationship between the government in the operation of the Indian agencies and the Indian agencies in their relationships with our first Canadian citizens, whether they be on reservations or under treaty.
I would, therefore, under this supplementary vote like to ask the minister if she is in a position to give the committee any information relative to the most extraordinary letter that I believe was sent to all members of the House of Commons under date of February 23, 1962, from the Indian defense league of America. In this letter there are some remarkable statements made of a nature which I believe should be clarified and answered as soon as possible in order to maintain the best possible relationship between the government department, the Indian agencies in all the provinces and our first native Canadian citizens. May I, Mr. Chairman, just take a moment to quote from this letter:
With due respect for the parliament of Canada, we express our opinion to the honourable members, concerning Indian affairs which was consistently evaded in the past by the administration. It is with sincere regret that I draw the attention of the house assembled, the fact that our allIndian organization was not given the courtesy of appearing before the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate dealing with Indian affairs, thus ignoring our request. We were of the opinion that the august body was to receive representations from Indians organizations with the opportunity of supporting their briefs with oral testimony, supported by official record.
This is the introduction. As a matter of fact, as I went through this letter, sir, I was not quite certain as to whether or not the Six Nations assembly was declaring war on Canada. However, they do say this in the second paragraph of the letter, and this is important because, if my knowledge of history is correct, the Six Nations is a most
13,	1962	1763
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration important body in Canada and many years ago was important to Canada in fighting on behalf of Her Majesty at that time:
We are aghast at the attitude of the department of Indian affairs. We have been shocked at the evasive replies on questions sent to the department concerning the obligation of protection of the Six Nations under unabrogated treaties with Great Britain.
I know, without going any farther, that the minister will understand why I raise this question. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that the minister and the members of the committee realize I am taking this course because this kind of letter sent to members of parliament by our native Indians on a matter of this nature, added to the matter on which we spent four hours previously, should be answered as quickly as possible. I hope that under this supplementary vote which deals with Indian agencies, the minister will feel this is the occasion to make a real statement of government policy concerning the attitude of her department to Indian affairs and to answer such charges as these. This letter is sent over the name of the Indian defense league of America, in the name of the Six Nations confederacy, to all members of parliament. If the information is incorrect, then let the minister get up and explain in what way it is incorrect. If there is any way of bringing about a greater understanding, a better relationship, if she has some new policy in mind, surely this is the time to make a statement and not wait until the general estimates are before the committee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: First of all, I should like to ask the hon. member, since he did not mention it, from what domicile is that letter? Where did it come from?


Harold Edward Winch: This is from the Indian defense league of America, home office, box 305, Niagara Falls, New York. According to this, it represents the Six Nations confederacy in the United States and Canada, and includes a letter sent to the hon. members of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate of Canada, on behalf of the confederacy.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the answer is simple. We appointed the committee and, as the hon. member knows, the committee undertook to hear representatives from the various Indian groups. I do not know of the Indian defence league, though I recognize the name of Mr. Antone. I have seen his name on letters from time to time. He is domiciled in the state of New York and it is true that the Six Nations Indians are on both sides of the border. If my memory serves me well the Caughnawagas did not make any representations, although they were invited to
1764	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration do so and they are a member of the confederation, but the Six Nations Indians at Brantford made two representations. One was made by the hereditary chiefs organization and the other by the elected council organization; so I think in so far as the Six Nations Indians within Canada are concerned, they were heard.
I do not know if that answers the hon. member's question or not, but further than that I would have to refer to the committee itself as offhand I do not recall all who were heard by the committee. However it is certain that an invitation would not go outside Canada to an organization which is an international organization.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am somewhat familiar with this confederation as I have the honour to be an adopted daughter of the Mohawks of the Six Nations. I have some knowledge of this particular group since I addressed a meeting of them not too long ago. As the minister said, they are an international organization and they are particularly concerned with some treaties. I had also the honour to be a member of the joint committee for the past year, but not for the first two years.
At its meetings I raised some questions the answers to which rather stunned me, and perhaps the minister can tell me why such answers were given. I had been asked by the Indian defence league to inquire if there was a copy in existence of the treaties signed by John Graves Simcoe. I was informed that the branch did not have copies of these treaties. I inquired if a search had ever been made among the imperial records because they seemed to be so basic to the Indians' view of their rights. As I recall it the director said no research had been made among the imperial records for the originals of these treaties, and since they are so basic to what the Indians believe are their rights I wonder if the minister can advise us why this has not been done.
There is one thing with reference to the matter which we were discussing here this afternoon which my hon. friend from Vancouver mentioned earlier. That is the imputation that some individuals who represented my party were concerned in the matter. I may say that nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps he and the minister may not know that one of the individuals who acted as agent for the Beaufort firm in Ottawa is a man from British Columbia whose name is Dean Finlayson, which name may mean more to him than to me.


Mr. Fisher:: There are a number of questions I should like to put to the minister relating to Indian agencies and the Indians in my area, and I may say that the impetus to


raise them at this time comes from several different sources. The minister will remember my asking her a question regarding some criticism made by Chief Crawford Adams, when several weeks ago he was quoted as saying that of the Indians in Canada those in the worst condition that he knows of are in the area north of Port Arthur.
Recently the gentleman from the other place who was honoured in being placed there by the Prime Minister because of his Indian blood, has been in a sense preaching to me, referring to the fact that it is very important I take a much keener interest in the Indians in my constituency because he feels that they are in a very poor and relatively unfortunate condition compared with most of the other Indians in this country. These are two things that have aroused my concern.
I might point out to hon. members who wonder why my interest might not have been higher, that there are somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 Indians in my constituency. No one is quite sure about the number, and of the 2,500 estimated to have a vote in the coming election approximately 2,000 of them exist well north of the farthest railway line that bisects the constituency. Of these the largest group could only be reached by plane on a chartered flight of 385 or 390 miles from Port Arthur, which is beyond my finances, and the other large group could only be reached by flying in from Val d'Or to Winisk near Hudson's bay. Therefore my interest in most of those constituents, because they are spread out and it would be very costly to reach them, in a sense has to be from an office approach point of view. I would like to ask the minister to give me an analysis of what is being done for these Indians who are north of the C.N.R. tracks, especially Indians up from Lansdowne House, the Trout lake area and the Winisk area.
More specifically I want to deal with the whole question of elections. Hon. members will remember that recently in the Kenora by-election there was a considerable stirring up of candidates in the area over the Indian vote in that constituency and the Conservative candidate. This is something which I have brought up before with a certain amount of humour because I think the classic example was Lansdowne House. A few years ago in a provincial vote something like 130 votes went to the Conservatives, five to the Liberals, two to the communists and none to the C.C.F. candidate, and there were no spoiled ballots in this poll. It was agreed that only one or two of the people there could read or write. That is why I say it has a humourous connotation.

There is one poll in my constituency that even in his heyday the late C. D. Howe never won. It is a place called Ombabika. It is mostly Indians who vote there and we discovered that in the Lansdowne House case the white man who happened to have the most influence with the Indians was a Tory. As I say, the situation was random and humorous but I am wondering if this is going to be so in the next election because there will be so many more voters. I would like to know from the minister what plans she may have for instructing the Indians, to see that some program is carried on with these Indians in the north who really could not be reached by candidates, and to see whether some kind of fairer arrangement could be made in the future. I know hon. members will say, "Surely it is up to the party to put up scrutineers". I wonder how many political parties in Canada in a constituency association could afford to send scrutineers to polls that are 300 or 400 miles away from the centre of the riding. I wonder how many of them could afford the charter costs.
I understand that in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland very recently this challenge was put to the premier of Nova Scotia by the leader of the Conservative party, and the premier answered that he would rent an aeroplane to send them in-it was in connection with a by-election-and if the Conservatives could not afford to pay their share of the flight he would see that the Liberals picked up the charge for getting the-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What province was that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is in Newfoundland. There was a by-election going on, I believe, up in Labrador and evidently this became-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member understands that the Indians in Newfoundland do not come under this department, does he not? This was included in the terms of confederation.


William Moore Benidickson: I understood they were all killed off in Newfoundland centuries ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point I am really making here is that even in Newfoundland the Conservatives find it very expensive to get scrutineers up to the Indians. I am wondering whether the minister and her officials have considered this whole question of the Indian vote in remote places and what steps can be taken to see that it is done efficiently and fairly and in the interests of all candidates.
The other point I want to raise with the minister is this. I raised it with her, she will remember, by letter. It is regarding the possibilities of Indians working on the pulp
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and paper operations in our region. The minister will remember that I sent her some criticisms and suggestions that were expressed by the lumber and saw mill workers union, which happens to have the contracts in most of the woods industry from the Manitoba border through to north of Sudbury. The minister's reply was to the effect that these suggestions and criticisms were going to be considered immediately. I appreciate this, but I would like to know from the minister just what steps have been taken in northwestern Ontario in recent years to give the Indians some kind of permanent work or a more permanent relationship than they have at the present time.
I am sure that hon. members will have noted not too long ago that a little girl of six or seven years of age was torn to death by dogs up in a small village in my constituency, at Auden. It so happens that the dogs which tore her to death, which trapped her after her father left her outside a Sunday school, were kept by Indians who lived not too far away from Auden. The situation of these Indians near Auden, in Ombabika, is a wonderful case in point of the failure of the pulp and paper industry in the woods to find a real place for these people and to fit them in or tie them in with some kind of economic basis.
Auden is a permanent camp of the Abitibi Power and Paper Company. It has been in operation for at least seven or eight years to my knowledge. Continuous attempts have been made by the company to use Indians wherever practical but only, as I understand it-and my information is from both the union and people who you might say are on the management side-with very limited success.
I wanted to use this as an example and compare it with the situation at Longlac, which is not too far away, where the use of Indians from the Longlac reserve has been more successful on the part of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation. I would like some kind of elaboration from the minister as to the steps that have been taken of a persistent kind-at least, I hope they have been persistent-to see if some kind of continuing relationship cannot be worked out with these paper companies and with the unions for the benefit of the Indians.
The union people-I must be frank-are very critical of the Indian service, perhaps more critical than the service deserves; but I can assure the minister that their idealism in this situation is of a very substantial kind. They would be willing to go out of their way to see that the Indians were given an opportunity to have regular work whatever the relationship of the Indian might be to the
1766	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration standard kind of seniority that happens to exist and is becoming more important in the woods and forests.
The last point I should like to raise with the minister stems from a letter I have received from the Indian chief at Mobert, Ontario, which is not too far from White River. The complaints I have received from the chief really deal with the ineffectiveness of welfare provisions during the winter. He has expressed concern to me over the fact that when an Indian is sick it is almost impossible to get him out to hospitalization because no one has any money and no emergency funds are available, and he has not, according to his letter, the authority to do anything about it.
His other complaint is that assistance is not forthcoming as easily as it should be to young men of the band who do not happen to be married. He feels that there is a calculated toughness on the part of the department with these young unmarried Indians, he thinks they are being treated far too harshly and the suggestion in correspondence to me is that this should be changed.
These are some of the problems of the Indians that I thought I should bring to the minister's attention. In terms of their importance, of course, I think an attempt to work out a relationship between the woods industry, the unions engaged in that industry and the Indian affairs branch to give the Indians a steadier basis of employment in the whole region from Sioux Lookout eastward to Hornepayne, and all the way down along the lake Superior periphery, would be most advantageous.
The question of the elections is something that we can all either get worked up or irate about, or we can even see it as something very funny, but I think most hon. members of the house will realize that in the next election we are trying an experiment, in the way that this is the first time in a national sense that Indians will have had the vote. I think all of us, no matter how we might like the votes of Indians to come to our particular party, will hope that the whole matter will run off very fairly. Given the situation that we have had in northwestern Ontario in the provincial elections, there are possibilities of our doubting this situation.
The final matter is really a general one and I should just like to repeat it. I would like some estimate from the minister as to the situation of the Indians whom Chief Telford Adams has said are in the worst condition of any Indians that he knows about in Canada, and whom the Indian gentleman in the other place has suggested to me need much more looking after than they are getting at the present time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: First of all, let me say that I did answer the hon. member's letters to me and I outlined to him the situation as far as I could discover it with reference to this section of the country. I told him at that time that although Chief Telford Adams had made these statements not only this year but last year in a general way, up to the present time we had nothing to substantiate those charges. There were only his statements which we had read in the papers. We received no protest from him by way of a letter, neither did we receive any protests from people from other parts of the country so we were somewhat at a loss to know how to proceed in the absence of anything more specific.
The people to whom the hon. member refers, are largely nomads. It is hard to find them in a given place at a given time and this complicates immeasurably the problem of their care and welfare. I must say I was interested to hear about the results of previous elections. It only goes to show that one does not have to be able to read and write in order to be intelligent. I may say, though, with respect to the taking of the vote, that no matter whether it is in an urban area or a rural area or even in a remote region of Canada, that is the responsibility of the chief electoral officer, and I am sure the worst thing I could do as a minister would be to interfere in any way with voting in an election, or attempt to influence the Indians in any way whatsoever.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not suggest the minister should interfere but I should like to know what instructions, if any, are going out to her Indian agents with regard to this matter. I do not want to make charges in this committee in relation to this subject, but perhaps the minister will understand an assurance from me that I am certain I can explain to her why the vote is swung so strongly in some areas of the country. It has a direct relationship, in provincial elections, with the Indian agents. I should like to know what instructions are likely to be given out, and whether the agents are to be asked to go out of their way to see that in any places where they have any kind of advisory jurisdiction these things are run fairly. That is all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No instructions go out from my department, nor will any instructions go from my department with reference to Indians in relation to elections.


Mr. Baldwin:: Something was said a little while ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East about appearances before the joint committee. I was a member of that committee for the three years during which it functioned.

We sat through many long and weary hours over that period and I am glad to say there was very little evidence of political bias or partisanship, though possibly it did creep in in the last year. However, with regard to the right of various groups and organizations to appear I should like to refer the hon. member and others in this committee to the preamble to the second and final report of the joint committee which was filed by the chairman last year. I am reading from the second paragraph which states:
During the present session your committee completed its examination of Indian administration and thoroughly reviewed the Indian Act. Thirty five additional witnesses were heard this session. Since June, 1959, there have been 97 meetings and over 100 witnesses have been heard. In addition, included in the minutes of proceedings and evidence, as appendices thereto, are 80 written submissions received by your committee from Indian organizations and bands, provincial governments, church authorities and other organizations and groups interested in the welfare and advancement of the Indian Canadian.
My recollection is that a number of witnesses made not only one but two appearances. I had the honour to serve as vice-chairman of the committee last year and I presided at a number of meetings. We did decide at a meeting of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure to adopt the rule that where there had been one appearance there would not be another during the current year because we felt the time had come when a report should be written. With regard to the group mentioned by the hon. member, there was a discussion and in view of the fact that this particular group apparently had its headquarters outside this country, and because, as the minister has pointed out, the things they wished to say had largely been covered by previous briefs and submissions made by other groups during the course of our proceedings, we felt that no good purpose would be served by calling these people here to give evidence. Apart from that, every opportunity was given to every organization and group to make oral representations and, if they wished, to supplement them by written briefs. Those are the facts.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with vote 618. I noted the statement made by the hon. lady yesterday in relation to economic development. That comes under vote 622. However, I should like to ask this question under vote 618.
I have taken a keen interest in Indian affairs for around 30 years. However, I do not maintain that I am a specialist on Indian affairs, so when I learned that this vote was likely to be discussed today I looked for additional advice and information. I had a talk
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration with an hon. member in the other place. Naturally, that was Senator Gladstone who certainly must be regarded as an expert on Indian affairs. He told me that the native Indians do not want charity; they do not want to be a charge on the people of Canada. They want to be first class Canadian citizens. They want policies promulgated and put into action which will result in their being first class citizens whether on the reserves or elsewhere. One of the matters about which the hon. senator was good enough to advise me concerned the care of Indians in special circumstances-the word "charity" is not one I wish to use in this connection. I should like to link this subject with the statement made by the minister on economic development, but I shall have to deal with that subject under another vote. In view of the opinions expressed by Senator Gladstone, may I ask the minister to explain the basis upon which aid is given through the Indian agencies on these grounds of requirement and necessity? Does it differ in various parts of Canada or is there any general and basic policy? I would appreciate receiving that information. I shall leave the other aspects until we reach vote No. 622.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand that the hon. member is now asking about welfare?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the amounts as set out in votes Nos. 620 and 621 total $482,500 representing additional amounts required this year for welfare. Of this amount the sum of $21,000-but possibly I had better start with British Columbia and the Yukon-


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I am not interested in the amounts. I wish to know the policy governing the granting of welfare.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Generally speaking it is on the same basis as that adopted by the various municipalities. That is to say that although in most cases the Indian bands are not treated as municipalities we do have some Indian bands that are treated as municipalities. As I say, however, by and large they are not treated as municipalities. The welfare which is handled for them is handled pretty much on the same basis as that handled in municipalities in the various provinces. In some cases the bands themselves have advanced to the stage where their own band council handles the disposition of welfare within its band. This again varies all the way from the recommendations coming from the band council and the welfare being dispensed by the superintendent, right up to
1768	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the whole oi the revenue funds being in the hands of the band as they would be in any municipality and the band making its own budget and dispensing its own welfare to its own members, much as a municipal council would do in any municipality in Canada. That is a broad general description of the process followed. If the hon. member wished specific details about any one place I would have to find out which method of administration is in practice in a specific band.


Harold Edward Winch: I am disturbed and worried about what I am told concerning the way welfare is dispersed in British Columbia on some occasions. That is why I asked about the policy.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Although I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from asking questions I might say in the part that is devoted to welfare in the supplementary estimates there is nothing for relief. That has already been taken care of. There may be some further amounts in the final supplementaries when they come up.
As I said a couple of days ago when I introduced these estimates, all of these moneys are for winter works of one kind or another. Some of it falls within welfare, some falls within the agencies division and some falls within economic development, and so on. In other words this is all for work.


Harold Edward Winch: I will not accept that. Vote No. 618 relates to Indian agencies, operation and administration. That covers the operation of the Indian affairs branch.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is perfectly true. I have no hesitation in answering this so far as I can. But I say the additional funds which are required are not required for the relief portion but for the works portion. However, I now have at hand a general summary of the basis upon which relief as such is dispensed.
The rates vary according to high cost areas or special circumstances. The standard rates are: for a single adult, $22; each additional adult or child over 12 years of age, $15; each child 12 years of age or under, $12. Hon. members will recall that this scale was raised about two years ago, I think it was.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister means this is the current rate?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, this is the current rate.


Harold Edward Winch: This is the current rate?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: And the minister says that is in line with the payments under welfare?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. This is for food only. In addition to this, clothing and fuel and rental and so on are looked after. This is merely the food rate and it is in line with the welfare payments under the provincial authorities.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I had really only one point that would be specifically related to item 618, referring to the operation and maintenance of Indian agencies. We of course have a big population explosion in all areas where there are Indians. This is to be noticed particularly north of Red Lake in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. I was going to suggest with respect to agencies that a terrific amount of territory is given to the superintendent at Sioux Lookout. There is no regular air service or highway service connecting Sioux Lookout with Red Lake. I think that with the increased population which is fairly general Red Lake should be looked at as a place where a new Indian agency should be established.
This is all I normally would have said under item 618 but I find that quite a number of hon. members recognize that we have on the part of Indian agencies a rather wide range of supervision over Indian affairs of all kinds and they have referred to economic matters and welfare matters, if not the field of education. Perhaps if I tell the minister I intend to be brief she will allow me to make a few remarks in a general way without dealing with subsequent items in the estimates.
In my experience there is a very close connection between welfare, education and economic development. In fact, I find great difficulty in separating them.
With respect to welfare I was surprised to hear the minister generalize in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East when she said that our scale of relief-although relief is not specifically before us now-was on a basis comparable to that adopted by the municipalities.
In the first instance, despite the fact that the minister says $22 a month for a single person makes provision only for food and that there are other disbursements from the department to such an individual, I think she made too broad a statement to satisfy members of the committee that all is well in connection with welfare for our Indian people.
The minister said a change had been made a couple of years ago in the scale of relief. I am interested in that because the last specific reference I have to the monthly relief available to a single person indicates that it was $22 a month and my letter is dated a little over two years ago. There was not very much additional assistance given to the

individual to whom I have reference and although I will not name the individual I will indicate that the file number is 144-37-7. While others have enjoyed some increase in municipal and federal welfare benefits the rate of $22 by way of relief for a single person seems to be the same today as it was two years ago and I do not know for how long prior to February, 1960.
In very current correspondence of only two weeks ago from Sandy lake I got some information but I admit it is not in all respects conclusive because it does not indicate how many dependants are involved in each family. I shall therefore refer only to those instances where it is clear that we are dealing with an individual. I have here a reference to one of my constituents who, it is said, was separated from her husband and who was an old age pensioner. It is to the effect that for the last 12 months she received relief totalling $300. It is said that this was the maximum amount allowable under our regulations. Everyone will recognize the fact that this works out to about $25 a month. This woman is still on relief. I would not say that amount in any way is comparable to what is available to a single woman in a municipality.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the hon. member this question. Did she not indicate what else she had besides the allowance for food? That is the food allowance only. She would also have fuel allowance and she would probably have clothing allowance if she needed it. However, it is true that would be the amount for food.


William Moore Benidickson: I am very much concerned about these matters. I have a great number of them although I have only a few noted. Another one for four months during the winter of 1961 received relief amounting to $168. Another one worked as a painter for the Hudson's Bay Company during the summer of 1961 and received relief totalling $256 for 4 months in the winter of 1961 and was paid $50 during part of January. He signified that he would rather work than accept relief. Presumably this is the ration of work for it, cut off at about $50 a month. Under the paternalism that exists in some places, even the work must be rationed.
We know that the Indians are today competing with the unemployed wherever they go; and, of course, even after our attempts at integration, they have had the competition of immigration and other factors in their economic life.
In connection with welfare I wish to say this. I assume that housing comes under welfare or does it come under the economic division? In any event, this area of which I
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration speak has a substantial Indian population. Its geographical area is perhaps larger than the whole of the British Isles. I am told that this particular agency at Sioux Lookout has for the whole area only $42,000 to expend on housing. As hon. members well know, this amount will not go very far. I know that expenditures have increased substantially year by year. However, population in this ethnic group is increasing more rapidly than in any other ethnic group in Canada. In addition to that fact, we must recognize that they are very much behind other segments of the population with respect to advantages enjoyed. There must be some accelerated program. As we advance in the field of education we must advance in parallel fields. We must have greater expenditure in the welfare and the economic field for things such as housing. I was surprised the other day to read that up until 1960 a great number of Indians were assisted in connection with housing. The minister will refresh me if I am in error but I believe that 10,000 Indian families had been helped since 1948 in housing. But when I relate the matter to my own riding and find that only $42,000 was provided in the estimates last year for this purpose, I realize that it would not go very far. I assume that some of that money would go toward the saw mills and other aids that have been provided in this vast area. In connection with the revolving fund I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I say that no money goes to the saw mills for housing unless it is to purchase lumber for use in the construction of houses. If that is what my hon. friend meant, it is true that we purchase lumber from the saw mills for use in construction. However, I draw to his attention the fact that since 1958, I think it was, the amount expended on housing has been more than doubled as compared with the amount expended in previous years. It used to be $1 million a year. It is now $2 million. I think the first supplementary estimate for housing was in the 1958-59 estimates. It has been $2 million a year since then. It is true enough that even $2 million spread over the length and breadth of Canada is not a tremendous amount. However, that is not the whole story. The Indians themselves help out wherever they can do so. If they are employed, they themselves contribute in cash. If they are unemployed, they contribute their own effort toward the erection of these houses. Up until this past year we have been able to erect these houses-and they are fairly reasonable houses-for approximately $2,500 cost to the department. Of course, there will be additional expenditures in time or effort by the Indians themselves. In some cases the
1770	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration band councils, if they have funds, would contribute. By and large I think the $2 million would swell to an amount in excess of $4 million in a given year for housing. However, I agree with the hon. member that possibly this amount does not go too far. Nevertheless it is a considerable item.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not criticizing the minister. There has been progress in so far as expenditures are concerned. However, we also have population growth and inflated costs of everything that is purchased today. By way of illustration may I say that in 1948 I believe we were spending about $5 million on education. That amount grew to $25 million in 1960, according to some of the evidence given before the Indian affairs committee. However, we must remember that enrolments in the schools went up in the same period from 23,000 to 40,000, plus the extra costs of doing these things and the better accommodation that is provided today than that which the architects would perhaps have provided in 1948 and so on. I am not criticizing. I simply wish to relate the expenditures on education of, I suppose, $28 million or $29 million this year, a rather small amount relatively, to those that are not young but who are adults and who are not economically really afloat in many ways, in my opinion. I question whether, in the entire appropriation of the minister's department, although it has increased, there is relatively a proper relationship between educational grants and economic and welfare grants. In connection with economic development I feel that there has been noticeable expansion. I compliment the officers of the department and the minister. This is not something that happened in the last four years. The minister will give credit to her predecessors. It is something that perhaps had its impetus after world war II when we had more contact with members of this population who had served so well in world war II and so on. However, I see some signs of advance in such things as wild rice harvesting. I commend the province of Ontario for making the wild rice crop the first prerogative of the Indian population in Ontario.
I should like to have some indication from the minister's economic advisers as to the selling arrangement in connection with wild rice. I hope that a very real advance has been made in preventing any freeloading on the Indians with respect to the wild rice crop, which is a very valuable one in our part of the country.
In so far as fishing is concerned, I know that is a delicate area for the department. The


provinces have control of the commercial fishing licences, and I think an effort is being made to obtain more of these commercial licences for the Indians. I think the minister might report on the progress in this respect. I am not one who has hopes we will have the minister before us this session with her main estimates. I am concerned about some publicity that was given in my own area at the end of 1960 and also in 1961 to the effect that commercial fish dealers of the territory might, in combination, form some kind of fish filleting plant and in concert deal with the Indians. I wonder whether or not this plan has gone forward, or whether or not the plan of the Indians, under the guidance of the department, for selling their fish products under sealed bids is to be continued.
Then, in so far as the revolving fund for loans is concerned, what is the amount of the fund at the present time? I believe formerly it was $500,000. Is it now $1 million? What utilization is being made of that?
I am not going to frighten the minister by reminding her of my annual reference to the difficulties in making Red Lake a pilot plant for the integration of Indians who leave the reservations and go into the commercial life of the community. I simply show her again my ever-growing file of frustration and lack of co-operation between the municipal, provincial and federal governments. There are three related spheres here, education, welfare which involves housing, and of course economics, which involves the opportunity of the parent perhaps to put the child in a proper school with families of better economic background. I find that neither under this government nor the former government has there been any progress whatever in Red Lake.
Under the former administration, I believe the department had finally reached two significant points. One was that on education, as on housing, they would recognize what I call the bridge period, the period between residence on a reservation and arrival in an organized municipality in an attempt to integrate into the normal commercial life. In so far as education is concerned in Red Lake, I had been assured that, as a token of interest on the part of the federal government and without interference with the rights of the province in education, the federal government would pay 5 per cent of the costs of education. This was the normal contribution at that time in this area by the residents of the improvement districts.
Now, this scheme has not advanced. We have a public school and now we have a separate school. I agreed not to press to have the public school take certain Indian children

with the expectation that a number of Indian children who needed education and were the children of nomadic parents, would then go into the separate school. The separate school asked me for a deferment. We have only four children in this separate school after all of this delay. The former minister of education, Mr. Dunlop, made speeches to the effect that, as provincial education minister, he felt that even the education of Indians, if they were off the reserve, must be the responsibility of the provinical department. But nothing has happened in this connection. What we are doing now is taking charity from the Amish missionary church of Pennsylvania. For three or four years I have been pointing out to the department that people down in the United States are being told that we are just about as far away as China and just about as deserving as China, in so far as Christian charity is concerned. It is a shame that in an organized municipality Canadian Indians must receive support from Pennsylvania. They have been receiving this support to the extent that 44 Indians have been enrolled in this school because they are not accepted in the separate school or the public school. In addition, provisions are made at this missionary school for lunches for these children, I suppose because in many cases the children cannot count on the parents being around to provide a meal at noonday.
I feel that the department has looked upon this plan with undue coolness. I say they should have another look at it. I would prefer, if this organization wants to do Christian missionary work, that they do so outside of the confines of the organized municipality. It is a shame upon us that these children have to be supported by United States charity in an area that has produced over the last ten years perhaps $100 million worth of gold. This government, following the pattern set by the previous government, probably gives in subsidies to the gold mines of Red Lake about three quarters of a million dollars a year. They are doing practically nothing for the Indian population that actually resides in the gold producing area. I say that my thought about the bridge period is something that should be followed up.
However, this plan has not been discarded because when I was in Red Lake last, just before Christmas, I found two senior officers of the Indian affairs branch visiting Red Lake. This event occurs every year and has continued for ten years. The department, therefore, has not washed its hands of responsibility because representatives are still going up there, from which an inference is drawn that some help is going to come from the department. I was bitterly disappointed to
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration read only this morning that, in so far as housing is concerned, the premier had made a statement at Queen's Park to the effect that there are 12 new fields of housing help that are under study. One was help for Indians who require housing off the reservation.
I sympathize with the minister in this difficulty in trying to associate with the provinces with respect to the needs of people who we are not sure are going to stay off the reservations. The public looks upon them as Indians because they have been so recently associated with the reserves. The municipalities feel they are Indians, for a few years anyway, until they accept steady employment. The province is jealous of its responsibility in education and of course in housing and in health as well as welfare. The net result is that over ten years I feel we have fallen behind rather than gone ahead, especially if we are looking for Red Lake to be a pilot plant; and I think it could be a good pilot plant respecting integration-
In housing, as well as education for Indians at Red Lake, I say we have gone behind rather than ahead. Just before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate left office as minister of citizenship and immigration I was told that the revolving fund regulations had been changed for the purpose of making it possible to make a loan to an Indian, even where the Indian had his house off the reservation. I am told that is not so and that I must go to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation so far as my Indian constituents are concerned. How ridiculous can you be? Everybody knows the high standards of house construction that are necessary before an Indian can apply for a loan to Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
What we have there are shacks that should not be tolerated in any area anywhere near concentrated population. They have been condemned. I sent three reports to the minister, from Rev. Jay, from Dr. Morris and Dr. Langford, which were signed by anthropologists and other professional visitors to the community who say it is a disgrace in a community that has produced a couple of hundred million dollars worth of gold in the last number of years. This buck passing must come to an end.
I realize that the junior governments are equally difficult to deal with, but the Indians themselves are getting no help. If it were not for the charity of this American organization, the Amish church of Pennsylvania, we would have 44 students who would not be accepted in a fairly large and prosperous community of Ontario. I say that if there is not accommodation in the public school and if there is not accommodation in the separate school, as these are children of nomadic
1772	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration parents the department should do what it promised to do some years ago, and that is try and co-operate with the province in establishing a bridge on health, education and housing for a period of a few years, and not be so sticky about this question of "on reserve" and "off reserve".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have every sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but he himself has hit the nail right on the head when he talks about the responsibilities of the various levels of government. It is true that by and large this department's responsibility revolves around the Indians who are domiciled on reserves, but to extend housing aid to Indians not on reserves is a different problem and involves negotiations at various levels.
I should also tell the hon. member that the Red Lake problem is one that has been of continuing concern to the department. None of these Indians live on the reserve and most of them have been off it-


William Moore Benidickson: They live on and off it.
Mrs. Fairclough -for a long time, and it is a little difficult to know where the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities take over. I can assure him that this is a continuing problem for study by the department, but we do hope we shall be able to come up with the answers at least to the educational problem and such other problems as may be related thereto, in the not too distant future.
Speaking of northern Ontario in general I should draw attention to a press release which I issued under date of March 1, just two weeks ago, with respect to an agreement entered into by the minister of this department and the minister of lands and forests for the province of Ontario, having to do with the fur research program between the two levels of government, and which in turn sponsored the signing of this new agreement which is designed to improve the livelihood of persons in the remote, underdeveloped areas of northern Ontario.
The fur agreement, which was in effect before the new agreement, has been expanded to include all renewable resources including fish, wild crops and timber and it no longer includes ordinary supervision of the fur program which is now self-sustaining. This agreement is for a ten-year period and will help the people in northern' areas who still depend on these natural resources for their livelihood. It is estimated it will affect the lives of some 24,000 Indians, as well as other inhabitants of the north.
This agreement, as stated in the release, deals with the development, management and


harvesting of a number of resources and includes commercial fishing, that is sustained yield production, and fishing and hunting for domestic use. It includes sports fishing and assistance to guides for people hunting on reserves. It also includes wild berries, blueberries, the training of forest fire fighters and the processing and marketing of various products. The advisory committee is composed of five members, two from the federal government and three from the provincial government. That is a brief outline of what has been agreed to between the two levels of government.
I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked me for these figures and I would advise him that in 1960-61, 1,225 houses were built at a cost of $3,841,519 of which $2 million came from fund resources, and Indian bands contributed some 43 per cent of that amount. Since 1958 the amount spent on housing has been in the region of $2 million per year, and although the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has given up hope of reaching the main estimates for this year, and I must say I do not agree with him, if he looks at them he will find this amount has been increased to $2,750,000 for the coming year.


Chesley William Carter: Since my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River has introduced the subject of education I should like to ask the minister a few questions about the situation in the school at Doig, near Rose Prairie, British Columbia. From editorials and press reports published in the Alaskan Highway News and the Fort Nelson News it appears that a gentleman by the name of Simon Flynn was appointed to this school and arrived to take up his duties there some time in October.
He was not given very clear instructions as to the extent of his duties and responsibilities, or the kind of curriculum he was to teach. He was not told what provisions were made for school supplies and what arrangements were to be followed with respect to the health care of the pupils under his charge. Neither was he told about the chain of command if information was required on any of these matters.
When he opened the school he discovered only an average of 10 children attended and that there were a number of other children at some distance from the school who could not get to it because there was no road. He found the fuel and lighting arrangements were so poor that he was only able to teach on an average of about 10 days a month, about half of the regular school days. Apparently he complained about this to somebody and it got in the press. As a result of that he was told he was fired; the keys were taken from him and he packed up and prepared to

depart. I think he went to Fort St. John. Then he was told that he was not fired. In the meantime a committee of the Fort St. John chamber of commerce, I think it was, headed by a person who was connected with the school board and who was probably the chairman of the school board, investigated those complaints which the teacher had made and found them to be substantially correct. Then of course the teacher was told that he had not been fired, but having been told that he was required to take an oath of secrecy.
I should like to ask the minister if she would enlighten the committee as to what exactly took place in the school, what exactly was the situation and why was this teacher required to take an oath of secrecy?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this is another of those garbled up stories that gets bandied about. Perhaps I should start by saying that first of all the school was not on a reservation. To go back a little, these people moved from the reservation and gathered around this crossroads simply because there was a store there. They lived there for a while and finally, since they were Indians and had come from a reservation not too far away-if my memory serves me well, something like 10 miles away-the department did manage to make available a one-room schoolhouse. As the hon. member says, there were only about 10 children there; it was a very small community.
It is a little difficult to get teachers to go to these remote areas but finally this young man was recruited, I think by correspondence. He was a British subject but he was then living in the United States. He went up there. His stories of what he encountered are slightly exaggerated, according to the information I have received. It is true that there were some difficulties. For instance, a well was to have been dug, but because of the remoteness of the area the contractors who had undertaken to dig the well did not show up. He went into this school and he thought there were things he should have had that he did not have, but in the matter of school supplies he could have had them simply by applying to the school superintendent, which he did not do.
There were a number of matters of this nature. They culminated in his writing a letter to a newspaper complaining about the shortcomings with respect to this school. Most of them could have been supplied to him had he gone to the proper source, the superintendent, who would have received his representations and seen that he had the required equipment.
He was not dismissed at any time. He was told that he had to teach in accordance with the standards required by the school. Also, he was not asked to take an oath of
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration secrecy. What he was asked to do was take the oath of allegiance which all civil servants are required to take. He was now a civil servant and he was asked to take the oath of allegiance, and this he refused to do.
The whole thing was pretty mixed up, but to cut a long story short, the store which was at the crossroads has now closed, so ostensibly the reason for the Indians congregating there has passed and we rather expect that they will go back to the reservation. When they do, proper accommodation will be available to them there.
However, the matter has been one of concern. As I said at the beginning, it is a story which has been badly garbled. We tried to handle it as best we could, but it is a very remote area and one in which all the facilities are not available. Although the department has done its best, I would admit that there is probably something to be desired in the accoutrements and the accommodation that is available at that very remote spot.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, the minister said it was not an oath of secrecy but the oath of allegiance that he was required to take. Was this standard procedure; did his predecessor have to take the oath of allegiance?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: His immediate predecessor was not a civil servant; he was only a part time teacher engaged until this man got there.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, before the estimates we are now considering are passed, I should like to make a few remarks, particularly as regards the question raised a moment ago by the member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) in his opening remarks. As a matter of fact, he said that the Indian agency in his area covered a huge territory and, on that account, he felt justified to suggest that a new agency office be opened to look more closely after the welfare of the Indian population in that district through the construction of schools, and steps to improve the economic situation and the education standards in the various Indian bands in northern Ontario.
I should like to make a similar suggestion about northern Quebec. I would ask the minister to give consideration to the opening of a new Indian agency in the Chapais-Chi-bougamau area, where it would be easier to look after the Indians of the great lake Mistassini, Nemiscau, Rupert House and East-main on James bay, Waswanipi, in the northern section of my riding. The new agency could even cover the area further north as far as Fort George, Great Whale in the constituency of Saguenay, in Paint Hills, and

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration particularly along the shore of Hudson's hay where most of the Indians in that district are established.
I understand that the work presently carried out at the Amos Indian agency, which covers most of that area, is excellent. New schools have already been built in various places, and I understand that others will be built, not to mention the additional welfare and assistance facilities for the Indians of great lake Mistassini. There are plans for the construction of a new day-school in Waswa-nipi, where the improvements I just mentioned will be found.
In my opinion, this territory is so wide that it is almost humanly impossible for a single agency to deal with all its problems. Moreover, with the mining development which has taken place in the Chapais-Chibougamau region in the last ten years or so, it is important that northern Indians be served from that locality.
In fact, a few years ago, local citizens formed a committee which, if I am not mistaken, is called the northern citizens' association. The committee is particularly interested in the future of the Indians in that part of the constituency of Chapleau. I feel that the establishment of a new agency is essential, because we must not forget that mining company officials are well-disposed towards the Indians. A few Indians are already working for some of the mines and other companies are hopeful of getting a greater number to work for them in the years to come.
And now, before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I will simply refute an article which has perhaps already been discussed but which is so unfair that I feel compelled to talk about it because it deliberately overlooks the efforts of this government to increase the estimates for Indian education through the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
(Text):
I am referring to what I might call a silly, if not vicious, article which appeared in the magazine Saturday Night of March 3 last which mentioned that the main estimates, not including the present supplementary estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with which we are now dealing had increased at a time when immigration had decreased. I believe it is unfair to say this. If hon. members look at the records they will find that the estimates of the Indian affairs branch have increased, votes which, of course, come under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. This government has tried to increase

help for the Indians in the past four years, particularly in respect to education. I am sure this article is most unfair in saying that the estimates of the department have increased at a time when the number of immigrants have decreased. I feel it is our duty to look after the Indians of this country in a better way than in the past to make them first class citizens. I think the present government has understood this and has been taking action along these lines.


Mr.   Carier@: One final question about the Doig River Indians. Will the minister say what arrangements exist for the medical care of these people? If I remember correctly, one woman froze to death there in the absence of aid. In addition, a couple of children are reported to have died in circumstances in which medical care was not available. On one occasion a teacher took a school child, one of his pupils I think, to Fort St. John and then he had to transport the child back in his own car. Whatever arrangements exist do not seem to be functioning very well and I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what facilities exist in cases like these.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not the responsibility of my department. That is a matter for the Department of National Health and Welfare and is not covered by this vote. I am not familiar with the particular cases to which the hon. member referred. In any event they come under the Department of National Health and Welfare, and perhaps the hon. member will bring this question up when the estimates of that department are presented.


William Moore Benidickson: I rise only to try and
keep my conscience clear; I said I would not rise on the subsequent items.
I did not feel the minister had answered one or two points. She did say the bands look after their own welfare to a degree. I think there are some 600 bands. That plodding and brilliant reporter on Indian affairs, Mr. Arch Mackenzie, estimated, when he looked at this problem in 1960, that out of these 600 bands only a few had even a limited degree of self-government; their decisions were always subject to being overruled by higher authority.
On the subject of welfare, could the minister bring us up to date by telling us how many bands have reached the point where they can look after their own welfare on the lines suggested by the hon. lady? When I spoke about a recent speech of the premier of Ontario with regard to the ninth and twelfth

points in his housing program, I did not have any of the details in my hand. But I want now to place this on record. I think it is getting some-what late. It may be a stopgap, but I think the minister will agree that after we have been talking for ten years about housing for Indians at Red Lake the time for action rather than for planning has certainly come. The premier says, as his ninth point, that the public housing program as it has been carried out up to now caters mainly to the needs of a larger organized municipality. We all agree on that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not clear where the hon. member is leading. Is this provincial-


William Moore Benidickson: I am back to Red Lake.
I have indicated that there is a relationship between health, housing and economic opportunities.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, but whose point is this?


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to a speech made last week by the premier of Ontario with respect to public housing. I want to pay him due respect, but the educational program has been a worry to us all for a long time. Housing has been a worry to us for a long time. The province says that when the Indians are off the reserves they are a provincial responsibility as far as education and housing are concerned. I say that the community does not regard them as being completely the responsibility of either a municipality or of the province in a normal way. The community still regards them as being to some extent nomadic and as to some extent the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government, both with respect to housing and with respect to education has assured me it would recognize this situation and recognize the desirability of there being a bridge period of a few years during which a contribution would be made federally to these Indians despite the fact that they were not living on reserves. This is a sincere observation-it is not really political-but I do not like it too well when the premier of Ontario says he has 12 new observations to make with respect to housing and one of them is to look at the housing needs of the Indians who have left reserves to work in the mines or in the mills. Not to do something, mind you, but to look. The department knows we have had Indians in Red Lake for ten years-Indians who have left the reserve to work in mines or mills- and I say the time has come, not to study the situation but to do something about it.
I know the minister gets frustrated, too, because after all this is a domain over which the province of Ontario has jurisdiction,
13, 1962	1775
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration namely health, housing and education. However, I do not think the minister's reply was satisfactory with regard to this phase of the discussion.
As far as education is concerned, I omitted to say previously that I was concerned about truancy, particularly with respect to children whose parents earn their livelihood by fishing and trapping beyond the municipal boundaries. What co-operation is the minister getting from the province of Ontario in enforcing the truancy laws?
The minister did not reply to my observations in respect to the United States charitable institution. I would be satisfied if she would say she would have another look at this matter.
Then I referred to one of three or four reports of sociologists and anthropologists who have gone to this area because it stands out like a sore thumb. I referred to the observations and report of the Rev. Jay, a United Church student pastor who thoughtfully wrote a report on the situation there. He said a community of this kind needed, during the bridge period, as I call it, a representative of the federal department who would be a guidance officer for these people. Is it possible to provide such a service? The author definitely advocates, in addition, a hostel for the use of people who are in transit between a reserve and a civilized community.
Kenora, through the Presbyterian church, has a new institution of whose existence I am sure the minister is aware. I hope the hon. lady will regard it very carefully. As I understand the position, no contribution has been made to this hostel by the federal government. I think that probably a contribution should be made. I believe the church on its own has paid some $30,000 initially as part of a home missionary effort to acquire the property to provide for the needs of Indians in transit in and out of Kenora, some guidance, some comfort and some amenities, even basic amenities which are not provided on the main street of the town. This kind of thing, I think, should perhaps be encouraged to some extent by the department, knowing as we do that economic opportunities are not very good for this exploding population in the north. I would hope the minister would provide to some of these communities or to the churches aid for hostels. Hostels were high on the list in the report to which I referred.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that I had answered the hon. member but possibly I did not make myself clear with respect to the Amish school. I intended to include it in my reference to the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration whole matter being under consideration. I meant the whole matter of Red Lake, including the school, too.
We are very much interested in the hostel at Kenora. I think it is an excellent step in the right direction. Personally I am not too sure that this is a matter in which Indian affairs should participate. I would think there might be a better case made for participation by the citizenship department. However, this is again a matter which is being considered. We are watching it very closely. We think it is an excellent idea. Of course, the ultimate good will come when these people are accepted into normal accommodation and into the normal economic and social life of the community. I realize there is a transition period where it is a little difficult to know how to handle them and the hostel will undoubtedly do a good job.


William Moore Benidickson: It is so all-important, that is the point, and no money is being provided.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is right; it is extremely important. This is a fairly recent development. I wish to assure the hon. member that I am keenly aware of the situation in that area and the Red Lake area in particular is one we have been watching very carefully. Of course, we run into difficulty there as both the hon. member and I remarked earlier this evening in deciding who is responsible for people who have for ten years been off the reservation.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, even for two.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know whether these people are living in houses and paying municipal taxes and so on. They are certainly earning their livelihood in their communities and to all intents and purposes they are citizens of the municipalities. However, these are simply offhand remarks and are not intended to be an answer to the hon. member's question. We have taken a note of the other items on which he remarked and I shall see that he receives an answer to the specific points I have been unable to answer in my remarks this evening.


William Moore Benidickson: I wish to make one other observation and I think there is some advantage in doing so. The minister will be aware that there was recently held in Winnipeg what I believe is called a metis conference. Will the minister confirm that I have properly designated it?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If I am thinking of the same one it is called the greater Winnipeg council of social agencies or-


William Moore Benidickson: Welfare council?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -planning council or some such thing.


William Moore Benidickson: In Kenora, although not all people are interested in the problem of the integration of the Indians-and that is our difficulty-a sufficient number of people are interested that approximately 12 people at their own expense travelled 150 miles from Kenora to attend this conference in Winnipeg. Included among them were the recreational director, a couple of clergymen, an educator and a representative of the chamber of commerce. They attended the conference at their own expense. These people from Kenora are interested in the problem of trying to make the Indian welcome in the community. These are people that are farsighted enough to know that this is a problem that has to be dealt with.
Although 12 went to Winnipeg and profited from attending the conference those in Kenora who are interested in this matter are wondering whether it is possible to arrange in Kenora through the co-operation of the Indian affairs branch a conference which could be attended by responsible officials of the minister's department, chiefs of the bands that are contiguous to Kenora, and so on.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course, the particular conference to which the hon. member refers was not organized by my department but wherever a conference is organized under whatever auspices and where the question of the welfare of Indians is the subject of discussion, on invitation from the sponsoring authorities we always do send representatives-


William Moore Benidickson: You send good representatives.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -who are prepared to discuss the problems with which they may be confronted.


William Moore Benidickson: All the representatives of the minister's department are good.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not receive an answer from the minister about Mobert, Ontario. I asked a question about complaints received from the chief about welfare provisions as established within the agency and his inability to get people who are sick to hospital because of lack of funds and the difficulty of getting welfare assistance for young unmarried Indian males.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Again any matters affecting health come under the Department of National Health and Welfare. Was there any question apart from that of medical care?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, whose responsibility is it? Where does the chief take his complaints when he finds that the provisions for welfare and

health are not adequate? My own feeling is that he should not be taking them to his member of parliament. They should be taken to the Indian agent closest to him. I should like to know who is looking after the Mobert band.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will be very glad to look into it, Mr. Chairman. I am not familiar offhand with the particular problem that is raised. As I said, any matters affecting health come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should think the chief could take his problems to the Indian superintendent. I will be very glad to look into the matter and see what I can find out about it for the hon. member.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a small question to the minister on a matter I raised last year concerning the housing project for the dominion Abitibi band reserve north of Amos. I understand that last year an amount was voted for a road or street development. I wonder whether there are any new developments and whether in the item for construction and acquisition we are about to vote there is an amount included for this housing project?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid my officials have not come prepared with a breakdown of what is available on individual reserves. I can tell the hon. member that for the province of Quebec out of this total vote there is an amount of all purposes of $45,300 and $18,500 for agencies, but whether a part of that refers to what the hon. gentleman has just mentioned I could not say. However, I will look it up and let him know.


William Moore Benidickson: I think this will be my last question of the minister. In the last item to which I will not speak there is reference to education. The minister and I have been in correspondence. I pointed out that some of our senior Indian students were required to travel as far as 1,000 miles away from home if they wished to pursue their education at the high school level. In reply the minister reported to me that she had a plan for providing high school education for Indians at the lakehead. Has the plan progressed? Alternatively, could the minister tell me whether she thinks it would be cheaper, wiser and better to provide boarding allowances to high school students who might attend the local high schools in the communities nearest to them such as Fort Frances, Kenora or Sioux Lookout?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, of course we would like to have these students attend non-Indian schools. We think it is better in the long run to have the Indians take their
Supply-Labour
education and particularly their high school education in integrated schools. But once more may I say that I do not have the head of our education branch here.


William Moore Benidickson: I know the minister will write me and explain the matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. I will do that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 618 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I take just one second before the vote carries, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I am rising to defend the minister. I wanted to say that I agree with the minister in her view that the Ontario government is not assuming its responsibilities in the matter of the education of these Indians who are not living on reserves. I did my best when I was minister to try to persuade them that Indians were citizens like other Canadians and that if they chose to live in a province and not on a reserve it was the business of the province to provide education for them as it did for other people. I am glad the minister took the same position tonight. I was rather hoping that one by-product of having a government of the political complexion of the present one was that the minister might have more influence at Queen's Park than I had. However, I am sorry that she has been obliged to confess the fact that she has no more influence than I had. If we both express in this House of Commons this view that the Ontario government ought to treat Indians as they treat other citizens, perhaps our voices may reach even to Queen's Park.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Dunlop said he would do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paul Raymond Martineau: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Technical and vocational training assistance-
636. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-payments to the provinces-further amount required, $28,400,000.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall vote 636 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that the minister has something to say on this item.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, this item in the further supplementary estimates for $28,400,000 is to provide additional funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, to meet our anticipated commitments under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.

Supply-Labour
A recent survey of the provinces indicated that claims made and to be submitted under the various programs provided for under the agreements for technical and vocational training assistance will now reach $75 million during the current fiscal year.
In the main estimates for 1961-62, the sum of $26,600,000 was provided: an additional $20 million was voted under item 534 of the supplementary estimates passed by the committee in September, 1961. This further sum of $28,400,000 is required to meet the claims expected as a result of the latest information we have now received from the provincial governments.
When we consider, Mr. Chairman, that federal payments for technical and vocational training during the past fiscal year, 1960-617, amounted in total to approximately $8,500,000, the committee will appreciate, I am sure, the rapid expansion which has taken place in the establishment of new training facilities under the new act.
Members of the committee will also appreciate from this large increase the major contribution which this government is making to meet the technical and vocational training needs across the country in co-operation with both provincial and local bodies.
Of the $75 million which I have mentioned, over $53 million will be paid this fiscal year for capital assistance to trade and vocational schools, technical institutions and vocational high schools or in other words to provide for training facilities.
Approval has been given so far under the agreements with the provinces for 245 projects. These cover the construction of 134 new schools, 80 major additions and 31 minor
additions to existing schools. These new facilities will provide for over 90,000 additional student placements.
It is obvious from the widespread response that the provincial and local authorities share the federal government's conviction that vigorous action is required to improve the technical knowledge and skill of our Canadian labour force.
It is this tremendous demand for new training facilities which has necessitated introducing this further supplemental estimate to provide for $28,400,000, in addition to the $46,600,000 in our original estimates.
The estimated total expenditure on the new projects is in excess of $269 million, of which the federal government's share will be about $179 million.
Included in these projects are the construction of one new institute of technology, 18 new trade schools, five new combined trade schools and institutes of technology and some 114 new vocational high schools.
Over and above these new schools, alterations and additions will be made to five institutes of technology, 16 trade schools, two combined trade schools and institutes, 56 vocational high schools and 31 minor alterations.
The total number of projects to date, the estimated expenditure for these new facilities, and the additional student accommodation by provinces, are as follows. I have here a table that I would ask permission of the committee to be included in Hansard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the minister leave to have printed in Hansard the table he has referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
New Technical and Vocational Training Facilities
Estimated capital expenditures by provinces on projects approved up to Feb. 23, 1962
Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.Number of projects	10	2	8	8	5Total cost $(000,000) Federal share	15.4	*	4.1	2.7	10.9$(000,000) 	11.5	*	3.1	1.8	5.0Additional student	accommodation (000) 	3.	*	1.5	1.5	2.5*The total to date is $8,968 of which the	federal


Michael Starr: The federal government, as members of the committee know, is contributing 75 per cent of the cost of this new construction up to March 31, 1963.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Much as I dislike interrupting the hon. member, it is now ten o'clock.

Ont.	Man. Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yuk.	Can.166	16	5	17	5	1	245188.6	4.2	1.9	28.8	12.0	.8	269.2124.4	3.1	.7	20.5	8.5	.6	179.270.0	1.9	.6	8.9	2.9	.1	92.8share	is $6,725.	Mr.	. Starr:	With	the	consent	of the	committee, may I say that I will take only about three minutes to complete my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Go ahead.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the minister leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: It will contribute 50 per cent under our agreements with all of the ten provinces after this date.
This multi-million dollar federal-provincial program is a massive national effort to increase training facilities and programs. It has already far exceeded what we hoped would result when we introduced our training legislation to parliament in 1960.
The response of the provinces to our offer to pay 75 per cent of provincial expenditures for new training facilities until March 31, 1963, has been nothing short of remarkable. We had hoped to increase Canadian facilities by 50 per cent in a five year period, but it now appears that this goal will be met in less than half the time.
In addition to this expansion of training facilities, sparked by the new legislation, the agreements with the provincial governments provide assistance in various ways for the development and operation of training programs for both youth and adults. These programs include vocational high school training, technician training, trade and occupational training, training in industry, training of unemployed persons, training of disabled, training of technical and vocational teachers, vocational correspondence courses and student aid.
One of the main reasons for this program of greatly expanded assistance to technical and vocational training is the necessity for developing more highly skilled members of the labour force in response to automation and technological change.
The training programs now in operation are placing increased emphasis upon technical knowledge both of those now employed and for youth. Programs are also being promoted in industrial establishments to keep workers abreast of technological changes and to raise levels of basic skills.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain briefly the composition of the item before us. By far the largest part of the total amount of $28,400,000 is required for capital assistance, namely, $24,550,000.
For technician training an amount of $3,341,300 is needed to provide for developments in this highly important area of training which were not foreseen when the original estimates were drawn up. The remaining amount of $508,700 is required, as explained in the estimates, to restore deductions made for anticipated lapses in the main estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister tomorrow, so that we can have these during the course
Supply-Labour
of the discussion, put on Hansard by provinces the places, the cities or communities in which these trade and vocational schools and technical institutions have been constructed or have been approved by the department?


Michael Starr: The table that I asked to have placed on Hansard as part of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, does show by provinces and the number of schools in each province, the cost of these schools in each province and the federal contribution. Now, I believe the hon. member says he would like to have a table showing where each school is located. I do not really know that we have that information, but in case he does wish only for that, that is fine. If he wishes anything more than that, I would appreciate it very much, so that we may be able to get all the information for him, if he would give us in writing what he wants.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not see what the minister's table contained, although as I looked at it from here it seemed to be a short one.


Michael Starr: It is all there.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the names of the schools are there.


Michael Starr: I say write everything down that you want.


Mr. Pallelt:: That is not what the hon. gentleman asked for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The names of the places.


John Cameron Pallett: The names of the places, not the names of the schools.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Lionel Chevrier: The committee allowed the minister some extra time beyond ten o'clock to conclude his statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But it was not allowed for you.


Lionel Chevrier: If you want to stop me, that is all right.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I know the committee gave permission for the minister to conclude his statement. I do not believe the committee has given leave for the debate to be further continued. I hear voices calling it ten o'clock, and I therefore feel it is my duty-


Lionel Chevrier: I am asking you to allow me to ask an additional question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In order to do so, I must put the question to the committee to ascertain if unanimous consent is given. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock.

Business of the House


Paul Raymond Martineau: It seems that unanimous consent is not given. Therefore, it being ten o'clock, I shall rise and report the several resolutions.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and next day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope tomorrow we will be able to complete the supplementary estimates, Mr. Speaker; tomorrow will be the twelfth day so far this session. Last year on similar supplementary estimates the committee spent three days. If we are finished the sup-plementaries tomorrow, then I expect we will go on with the main estimates for the next fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just bring to the attention of the house leader the fact that we have been on this group of supplmentary estimates, No. 3 for four days. We were on the further supplementary estimates, No. 2, to which the minister referred last night and lumped them with these, a period of six days. I do not consider both groups should be lumped together. They are separate groups of supplementary estimates, one of which was tabled earlier in the session and the other of which was tabled on February 8. The first group was tabled on January 24. From the information I have before me we have been only four days on the second group, supplementary estimates No. 3, five days counting today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And tomorrow will be the sixth day.


Mr. Hellyer:: And the seventh day we shall rest.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Out of 40 days of this session, 12 days have been on supplementary estimates, and we still have the final supple-mentaries.


[Stage Direction]
It being nine minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Indian agencies-
618.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $136,000.
619. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $342,550.
Welfare of Indians-
620.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $188,000.
619. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $294,500.
Economic development-
622.	Operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 61 of the main estimates, for 1961-62 to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of raw materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods; and to provide a further amount of, $91,000.
Education-
623.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $633,380.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 14, 1962