1965-06-21

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acling Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House will be aware that in spite of the efforts of the United Nations special committee on peace keeping operations, no agreement has been reached at the United Nations on methods to discharge the accumulated financial obligations occasioned by the refusal of some member states to pay their assessments for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations operation in the Congo. The total debt is something over $100 million.
In the hope that by constructive action the present deadlock might be broken, a number of governments are today announcing pledges of voluntary and unconditional contributions to help the United Nations out of its present financial difficulties, and they have so informed the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Canadian Government has participated in the consultations which led to this action, and I now wish to associate Canada with it. The Government has decided, subject to approval by Parliament, to make a similar pledge in the amount of $4 million. I have instructed our permanent representative to the United Nations to convey this decision to the Secretary General, and he will be doing so at 3.30 this afternoon. I also hope to see the Secretary General later today or tomorrow to discuss this and other matters.
The Canadian Government's pledge is made without prejudice to our support for the policy of collective financial responsibility for duly authorized peace keeping operations. Our understanding is that this pledge will form part of any formal agreement for contributions to relieve the organization's indebtedness if and when such agreement is reached. I do not exclude the possibility that at a later stage it may become necessary for us to supplement this pledge.
I should like to make it clear that in coming to this decision the governments associated
with this initiative have not underestimated the serious differences which have thus far defied solution. But we believe that rather than let the United Nations founder on this issue of principle, the time has come for as many states as possible to make a joint effort to restore the solvency of the United Nations, to create conditions which will make it possible for the assembly to meet normally next September, and to preserve the capacity of the United Nations to continue to perform its essential functioning in the maintenance of international peace and security.
The group of member states which have joined in this initiative today have traditionally been in the forefront of those which have come to the aid of the United Nations in times of stress. Obviously we cannot, of ourselves, solve the problem. But we can give a lead, and this we have done in the hope and expectation that the action of these nations will persuade others to follow suit so that the United Nations will be restored to solvency by the time the next general assembly reconvenes in September.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a regrettable development in international affairs that the United Nations continues to find itself in trouble because of financial obligations which are not being met by some members of that organization. I think everybody concerned with the maintenance of peace-and that comprises most of the people of the world-will view with some alarm the fact that this problem remains unresolved.
We are not unmindful of the circumstances that befell the League of Nations in those days when some of the prominent nations of the world did not play their full part in that organization. The step that is now proposed by the Minister of External Affairs will give a breathing spell to the United Nations over the next three months, and perhaps reason will prevail among those nations which have failed to live up to their obligations.
I regret that the Minister did not give us the names of the nations that are to set this example, in addition to indicating what Canada's contribution would be, because I think
June 21, 1965

Voluntary Contribution to UN it is important that we know what other nations are of the same mind. I take it that Canada's contribution will be in addition to what she is already doing in respect of peace keeping operations abroad.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: If I may point out, and I should have given this indication, this pledge is in addition to our present commitments. It represents a contribution which is related to the assessment that annually would be met by Canada and, likewise, by other countries which have joined in this initiative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the Minister will give us the names of the other countries. As I understand it, Canada is already playing more than its full part in the peace keeping operations in Cyprus with no financial assistance from other sources. This contribution on the part of Canada is commendable, and I think it will meet with the support of all parties within this House and in general of the Canadian people. The last thing we want to see is the failure of the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will soon be a generation since the United Nations was started, and it has played a great part over the intervening years in restricting aggression. The obvious difficulties facing the nations of the world are very clear. There are more sensitive areas and trouble spots in the world than there have been for some time, and it is our hope that this continued assistance by Canada will be matched by similar assistance by other nations so that we may maintain the one force in the world, the United Nations, which gives some hope to mankind of peace and security.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome very warmly indeed the announcement that has been made by the Acting Prime Minister. It is very good news that the Assembly of the United Nations may now be enabled to function at its next session in the normal manner. We do not believe the people of Canada will begrudge at all the $4 million that is to be spent. It is one of the best investments we could possibly make; and although it is true, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, that this is only a temporary solution, a temporary solution is vital to the interests of the world as a whole.
It is really ironic that in the year that was set aside as international co-operation year

the United Nations assembly ground to a halt and was unable to carry on its vitally required work in this unstable world.
I think statements at this time should be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I will say no more except to repeat that we most heartily and enthusiastically welcome the announcement that has been made.


Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member shares the concern of the Government over the crisis that has been facing the United Nations throughout these past months. The announcement that has been made is, of course, one to which we give our complete support at this time.
I think there are two questions that arise in our minds in considering this issue. The first is that we are inclined to question the sincerity of those nations which are failing to measure up to their responsibilities in regard to the United Nations peace keeping operations. The other question is just how long the United Nations can continue to function and be sustained in this fashion. There is no doubt that the time will come, perhaps very soon, when definite decisions will have to be made and positive steps taken to assure the United Nations of adequate support in carrying out its responsibilities.
As has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, Canada is already carrying a very heavy responsibility with regard to peace keeping operations, recognizing that this is the one area in which we can make our greatest contribution. Reference has been made to the fact that Canada is already paying the full cost of maintaining its contingent in Cyprus as well as fulfilling its responsibilities in other fields.
As I have said, while we support every effort to maintain peace and security in the world and are prepared to make an adequate contribution for that purpose, we trust the time will come very soon when those other nations which have precipitated this situation will recognize and accept their responsibilities as well.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) tell us that the United Nations Organization is now burdened with a $100 million deficit in its operations and administration. And that in spite of our independent contribution in the case of Cyprus, where Canada should normally have spent $1.5 million instead of al-
June 21, 1965

most $6 million. In the case of the Congo the situation is practically the same.
And now the minister informs us that Canada has agreed to contribute another $4 million to the United Nations Organization because it is on the verge of bankruptcy.
We have no objection, far from it, to helping in maintaining peace in the world, in assisting the United Nations Organization. But we object when the Canadian authorities fail to protest strongly and categorically when a country like Russia refuses to pay its contribution to the United Nations Organization although it benefits from it possibly more than any other country in the world. I say the government has a moral obligation to all Canadian citizens who will be called upon to disburse an additional $4 million. It is therefore the government's duty to lodge a direct complaint against those countries which did not fulfil their obligations toward the United Nations Organization.
Mr. Speaker, if there were more willingness to assist those Canadian organizations who experience financial difficulties, we should be much more eager to accept the Acting Prime Minister's announcement. However, we are willing to keep contributing to the United Nations. On the other hand, we would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the cabinet and the parliament to advise Russia and the other countries refusing to face up to their obligations to live up to them or withdraw from the United Nations.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: In his earlier statement to the House with regard to the financing of United Nations operations, the Acting Prime Minister did not make available to the House the names of those nations which, along with Canada, have indicated they are prepared to assume the extra financial responsibility in order to assure the continued operation of the United Nations Assembly. Will the Acting Prime Minister now give the House those names?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Norway have joined with Canada in this support, and it is expected that New Zealand and Finland will announce contributions within the next day or so. I hope this will begin a chain reaction that will have a good effect on all those who are in default
Administration of Justice in payments pursuant to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.


George Robson Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us some indication of the amount of money it is expected will be raised under these circumstances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could. Great Britain has agreed to contribute $10 million; Denmark, $1 million; Sweden, $2 million; Iceland, $80,000; Norway, $720,000, and I would hope that New Zealand and Finland will be announcing contributions of perhaps $500,000 each. The Canadian contribution, as I said before, is $4 million.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a number of stories have appeared in newspapers over the week end with respect to an alleged leak of the report of the Dorion inquiry. I wish to emphasize, as the Prime Minister said in London, that the Government is in no position to know whether there has been a leak since no member of the Government is aware of the contents of the report.
When these newspaper stories appeared I thought it my duty to get in touch with Chief Justice Dorion, who has full and sole responsibility for the preparation of the report and its transmission to the Government. I instructed the Privy Council office, which is responsible for liaison with Chief Justice Dorion, to get in touch with him yesterday. Mr. Chief Justice Dorion said he wished to reflect about this whole matter, and that he would call me on Monday.
This morning I received a telephone call from the Chief Justice, who has authorized me to inform the House of the following statement which he has given to the press. Since he read it to me in French I would prefer to use the text as given to me by the Chief Justice.

I was extremely surprised to learn that Southam News Services took the liberty of publishing what purports to be parts of my report. For the completion of this report, I had of course to rely on the co-operation of some federal civil servants. When I left Ottawa on June 10, I had completed the writing of the report. I then asked Mr. Andre Desjardins, a lawyer with the Commission, to look after the final draft, the translation and the printing of the report. Mr. Desjardins had three copies
June 21, 1965

Administration of Justice made, one for himself and the two others to be handed over, by sections, to the translators under Mr. M. H. Mayer whom I had met before leaving Ottawa and in whom X have full and complete confidence.
According to the press report, this news agency allegedly obtained its information from a source which is, according to the agency, usually reliable in such matters. If such is the case, I do not believe it should be too difficult to identify that source. The federal government certainly has the means to conduct the investigations required in order to exercise whatever recourse is necessary.

That is the end of the statement as given to me by the Chief Justice. In our conversation the Chief Justice emphasized what is apparent in the statement I have just quoted. He is not expressing any opinion on whether or not there has been a leak. None of us can have even a preliminary view on this until we know what is in the report.
Nevertheless, given the reports which appeared in the papers I also asked Chief Justice Dorion whether he would undertake an investigation with respect to the security of the arrangements for preparing the report. The Chief Justice did not wish to do so, and expressed the view that any formal inquiry would be inappropriate, at this stage at least.
We agreed, however, that a preliminary examination of the facts relating to the security of the arrangements could be undertaken. I have accordingly asked the R.C.M. Police to carry out a preliminary investigation of this kind in close co-operation with Chief Justice Dorion.
Because of the speculation which now surrounds this report, the Prime Minister has indicated that in his view it should be transmitted to the Government at the earliest possible date. I conveyed this view to Chief Justice Dorion today. He informed me the work is already being done on the tightest practicable schedule, and he doubts whether it would be possible to have the report available for transmission to the Government before the end of the week.
I can, of course, assure the House that as soon as the report is received by the Government it will be tabled in Parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, once again we are faced with some odd things going on within Government circles, and we are not altogether surprised because there seems to be a lack of supervision exercised by the Government.
I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister is right in saying that the sole responsibility rested on the Chief Justice. It appears

to me that the Chief Justice got assistance- surely it would be from the Department of Justice-with regard to arranging for the translation and things of that nature. In view of that, shouldn't the Government accept some responsibility in this regard? The judicial inquiry was authorized by the Government. It should not attempt once again to shift responsibility.
However, I understand from the Acting Prime Minister that steps are being taken to see what can be done, perhaps rather belatedly, and I am very much interested to learn that the report will be made available to the Government by the end of the week, as I think he said-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Not before the end of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and will be immediately tabled in the House and made public property. I hope the Government will not sit on this report over a considerable time as it has sometimes done with other matters of importance, but will immediately make it available so there will be no further leaks or speculative information brought out with regard to what may be contained in the report. I think once again this shows a lack of direction and control on the part of the Government.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, if the speculative reports which have appeared regarding the contents of the Dorion report are accurate-and we will not know that until we see the actual report- then certainly there seems to be an indication of a violation of confidence on someone's part.
I think this is a very serious matter. The fact that the Chief Justice himself is disturbed by these speculative stories would seem to indicate that the stories which have appeared do not differ too greatly from the contents of the report.
I think the Government ought to be much more exercised than it appears to be about the report of the Chief Justice having been seen, in whole or in part, by persons other than those who are authorized to have access to it. I trust that we are going to have more than merely a routine check by the R.C.M. Police. The Government may have gone as far as it can at the present moment until we see the actual report; but if the report coincides with the speculative stories which have appeared, then it will be quite apparent that these speculative stories were based on information given to the press by some persons in positions of responsibility and authority, and that ought to be investigated.
June 21. 1965	COMMONS


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The report ought to be brought down, tabled in the House and made public at the very earliest possible date in order to prevent further speculation. The Acting Prime Minister says it will be available by not later than the end of the week-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I said not before the end of the week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -not before the end of the week. I trust that it will be tabled as soon as the Government receives it. Our party will want-I hope it is given in the question period today-some assurance from the Acting Prime Minister that before this House adjourns there will be ample opportunity to discuss the contents of that report, and to hear from the Government what action they propose to take in the light of the findings of the Chief Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: Everybody over there has seen it, anyway.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, we too were very disturbed by the so-called leaks of the Dorion Commission report, and we are pleased to see that the Prime Minister, in his message to Chief Justice Dorion from London, and the Acting Prime Minister are taking what they think is appropriate action to first of all investigate whether or not there have been any leaks and, following that, to bring it before Parliament as quickly as possible.
We know very well that there are some delaying problems, if you want to call them that, or at least delaying requirements because of the translation and printing that is necessary for all these Royal Commission reports. But it seems to me that in the circumstances which now surround this whole matter, the Federal Government could obtain the original manuscript, whether it is in English or French, if it is being translated. Certainly they could get hold of it to ascertain whether or not the press speculation is in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Chief Justice.
It seems to me this would be an appropriate thing to do because of what happened last Friday. The report may not be printed in both languages, and certainly it may be the end of this week or later before it is available in sufficient quantities to be distributed to all Members of this House, but it seems to me it would materially assist the
DEBATES	2663
Administration of Justice R.C.M.P. in their investigation if they knew what was in the report so they could make comparisons with the press speculations to ascertain whether there is a great deal of similarity. If there is, I do not think it would be wrong for the Government to ask now, today, for the manuscript of Chief Justice Dorion's report so the R.C.M.P. would be assisted in finding the leak and taking the necessary steps to see there is not a recurrence of this kind of thing.
The Chief Justice stated in his conversation with the Acting Prime Minister that a number of Federal civil servants or employees were involved in the translation and preparation for printing of the report. That in itself transfers at least some of the onus and responsibility to the Government to make this investigation as soon as possible. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will bring this report before the House just as quickly as possible, and as far as we are concerned, even if there is not a complete printing in both languages we think it would be useful, under the circumstances, to have this matter ascertained and determined as quickly as possible, even if it must be done from the manuscript.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we were not surprised to hear the other day on television that leaks had occurred concerning the findings of the Dorion commission on scandals alleged to have taken place in Canada.
There must have been a leak also about what the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martini just told us, because we heard exactly the same thing on television last night, and this in spite of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister told us that no press release was to be issued before this morning.
Mr. Speaker, if some civil servants talked a little too much and certain steps are taken against them, I am all for it. But there is one thing we must not forget and we heard something about it last week from the official opposition. I am speaking of the freedom of the press in Canada. Indeed, Southam News Service could very well have sent a delegate or a reporter to meet a civil servant last Friday or Saturday. There is not a single member here who is not aware of the way we are sometimes tortured by reporters who try to know about things before they are announced and to pass judgment on them.
Before we know exactly what happened, if the report published by Southam News Service Saturday and yesterday is true, it

June 21, 1965
Proposed Legislation
is obvious that there have been leaks on the part of some civil servants while reporters of the Southam News Service were present.
However, we must take care not to blame anyone who may have been cornered in a friendly way and who may have said: "Well, I read such and such a thing in the Dorion report which was submitted to us for translation".
I submit that had the Southam News Service been responsible, it would have respected Chief Justice Dorion's request that no information be released before the government had been duly informed. This is how a self-respecting news agency would have acted. However, any advance release concerning the contents of the report constitutes an abuse of what we call in Canada the freedom of the press.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) moved: that the first report of the Special Committee on Food and Drugs, presented to the House on Monday, June 14, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Leo Cadieux (for ihe Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to provide for an increase from twenty-five dollars to thirty-four dollars in the amount of the monthly allowance that may be paid to a student, and to provide that, whenever the annual rate of pension payable to an orphan child under the Pension Act is changed, there will be a corresponding change in the additional amount that may be paid to a student after he has attained the age of twenty-one years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: that the House
[Mr. Caouette.l
into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act to increase the rate of interest payable on the minimum balance to the credit of the Fund in each month at the rate of four and three-quarters per cent per annum for a period of five years from the coming into force of this measure, and thereafter for each successive period of five years, at such rate as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council in the year preceding the first year of each such period as the effective interest rate on long term Government of Canada Bonds for the purposes of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, one additional judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick and one additional judge of the County Court of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
DONAT ST. AMOUR & FILS LTEE.
['']
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of of State):: I am informed by the Solicitor General go and my Department as follows:
June 21, 1965

1.	A receiving order was granted against the firm of Donat St. Amour & Fils Ltee. of Masson, Quebec on July 26, 1963.
2.	The officers and/or directors of this company were as follows: Donat St. Amour, Raymond St. Amour and Mrs. Donat St. Amour.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	The Department of Justice has received representations concerning the bankruptcy of Donat St. Amour & Fils Ltee. of Masson, Quebec.
6.	These representations were in the form of a letter dated February 18, 1965 from George H. Tremblay of G. T. Electric Service Reg'd addressed to the Minister of Justice, enclosing copy of a letter of the said G. H. Tremblay dated February 17, 1965 to Mr. Claude Wagner, the Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec. In respect of the nature of these representations, I have to advise that it is not the practice of disclosing it because such disclosure might do injustice to those concerned and that it would be against the public interest to do so.
7.	Mr. George H. Tremblay was informed that inquiries would be made to the trustee and this was done.



Mr. Boutin: What works were carried out by the federal government in the county of Dorchester during the years 1960-61-62-63-64, and (a) where were such works carried out (b) what amounts were spent by the federal government on such works?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


DISMISSAL OF MAIL CARRIER, GLACE BAY, N.S.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was any investigation ever held at the Glace Bay Post Office into the circumstances which led to the dismissal of a mail carrier, Francis G. MacKenzie; if so, wnen and what were the results?
2.	Were charges ever laid under the Criminal Code against Mr. MacKenzie and, if so, were they proceeded with or withdrawn?
Questions
3.	What representations, from what persons, did the Post Office Department receive asking for the reinstatement of Mr. MacKenzie?
4.	In brief, what were the reasons given for Mr. MacKenzie's dismissal?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Posimasler General):: 1.	An investigation was held in 1963 but it did not result in the dismissal of Francis G. MacKenzie.
2.	Yes, the charges were withdrawn by the local Crown Attorney after the preliminary hearing.
3.	Representations asking for the reinstatement of Mr. MacKenzie were received from the following: Mr. Donald Maclnnis, M.P.; Rev. Sister M. Alexandria; Miss Camilla Sutherland; Dr. Guy Marcoux, M.P.; Mr. William Talbot.
4.	Mr. MacKenzie has not been dismissed.


APPEARANCE OF MINISTERS IN NEW YORK COURT
Mr. Coaies: 1.	Have the Secretary of State, Hon. Maurice Lamontagne and the Postmaster General, Hon. Rene Tremblay, been requested to appear for either the prosecution or the defence as witnesses in the Bernard Gittelson parking meter perjury trial?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to ask the House to authorize these two Ministers to proceed to New York to appear in this case if such a request has been received, or is received, in this regard?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. No.
2.	No.


EXPORT OF HORSES FOR SLAUGHTER
Mr. Mather: Have representations been received from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals urging legislation to prohibit the export from Canada of horses for slaughter and, if so, is consideration being given to this request?


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


TENDERS FOR NATURE CENTRE, POINT PELEE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the tenderers, "Tender for construction of a nature centre, Point Pelee National Park, Leamington, Ontario"?
2.	What was the price quoted by each tenderer?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. (a) T.
Zanette Construction Limited, 2630 Curry Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, (b) Scofan Con-

June 21, 1965
Questions
tractors Limited, 2867 Turner Road, Windsor, Ontario, (c) W. J. C. Kaulmann Company, 1130 Crawford Avenue, Windsor, Ontario.
2.	(a) T. Zanette Construction Limited, $208,300; (b) Scofan Contractors Limited, $217,950; (c) W. J. C. Kaufmann Company, $203,000.
3.	No tender has yet been accepted. When a decision is reached, the announcement will be made in the usual way.


FEED GRAIN, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What is the estimated amount of feed grain grown in each of the Maritime Provinces, in each of five representative years, over the last twenty-five years?
2.	What amounts were paid out in each of these five representative years under the Feed Grain Assistance Act, or by other authority to subsidize the shipment of feed grain to each of the Maritime Provinces?
3.	What is the estimated acreage under cultivation, including pasture, in each of the Maritime Provinces for these same representative years?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.
Maritime Provinces-Estimated	Acreage under	Cultivation1.2Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick(acres)	(acres)	(acres)1941	737,400	812,403	1,235,4311951	645,795	661,975	1,006,3771956	645,492	629,874	951,2911961	579,558	479,521	734,107
1 Census of Canada, improved land which consists of the area under crops, improved pasture, summer fallow and other improved land.
2	Comparable information is not available for 1946.
2.
Amounts Paid out under the Feed Grain Assistance Policy1 on Feed Grain shipped into the Maritime Provinces for the following representative crop years
$	$	$	$	$Province	1941-42	1946-47	1951-52	1956-57	1961-622New Brunswick	252,832.50	906,112.51	703,863.07	644,824.64	632,897.86Nova Scotia	361,914.93	1,039,562.04	1,152,319.33	1,366,833.52	1,316,718.58Pr. Edward Is.	78,566.49	333,723.60	289,784.96	224,708.84	197,139.33
Total
693,313.92	2,279,398.15
2,145,967.36	2,236,367.00
2,146,755.77
1 Total expenditure under the Feed Grain Assistance Policy has been reduced in proportion to the volume of millfeeds shipped
and assisted in the periods.
2 These amounts include assistance provided under a feed corn assistance policy in 1962. 3.
Estimated Amount of Feed Grain1 Grown in each of the Maritime Provinces,
Representative Years2
1946
1956
Prince Edward Island (tons)
93,592
110,011
148,109
148,799
145,108
Nova Scotia (tons) 53,209 48,965 57,997 48,189 38,012
New Brunswick (tons) 115,309 111,706 133,689 122,424 80,364

June 21, 1965

1	Includes wheat, oats, barley and mixed grains.
2	The third year of each of the five-year periods in the last 25 year period was selected to be indicative of a representative year.


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE IN COMMUNITIES LESS THAN 2,500
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Is there a regulation to provide letter carrier delivery service for communities of less than 2,500 points of call when such communities are immediately adjacent to a larger centre where letter carrier delivery is already in operation and, if so, is the letter delivery service in the smaller community considered to be an extension of an existing service rather than the creation of a new one?
2.	When was this regulation first passed?
3.	Under what authority was it passed?
4.	When was this regulation first used?
5.	For which community was it first used?
6.	How many communities of less than 2,500 points of call have been granted letter carrier delivery service under this regulation?
7.	What are the names of these communities?
8.	What are the distances between the small community and the larger centre where letter carrier delivery service was already in operation?
9.	What use was made of the discontinued post offices in the smaller communities?


René Tremblay: 1.	There is no regulation governing the provision of letter carrier delivery service to communities of less than 2,500 calls located adjacent to a larger centre where letter carrier service is already in operation.
2,	3 and 4. As far back as our records are available letter carrier extensions from major centres have been authorized provided the area to be served was contiguous to the existing letter carrier limits. In these cases any post offices within the areas to which letter carrier service was extended were closed and replaced by sub post offices of the distributing community.
In 1958 by authority of the then Deputy Postmaster General, a revised policy was developed and introduced which permitted extensions of letter carrier delivery to suburban developments not necessarily contiguous to existing letter carrier delivery, but within the recognized delivery area of the office already served by letter carrier and from which the extension was being made.
In applying this revised policy, any intervening territory which was not built up because of the type of terrain or because it was used for such purposes as public recreation, etc., was bypassed in order to provide service to the suburban developments.
No precise distance was stipulated in traversing this undeveloped territory, but it is
Questions
required that service to the additional area has to conform to the same cost factors and come within the same recognized delivery area as the service of the delivering office from which the extension is being made.
5.	Extensions under the revised policy were made simultaneously but a list was not maintained.
6.	and 7. No records are maintained. These are considered part of the regular extensions.
8.	See answers to parts 2, 3 and 4.
9.	This is determined by the Department of Public Works.


PENSIONS OF JUDGES WIDOWS
Mr. Groos: Is any consideration being given to amending the Judges' Act to give a Judges's widow one-half of her husband's pension as is the general pattern with respect to other public servants and, if not, what considerations obtain in maintaining the one-third benefit under section 27(1) (b) of the Judges' Act?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: No. Annuities under the Judges' Act are non-contributory and the amount thereof does not depend upon length of service.


MR. JUSTICE MEUNIER-DATE OF SUSPENSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has Mr. Justice Meunier of the Superior Court of Quebec been suspended since his conviction for a criminal offence and, if so, on what date did the suspension become effective?
2.	Is he still receiving his salary as a judge?
3.	How much has been paid to him as salary or indemnity since his conviction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No. The
Government has no authority to suspend a judge. However, he was granted leave of absence until the charges that were laid against him were disposed of.
2.	Yes.
3.	$12,716.66 to May 31, 1965.


JOE BONNANO-LAYING OF PERJURY CHARGES
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date were the three charges of perjury laid against Joe Bonnano heard and in what city and before what judge?
2.	Who represented the Crown during the trials and who represented Mr. Bonnano?
3.	On what date was judgment rendered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Three charges of perjury were laid against Joe Bonnano on June 10, 1964. The preliminary hearing

June 21. 1965
Questions
took place before Judge Emile Trottier at Montreal on June 26 and June 29, 1964.
2.	The Crown was represented by Mr. C. Antoine Geoffrion, Q.C. and Mr. P. Lamontagne. Mr. Bonnano was represented by Raymond D'Aoust, Q.C.
3.	Judgment dismissing the charges was rendered at the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry on June 29, 1964.


EXPO '67-OPTIONS ON PAVILION SITES
Mr. Mariineau: 1.	How many Industrial firms have taken options on pavilion sites at Expo '67?
2.	How many of such firms have so far taken up their option with Expo '67?
3.	How many firms have withdrawn their option in this regard or have indicated their intention to so withdraw?
4.	What are the names of these firms?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. 30 exhibitors (some exhibitors include the joint participation of several firms. Total number of firms 700).
2.	15.
3.	10 including 8 which are expected to participate in Theme or joint pavilions.
4.	The names of the firms which have withdrawn their option cannot be released without the consent of the firms concerned.


QUEBEC-ARDA-COMPLETION OF DRAINAGE PROJECTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many drainage projects were completed in the Province of Quebec under ARDA in 1961,1962, 1963 and 1964 indicating in each case, the location and the amount involved?
2.	From the date the ARDA program was initiated until March 31, 1965, what amounts were allocated to the following provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	The list of projects shown below submitted by the Province of Quebec shows the location, the federal contribution and the date the final claim was received.
2.	The following list indicates the federal funds available to the provinces from the date the ARDA program was initiated until the Agreement expired on March 31, 1965.
Prince Edward Island	$ 1,359,168
Nova Scotia	3,243,333
New Brunswick	3,314,166
Quebec	10,439,997
Ontario	10,992,500
Manitoba	3,540,834
Saskatchewan	6,345,834
Alberta	5,552,502
British Columbia	3,625,833
Northwest Territories	NIL


DRAINAGE PROJECTS COMPLETED IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
1961	Nil
1962	Nil
1963	Nil
Federal
Project	Location	Contribution
[Stage Direction]
5003 Improvement of St-Telesphore waterway and its tributaries, Soulanges County..	15,237.00
5008	Improve watercourse of Matteau and tributaries-Arthabaska and Drummond...	11,891.005010	Improve watercourse of Corbeil and tributaries, St. Augustin, Deux-Montagnes...	12,483.005014	Improve watercourse Taillon and tributaries to reclaim land-Arthabaska	12,545.005016	Improve watercourse Rousseau and branches St. Thomas, Montmagny County...	14,355.005018	Improve Laflamme River watercourse to reclaim land in Abitibi East	
8,963.005019	Improve watercourse Menard-Bourbonnais No. 1 and branches, Soulanges County	7,400.005020	Improve watercourse Des Trente and tributaries, St. Jacques Mineur, Laprairie Co.	15,567.005021	Decharge des 14 watercourse improvement to reclaim 760 acres, Vercheres County.	13,215.005024	Improve watercourse Dagenais-Besner St. Michel de Vaudreuil	
8,042.005026	Improve watercourse Pir-Vir and tributaries, St. John County	
11,147.005031 St. Michel watercourse improvement to reclaim 845 acres-Napierville County...	8,963.00
Date Final Claim Received
December 2, 1964 August 20, 1964 December 2, 1964 December 2, 1964 August 20, 1964 June 29, 1964 August 20, 1964 December 2, 1964 December 2, 1964 December 2, 1964 December 2, 1964 December 2, 1964

June 21, 1965

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has a Mr. Yves Leduc been recently appointed a Judge of the Superior Court in Quebec and, if so, when was the appointment made?
2.	What is the educational experience of this appointee?
3.	How many years has he served as a practising lawyer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes. May 10, 1965.
2.	Bachelor of Letters and Bachelor of Civil Law, University of Montreal; graduate of the faculty of Social, Economic and Political Sciences, University of Montreal, 1934; appointed in 1960 assistant Deputy Attorney General of Quebec; in 1962 appointed District Judge and Associate Chief District Judge for the District of Montreal.
3.	Approximately 28 years.


CANADIAN DELEGATION TO WORLD POPULATION CONFERENCE
Mr. Priitie: 1.	What are the names of the Canadian delegates to the World Population Conference which will be held under the auspices of the United Nations with the co-operation of the International Labour Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to take place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, from August 30 to September 10, 1965?
2.	In which department or agency of the federal government is each of the delegates employed?
3.	If any of the delegates are not in the service of the federal government, what is the ordinary occupation of each such delegate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. The Canadian Government has nominated the following experts to attend the second World Population Conference in their individual capacities: Mr. Frank Denton, Research Staff, Economic Council of Canada; Dr. Y. Kasahara, Demographic Consultant, Central Research and Development Staff, Dominion Bureau of Statistics; Dr. K. Krotki, Chief, Demographic Analysis and Research, Census Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics; Mr. A. H. LeNeveu, Chief, Current Population Estimates and Analysis, Census Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics; an officer from the Canadian Embassy, Belgrade.
2.	See answer to question 1, above.
3.	The Secretary of the World Population Conference has informed us that the United Nations has invited approximately 1,250 experts to participate in the Conference in their
Questions
individual capacities and at their own expense, including 24 Canadians from outside the Canadian Government service. Inquiries concerning the participation in the Conference of these experts should be addressed to: The Secretary of the World Population Conference, c/o United Nations Headquarters, New York City, United States of America.


CHATHAM, ONT.-CLOSING OF ENTOMOLOGICAL LABORATORY
Mr. Danforth: 1.	When does the Department of Agriculture plan to close the Chatham Federal Entomological Laboratory?
2.	Where will these facilities be moved to?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the establishment and construction of the new facilities to replace the above laboratory?
4.	What is the estimated annual saving by replacing the above facilities?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The Department of Agriculture plans to have the investigations presently located at the entomology research laboratory, Chatham, relocated in approximately five years' time, partly at the Research Institute, London, partly at the Research Station, Harrow, and partly at the Experimental Farm, Delhi.
2.	Answer in No. 1 above.
3.	New facilities are not being established specifically to replace those at Chatham. The Chatham entomologists will be located where they can work side by side with various specialists such as chemists, plant breeders, pedologists, pathologists, and physiologists so that all facets of crop production problems may be studied co-operatively. These lines of work will be fitted into existing facilities or those planned in the future for Harrow, London, and Delhi. No separate cost can be calculated.
4.	Answered in No. 3 above.


AGRICULTURE-NEW RESEARCH FACILITIES AND EXPERIMENTAL FARMS
Mr. Danforth: 1.	How many new federal agriculture research facilities, substations, experimental farms, etc., were opened in 1964, indicating the type and location?
2.	How many are contemplated for 1965, indicating the type and location?
3.	How many are planned for 1966, indicating the type and location?


Harry William Hays: 1. None.
2.	None.
3.	None.

June 21, 1965
Questions


AGRICULTURE-CLOSING OF EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS AND FARMS
Mr. Danforlh: 1.	How many federal agriculture experimental stations, sub-stations, farms or establishments were closed in 1964, and what were their locations?
2.	How many will be closed in (a) 1965 and (b) 1966?
3.	What is the location of these establishments that are planned to be closed during the next two years?


Harry William Hays: 1. No research or experimental establishments of the Department of Agriculture were closed in 1964.
2.	(a) 1965, Tower Hill, New Brunswick,
(b)	1966, Fort Chimo, Quebec. The station at Smithers, B.C. is to be closed and necessary work in that area done at local Project Farms, but the precise date has not been decided.
3.	Answered in 2 (a) and (b).


ALLEGED IMPROPER APPLICATION OF SALES TAX
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the Minister of National Revenue investigating the charges made by the Maritime Lumber Bureau and the Atlantic Provinces Retail Lumber Dealers Association that the 11 per cent sales tax is being improperly administered by his Department?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to bring forward legislation that will embody the recommendations of the Auditor General related to the collection of the sales tax?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The administration of the 11 per cent sales tax on lumber is being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Excise Tax Act and regulations, and it is therefore quite incorrect to say that this tax is being improperly administered by the Department. There have been a number of problems, however, resulting from the extremely complex nature of this industry and, on my instructions a few months ago, an exhaustive survey into the industry was initiated. The survey has now been completed and we are confident that the recommendations arising out of it will provide some solutions to the administrative problems encountered in so far as the application of sales tax in that industry is concerned.
2. In so far as this question is concerned, I would draw your attention to that portion of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Excise Tax Act, appearing on page 439 of Hansard for April 26, 1965.


BONUSES UNDER HOME CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How many applications were received for the $500 bonus for homes built in the Province of Manitoba for the 1964-65 season, under the Winter Home Construction Incentive Program?
2.	How many applications qualified for incentive payments?
3.	What is the total amount of incentive payments paid in Manitoba?
4.	How many qualified in (a) Metropolitan Winnipeg (b) Brandon (c) Flin Flon (d) Portage La Prairie (e) Selkirk (f) Dauphin (g) Gimli (h) Stonewall (i) Teulon (j) Riverton (k) rural Municipality of Bifrost (1) rural Municipality of Cold-well (m) rural Municipality of Siglunes (n) rural Municipality of Eriksdale (o) rural Municipality of St. Andrews (p) rural Municipality of Rockwood (q) rural Municipality of Woodlands (r) Winnipeg Beach (s) Grand Rapids (t) Norway House (u) local government District of Armstrong (v) local government District of Fisher (w) local government District of Grahamdale (x) rural municipality of Gimli?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	1,719.
2.	1,454.
3.	$209,500 to June 4, 1965.
4.	(a) 1,149
(b)	43
(c)	No applications received
(d)	18
(e)	7
(f)	7
(g)	6
(h)	1
(i)	No applications received
(j)	No applications received
(k)	*
(l)	*
(m)	*
(n)	*
(o)	*
(p)	*
(q)	*
(r)	1
(s)	No applications received
(t)	No applications received
(u)	*
(v)	*
(w)	*
(x)	*
* There were no applications received under the names of these rural municipalities or districts, but there may have been some applications which are not identifiable from the information provided on the forms.
June 21, 1965


GEORGES LEMAY-EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Nugeni: 1.	Have extradition proceedings been taken regarding one Lemay, now in Florida, a much sought after alleged criminal by the police in Montreal?
2.	If so, on what date and by whom?
3.	Is the Department of Justice taking part in the proceedings?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. To date the Federal Government has not been requested by the Department of Justice for the Province of Quebec, which has the direction and control over the criminal proceedings instituted against Lemay in that Province, to requisition the Government of the United States for his surrender. Deportation proceedings have, however, been instituted against him by the United States authorities.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


HAMILTON, ONT.-POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	How many people are currently employed by the Post Office Department in Hamilton, Ontario?
2.	How many vacancies are there in the Post Office Department in Hamilton?
3.	How many employees of the Post Office Department in Hamilton have left their jobs since January 1, 1965, and in each case, what reason was given?


René Tremblay: 1.	450 persons in full time positions, 41 in part time positions.
2.	26 vacancies.
3.	35 full time employees and 11 part time employees.
Full time
12 for better wages or opportunities 2 to go into business 2 rejected during probationary period 5 to obtain day work 1 return to school 1 for health reasons 1 moved away
1	resigned after marriage
2	no reason given-worked less than
3	days each
1 unable to cope with the work
1	preferred other employment
2	to return to former employment 4 retired
22620-170
Questions
Part time
5 obtained full time work elsewhere 5 to devote more time to school studies 1 Hours interfered with another job outside


P.E.I.-LOBSTER FISHERY TRAP LIMIT
Mr. Mullally: 1.	Has the government received representations from any organization, company or individual in Prince Edward Island requesting the establishment of a trap limit and/or licence restrictions for the lobster fishery?
2.	If so, what has been the reply by the government?
3.	Has the Department of Fisheries or any other department of government conducted any studies, surveys or other research efforts to determine the relationship between the number of traps and the quantity of lobsters caught?
4.	What is the present attitude of the government with respect to the establishment of trap and licence limitations?
5.	Would the government be receptive to a request from the industry for the establishment of such restrictions?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.	Yes.
2.	This is not a simple problem and it is under investigation.
3.	Yes. Certain aspects of this problem have been investigated by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and by the economic service of the Department of Fisheries.
4.	The investigations carried out so far would suggest that, while the number of traps in use per lobster fishing enterprise or per fisherman is probably unnecessarily large, the main cause of low earnings among lobster fishermen is the excessive number of fishermen or enterprises in relation to the extent of the lobster resource. This indicates the difficulties to be faced in devising a suitable plan of rational management for the lobster fishery.
5.	The government is always receptive to a substantial request from industry, and is willing to undertake whatever investigation may be necessary for full assessment.


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Rapp: 1.	Has the key personnel staff of the Grain Commission been moved from Fort William to Winnipeg and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is it now intended to transfer the weighing staff to Winnipeg and, if so. for what reason?


Harry William Hays: 1. No. The headquarters of the Board of Grain Commissioners and its six

June 21, 1965
Questions
major divisions have been located in Winnipeg for many years, with the exception of the headquarters of the weighing division which is responsible for the Board's grain weighing operations throughout Canada and which is located at Fort William.
2. The Chief and Assistant Chief Grain Weighmen, and two supporting clerical assistants, are being transferred to Winnipeg to facilitate the Board's operations. No other transfers are contemplated.


HIGH ARROW DAM CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the name of the authority or officials who report to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with respect to decisions and developments in connection with the construction of the Columbia River Treaty projects?
2.	Has the B.C. Hydro and Power authority complied with clause 4 of the International River Improvements Act for a licence to construct High Arrow Dam and, if not, has the government any information dealing with the delay in this regard?
3.	Has the Government of Canada been assured that the High Arrow Dam is a safe dam in every respect and that it will be unaffected by any earthquake; that the under seepage is within safe limits; that adequate arrangements have been made for the safe energy dispersal of the large volume of water involved?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. The Canadian section of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board reports to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning the international aspects of decisions and developments related to the construction of the Columbia River Treaty projects in accordance with the provisions of the treaty and protocol. The Advisory Subcommittee of the Canada-British Columbia-Columbia River liaison committee reports to the Minister in his capacity as chairman of the Canadian section of that committee on Federal-Provincial matters related to the construction of the treaty projects arising from the treaty and protocol and the two Canada-British Columbia agreements related thereto.
2. The British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority complied with the International River Improvements Act by applying under Section 3 of the Act for exception of the Arrow Lakes project from the operation of the Act. It was decided that this project should be licenced under the Act rather than excepted; and a draft licence for it was approved by Order in Council P.C.1965-254 dated February 16, 1965, and was sent to

the Chairman of the Authority on March 1. It is expected that the licence will be issued at an early date.
3.	Every precaution in the interests of safety against possible damage from earthquakes, seepage, erosion, or other causes, has been taken in the design and in the construction requirements. This subject was considered in detail by the Standing Committee on External Affairs during its consideration of the Columbia River treaty and protocol, and in particular during its sessions on April 24 and April 28, 1964, when expert evidence on these aspects of the safety of the project was given by Dr. Richard L. Hearn, President of CBA Engineering Company Limited, Van-cauver; Dr. Hugh Q. Golder, President of Dr. Hugh Q. Golder and Associates Limited, Consulting Civil Engineers, Toronto; and Dr. Arthur Casagrande, Professor of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Harvard University. This evidence is contained in issues Nos. 13 and 15 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of this Standing Committee and doubtless is available to the hon. Member posing this question, since he was a member of this Committee and is recorded as being present on both of the dates given above.


CANADIAN SEAFARERS BUILDING CORPORATION
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Who were the officers or directors of the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation, Ltd., according to the records of the Companies Incorporations Branch as of June 1, 1965?
2.	Is this a private company?
3.	When did the Companies Incorporations Branch last receive an annual return from the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Ltd.?
4.	Who are the present officers of the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Ltd.?
5.	What number of shares are held by each of the officers?
6.	Are any shares in the Corporation held by the Seafarers International Union of North America?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: 1. The information on record is not up to date. The latest summary filed by this company is as of March 31, 1963 when the officers were: Harold C. Banks, President and Director; Leonard J. McLaughlin, Vice President and Director; Raymond Doucet, Director.
2.	Yes, this is a private company.
3.	The last annual return was received as of March 31, 1963.
4.	This information is not on record; see part one above.
5.	This information is not available.
6.	This information is not available.
June 21, 1965


COMMISSION ON ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many days has the commission on election expenses been sitting?
2.	Who are the members of the committee?
3.	What is the total cost of the committee to date?
4.	What are the indemnities of committee members?
5.	How much has the chairman and each of the members received since the commission was set up (a) in indemnity (b) in expenses?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. 16 days.
2.	Alphonse Barbeau, Chairman Montreal; Hon. M. J. Coldwell, Ottawa; G. D. Dryden, Toronto; A. R. Smith, Calgary; Prof. N. M. Smith, Saskatoon.
3.	$12,677.54 as of June 15, 1965.
4.	$100 per day. (For days worked only)
(a) Indemnity (b) Expense
Mr.	Barbeau	1,200	720.40Mr.	Coldwell	1,800*	526.08Mr. Dryden	-	-Mr.	Smith	800	959.28Mr.	Ward	400	172.94
*This amount covers the number of days worked and not only the number of sittings.


GIFT OF LAND, KEJIMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Crouse: Has the federal government given an indication to the Government of Nova Scotia of its formal acceptance of the gift of land from the Nova Scotia Government which will constitute the new National Park in the area of Kejimkujik Lake, Queens County, and, if not, on what date will the government give formal acceptance of this gift of land?


Arthur Laing: The Government of Nova Scotia has been informed that Canada is prepared to accept title to the lands for development of a national park in the area of Kejimkujik Lake as soon as conveyance to Canada of title to the said lands free of all encumbrances can be completed. The final legal steps of conveyance are in process and formal acceptance by Canada will follow immediately thereafter.


OIL EXPLORATION, HUDSON BAY
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries taken note of the extensive exploratory work which is to be carried out in the search for oil in Hudson Bay during the next two or three years and, if so, does the Department consider that the pattern blasting which will be taking place will constitute a hazard to game and food fish as well as to the 22620-1701
Questions
enormous population of white whales in those
waters?
2.	Will the Minister of Fisheries give instructions to have such steps taken as may be necessary to protect the fish and whale population of those waters?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes, both as to oil surveys to be undertaken by oil companies and the geomagnetic surveys to be undertaken by federal government departments. The Department of Fisheries has investigated pattern blasting, and has suggested certain modifications for inshore waters.
2. Companies and departments concerned have already been advised of the conditions applicable, and arrangements have been made to place observers on board survey vessels to see to it that the necessary steps are taken to protect the fish and whale populations.


CONSERVATION OF NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERY
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is the government considering negotiating with the Soviet Union, or any other foreign country, participating in the Northwest Atlantic Fishery for an exchange of officers aboard fishing vessels and/or fishery patrol vessels to observe on each other's conservation measures?
2.	Has the government received from the United States any reports on the results of observations made by representatives of that country aboard Russian fishing vessels in the northwest Atlantic and, if so, of what is the nature of such reports?
3.	Is the Minister of Fisheries of the opinion that an "explosive situation" is developing concerning world fishery stocks and, if so, what new measures are planned by the government to protect the fish populations off Canadian coasts?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes. The exchange of enforcement officers between the United States and Canada this spring to observe procedures followed in enforcing fishery regulations made under the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries proved valuable, and consideration is being given to arranging similar exchanges in the future with other member countries.
2. Reports of the exchange of enforcement officers between the U.S.S.R. and the United States, and between Canada and the United States, were submitted to the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which was held in Halifax recently. These reports outline the fishing and enforcement practices followed by the respective countries in the Convention, and show that the regulations are being enforced effectively.

June 21, 1965
Questions
3.	At the first meeting of the North American Fisheries Conference held recently in Washington, D.C., I stated that an "explosive situation" is developing in world fisheries as a result of the rapid increase in the size and efficiency of the fishing fleets. The government will continue to do everything possible to conserve the fish stocks found off our coasts by means of supporting co-ordinated research programs and international co-operation and regulation in the field of fisheries management.


ANIELLO DE LUCA
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What was the conclusion of the inquiry under the Immigration Act referred to in the answer to Question No. 3,016 under date of March 31, 1965, concerning one Aniello De Luca, of Montreal?
2.	Is Aniello De Luca still under detention and, if so, where and under what circumstances and, if not, when was he released?
3.	What was the outcome of the proceedings under the Juvenile Delinquents Act as referred to in the answer to Question No. 3,016 above?
4.	What further steps, if any, are under consideration with regard to this man and his future stay in Canada?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. The inquiry under the Immigration Act revealed -that Aniello De Luca had acquired Canadian domicile and was therefore not subject to deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act at that time.
2.	No. He was released from detention on April 12, 1965.
3.	According to information received by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. De Luca was not convicted of one charge under the Juvenile Delinquents Act and two other charges were withdrawn.
4.	None.


MAIL CONTRACT, ALONSA-AMARANTH-LANGRUTH, MAN.
Mr. Enns: 1.	To whom was the successful tender awarded for the Alonsa, Amaranth and Langruth mail contract?
2.	What is the amount of the tender?


René Tremblay: 1. The contract for the transportation of mail thighway service) between Portage la Prairie and Alonsa has not yet been awarded. In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, an inquiry is now in progress to determine whether the lowest tenderer is able to meet the requirements of the service.
2. Tenders received were as follows: Harvey McKay, Box 18, Amaranth, $6,472.28;

Robert Stanley Rodericks, Reedy Creek, $7,200; George Walter Hanke, Box 46, Amaranth, $7,668; Leslie C. Stanley, Amaranth, $8,000; Henry Chesla, Alonsa, $8,000; David George Corfield, Silver Ridge, $8,800; Edward James Maxwell, 622 Dufferin Ave. E., Portage la Prairie, $8,835; William Witt, Amaranth, $9,000; Ronald Oswald Minton, Harcus, $9,000; John Dick, Amaranth, $10,500.


GOLF CLUB HOUSE, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	On what date were tenders called for the construction of a new golf club house at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date was it decided to cancel the construction of this golf club house and for what reason?
3.	On what date was it decided to notify the low tenderer that construction was not going to be proceeded with?
4.	When is it planned to recall tenders for the construction of this golf club house and how soon will construction commence?


Arthur Laing: 1. Tenders were called by public advertisement on April 5 and 6, 1963; the closing date was May 7, 1963.
2.	July 4, 1963. This project was cancelled owing to the urgent need for funds in other areas which required prior consideration.
3.	July 11, 1963.
4.	This matter is under consideration and when a decision is reached it will be announced in the usual way.


LAKEHEAD-PLANS FOR BRIDGE OVER KAMINISTIQUIA RIVER
Mr. Fisher: Does the agency of the Department of Public Works at the Bakehead have any plans or has it prepared any comments for the ministry on the possibility of a new bridge structure over the Ka-ministiquia River at or near James Street: if so, what is the gist of such plans or comments?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: This does not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works and should be referred to the Department of Transport.


YARMOUTH, N.S.-PAVING OF WHARF
Mr. Coates: 1. Were tenders called for paving a portion of the Yarmouth public wharf and, if so, what were the names of firms or individuals who submitted tenders and what were the amounts of the tenders in
question?
June 21, 1965

2.	Was the low bidder awarded the contract and, if not, who was awarded the contract?
3.	What is the Department's experience in regard to the successful tenderer in carrying out work of this type?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Yes. The tenders received were as follows: Leonard Shaw, $4,998; Aberdeen Paving, $6,720; Killam Noah, $7,590.
2.	Contract was awarded to low bidder.
3.	Low bidder has not previously done any work of this type for the Department.


OPENING OF EXPERIMENTAL FARM LABORATORY, SWIFT CURRENT, SASK.
[Stage Direction]
Orders for Returns
2.	Dr. J. G. Taggart, former Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and Superintendent of the Experimental Farm, Swift Current, from 1921 to 1934, will officially open the building.
3.	No formal invitations have been issued.

Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a firm decision been reached by the government with regard to the construction of either a new federal building or an addition to the post office building in Amherst, N.S. and if, so, what is that decision?
2.	When will tenders be called for this project?
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public

Question No. 740-Mr. McIntosh:
1.	What date will the laboratory at the Dominion Experimental Farm at Swift Current be officially opened?
2.	Who will officially open the building on behalf of the federal government?
3.	Has the Member of Parliament for Swift Current-Maple Creek been formally invited to the official opening by the Minister of Public Works, or the Minister of Agriculture?


Harry William Hays: 1. The opening of the new laboratory building at the experimental farm, Swift Current, is to take place in conjunction with the annual field day and open house on June 16 and 17, 1965.
Fiscal Year	Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick1959-	60 1960-	61 1961-	62 1962-	63 1963-	64 1964-	65	$5,353,270.83 6,579,175.27 2,238,870.15 1,042,763.77 11,304,606.82 22,765,152.13	$1,172,315.42 551,094.68 299,900.40 66,348.12 1,003,942.04 1,107,933.59	$3,128,648.30 3.257.089.47 1,767,817.76 1,124,825.60 882,307.95 4.714.202.48	$8,121,192.12 3,461,086.08 2,357,075.86 1,584,987.22 5,051,224.62 8,046,357.70[English]	MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE PROJECTS	
Works): 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Dube: What were the amounts spent by the federal government on the trans-Canada highway in each of the four Atlantic provinces in the fiscal years ending March 31, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the total amount of expenditures of the federal government made as of this date, or undertaken or planned to be done, directly or indirectly, in connection with EXPO 67?
2.	Of the said amount, how much pertains to (a) National Harbours Board (b) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (c) Trans-Canada Highway within the City of Montreal (d) the value of any works or services not included in (a), (b) or (c)?
Return tabled.

Question No. 507-Mr. Gauthier:
1.	What are the 46 counties in which 118 drainage projects are located?
2.	What are the amounts for each county?
3.	What are the names of the municipalities involved?
4.	What amount is each municipality going to receive?
Return tabled.


AGRICULTURAL EXHIBIT, EXPO '67
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What kind of agricultural exhibit is proposed for the 1967 World's Fair at Montreal?
2.	How many people are working on the preparation of this exhibit and who are they?
2676	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	How much money is being made available for the purpose of the agricultural exhibit?
Return tabled.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It should properly be addressed to the Minister of Finance, who is not here, but I am sure the Acting Prime Minister, who is present, will be able to answer.
In view of the fact that we will be taking up second reading of the income tax bill tomorrow, or probably today, and because the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of Finance met on Friday last with the Canada Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, at which meeting this Association requested the Government to put off further action on the newspaper legislation until a better way was found to deal with the problem, can the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs say whether the Government is prepared to accede to the request of this Association?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at the moment say anything further on this subject, but the Minister of Finance will be back later today and I will have an opportunity of discussing the matter further with him, and I think he will likely be dealing with this question tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether he could advise the House as to the decision of the Government on this matter prior to the taking up of second reading of this legislation?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing the matter with my colleague.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made earlier by the Acting Prime Minister to the effect that we may expect the report of Chief Justice Dorion in a matter of days, can we

DEBATES	June 21, 1965
have some assurance that the Government will give to the House before the recess an opportunity to debate this report, giving the Government itself an opportunity to present what action it intends to take with respect to the findings of Chief Justice Dorion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker as I indicated, the Chief Justice hopes to be able to present his report soon, but not before the end of the week. The document will be tabled by the Government in Parliament, of course, and the procedures which Parliament has for dealing with this situation will undoubtedly be resorted to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the Acting Prime Minister more directly whether it is the Government's intention, when it receives this report, to make a statement before Parliament adjourns, setting out what action it proposes to take in the light of the findings of the Chief Justice?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the report contains, and I am sure the Prime Minister will want to examine the report and, as a result, determine the course of action he proposes to take.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance of this particular question I wonder whether the Government would give consideration to employing the same technique that was used on another occasion, that of sidetracking everything else and giving this matter top priority in regard to translation and printing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is now being done, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister and arises out of the statement made today in connection with the Dorion inquiry. Since the apparent leak of information occurred during the process of translating the report, would the Government give consideration to having inquiries and commissions report to the Government immediately in whatever language their reports have been initially prepared so that the Government can take the responsibility for the translation and publication of the reports with the result that there will be no doubt about the responsibility in this regard in the future?
June 21, 1965	COMMONS


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I think it has yet to be proven that in fact there was a leak. As the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam so rightly said, this cannot be determined until the report has been made public.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question was directed to preventing any possibility of leaks in the future and so that if a leak did occur there would be no possibility of any doubt as to responsibility for the leak. Would the Government give consideration to that suggestion?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I would doubt, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Inasmuch as this question relates to policy in general, may I suggest it be placed on the order paper or brought up at a later time.



REVIEW OF CRIMINAL CODE PROVISIONS RESPECTING BAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice prompted by a report that appeared in a Toronto newspaper this morning. Has the Minister considered the report dealing with the alleged inequalities and inconsistencies in the system of granting bail which is said to obtain in Toronto, and which some of us know is in effect in other parts of Canada? Would he give consideration to having a complete study made of this subject and placing the matter before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that recommendations may be made with a view to possible changes in the Criminal Code?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



JOHN DARRELL PETERS-ALLEGED UNFAIRNESS IN SENTENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Inasmuch as I have been absent for a few days I wish to thank the Minister for postponing answering the question until I returned. The question has to do with one John Darrell Peters. Can the Minister give the House the information he has at the moment?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have now had an op-
DEBATES	2677
Inquiries of the Ministry portunity to consider the Peters case which was referred to by the hon. Member for Skeena on June 3, 1965. In 1961 Hon. E. D. Fulton directed an exhaustive investigation into this matter to determine whether there were grounds which would warrant directing a new trial. After careful consideration he decided there were none, and I am in agreement with that opinion. Furthermore, nothing new has turned up in the meantime which would warrant reversing it.
I might add that several proceedings by way of prerogative writs have been launched by or upon behalf of Peters in the Supreme Courts of British Columbia and Ontario. In addition, an application for leave to appeal was made to the Supreme Court of Canada. This application was heard by five judges of that court and was dismissed on May 17 last.



SEAFARERS BUILDING CORPORATION-NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COMPANIES LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question arising out of the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to Question No. 682 on the order paper, asked by the hon. Member for Kootenay West. Since it would appear that the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Limited has not complied with the provisions of the companies legislation, is it the intention of the Companies Branch or the Government to implement any proceedings to enforce compliance with the provisions of companies legislation and, if not, why not?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into this matter and reply later when I get the necessary information.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport who is away on official business, I shall put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
On many occasions we have asked for French at the Canadian National Railways, in the province of Quebec. Now, I have here a receipt for a shipment from Montreal to
June 21, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry St. Tite, Champlain county, and this receipt is in English only.
I was talking about the question of the French fact in Canada last Friday, and this person wrote to me to prove that the express service of the C.N.R. sends English forms to people who do not speak English, in St. Tite of Champlain, where there is not a single English speaking person.
Then I should like to know whether the Acting Prime Minister could inform his colleague, the Minister of Transport, of this situation or have the latter corrected himself?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That question could be put on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Government to take any action before the recess on the proposed legislation related to assistance to areas of unemployment in view of the continuing high rate of unemployment in the Atlantic area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I would do in these difficult circumstances without the help of my colleagues. I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to page 2147 of Hansard where the Prime Minister, in setting out the agenda is reported as stating:
Another important item which should be given early consideration is the new incentive for industry in certain areas to increase employment and incomes.
I may say, of course, that the employment figure in Canada is comparatively speaking very satisfactory.


An hon. Member:: Not in respect of the Atlantic coast area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the Government intends to go forward with this legislation before or after the recess?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the
program has been outlined by the Government, and it will depend on the kind of as-
[Mr. Caouette.)
sistance we receive from such friendly hon. gentleman as the one who has just put the question to me.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the growing fear in the Maritimes that Halifax and Saint John will be the only parts of these provinces not to be included in this new legislation, will the Minister say whether a decision has been taken in this regard and, if not, whether a direct opportunity will be made available for those two cities to make representations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken as yet, and I do not feel that I should go further than the words of the Acting Prime Minister.


Thomas Miller Bell: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give every assurance that Halifax and Saint John will be given an opportunity to protest this unfairness, which seems to be mounting, particularly in view of the fact that such a decision would only transfer the poverty around the Maritimes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think an affirmative answer on my part to that question would be equivalent to acknowledging the correctness, which I dispute, of the allegation made by the hon. Member.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he can inform the House when we can expect to see the legislation promised by the Prime Minister on June 7 to provide grants for industries in designated areas, which legislation was to come into effect on July 1?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will look at one of the earlier questions, he will see that this has already been answered.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
I have been informed lately that the Minister of Industry had determined the criteria to be used for the newly designated areas which might receive assistance.
Is the minister in a position to tell us when he will make an official announcement concerning the newly designated areas and the policy to be applied there?
June 21/ 1965	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think this question has been asked earlier this afternoon, and the minister has given an answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour now in a position to reply to several questions I brought to his attention during the past month concerning the S.I.U. and the maritime trustees, their activities and inactivities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to clear my outstanding accounts with the hon. Member for Kootenay West.
In connection with the question referring to port councils and the issuance of a charter by the International S.I.U., the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Maritime Transportation Unions has stated that the charter of the Montreal port council was issued on February 25, 1965 by the maritime trades department of the AFL-CIO, and that the Board of Trustees was not consulted about nor asked to approve the issuing of the charter. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees does not know whether or not the charter was issued with the approval of the Canadian Labour Congress.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the opinion expressed by Trustee Millard in respect of the irresponsibility of Paul Hall, does the Minister not think the trustees should approve any arrangement regarding charters of port councils which will have such an effect on the future development of our Canadian merchant marine?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the view that the Board of Trustees has been given an independent status by Parliament, and that it would be improper for me to comment either pro or con on the day to day decisions made by the Board. If any other course were followed it would certainly be beyond the intent of Parliament in giving direct responsibility to the board itself.
DEBATES	2679
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING UNDERMANNING OF SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in respect of a question asked earlier by the hon. Member for Kootenay West which had to do with the alleged undermanning of ships, I wish to advise him that the alleged undermanning of ships on the Great Lakes has been made the subject of an arbitration by the Seafarers' International Union. Judge Anderson, who is a well known conciliator, mediator and arbitrator, is conducting this arbitration. There is no indication that the action of certain shipowners reducing the size of their crews came about as the result of a recently negotiated agreement.
In respect of the third and final question posed by the hon. Member for Kootenay West, the answer to which is still outstanding, it is my understanding that the Minister of Public Works undertook to answer this question this morning. I will assure the hon. Member that if the Minister of Public Works is not available to answer it tomorrow, I will answer it myself.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-DAMAGE BY SPEEDING BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence may I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Government now give more serious consideration to the undue speeding of boats on the St. Lawrence as a result of the damage done last Friday at Prescott, which now must be added to the long list of complaints already on file with the Department in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question asked by the honourable and charming lady should be answered forthwith, and I regret that I am not sufficiently gallant or able to do so. We will do so tomorrow.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. On Friday the Minister spoke before the Manitoba Bar Association, and I should like to know who are the Canadians the Minister referred to as "unwashed infidels".
2680	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr, Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this is a very important and urgent question, and if the Minister of Justice does not care to answer it we can only take it that he was referring to Canadians. In view of the fact that the Minister, in travelling around the country making speeches referring to Canadians as "unwashed infidels", is speaking on behalf of the Government, it is time we got some action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. May I ask him if there has been any transfer of responsibilities from the Minister of Industry in his dual portfolio of Defence Production, in view of the press items appearing over the week end relating to the poor health and overwork of the Minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My colleague, like all of my colleagues, is in excellent health.



NOTICE TO STAFF RESPECTING ST. JEAN BAPTISTE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it arises from a letter sent to the employees by the House of Commons personnel director. It reads as follows:
"If the house is not sitting on June 24, St. Jean Baptiste Day..."
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us why they use the conditional form, that is "If the house is not sitting"!
Could the minister tell us whether it was not understood beforehand, according to the rules, that St. Jean Baptiste Day is a holiday for everybody?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to answer that question, since it is clear that St. Jean Baptiste Day will fortunately be a holiday for all members according to the statutes. [Mr. Maclnnis.)
DEBATES	June 21, 1965



COMMISSION REPORT ON ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since this is the season for receiving reports of royal commissions I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government has yet received a report from Mr. Justice Nemetz, who is looking into the question of alleged voting irregularities on the Pacific coast? Has the Government received the report and, if so, when will it be made public?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it has been received, but I will look into the matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the continuing drought which is bringing about a desperate situation for farmers situated in widely scattered parts of both Ontario and Quebec, particularly among the farmers of the Ottawa Valley, and which may also bring about higher food prices, will the Minister state whether the Government has considered convening an emergency conference of representatives of the two provincial Governments, the Federal Government and farmers' associations to discuss this important matter?


Maurice Sauvé: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) who is now attending a meeting in Paris, I will take this question as notice and will say tomorrow whether provincial governments or farm organizations have made requests.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The federal government has already stated that it was awaiting requests from the provincial governments, but I would like to know whether, on account of the very serious situation, the government will take action in order to help those who are affected?


Maurice Sauvé: I will consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, and answer tomorrow.
June 21, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received any request in this regard from the Ontario Department of Agriculture, which is a condition precedent to emergency action by the Federal Department of Agriculture?


Maurice Sauvé: I will study the files, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government is considering an emergency acreage payment, similar to the action taken by the former Government in 1959 due to "under the snow" conditions and because of the 1961 drought?


Maurice Sauvé: This is a matter of Government policy which would be announced in due course.



VANCOUVER-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN ARENA CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I will endeavour to do that.']
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I gave him notice, but in the Minister's absence today perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary will have the answer. Is the report from Vancouver true that discussions have been held between the Federal Government and directors of the Pacific National Exhibition regarding financial assistance in the construction of a 15,000 seat arena to accommodate agricultural shows and an anticipated entry of Vancouver into the National Hockey League?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question might be put on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in London proceeding with the setting up of the Prime Minister's peace mis-22620-1711
DEBATES	2681
Inquiries of the Ministry sion in view of the reported statement of Premier Chou En-lai in Cairo that this is a hoax designed to help the United States to hang on to Viet Nam, and in the light of statements made by President Nasser and others?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the statement attributed to Premier Chou En-lai of the Chinese People's Republic is not, as I read it, an absolute repudiation of the mission in the sense that the Government of China will refuse to receive the mission. I sincerely hope that the Government of China and the Government of North Viet Nam, along with the government of the Soviet Union, will recognize the desirability of meeting this mission that represents so many constituent elements in the Commonwealth.
The members of the mission will urge on the interested parties the desirability of beginning peace talks without any preconditions. I am happy to say that as a result of almost continuous contact over the week end I am aware of the very constructive position taken by the Prime Minister in discussions with certain Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth who for one reason or another had their doubts about the potential usefulness of the initiative taken by the British Prime Minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is Prime Minister Wilson to remain a member of this peace mission, or is he going to withdraw in favour of some other Commonwealth Prime Minister because of the objections stated by Chou En-lai and other government leaders in southeast Asia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing that is before me that would warrant the acceptance of this implication. The Government of Canada recognizes that there is much justification in the presence of the British Prime Minister as Chairman of the peace mission because, as Prime Minister, he is the head of the government that acts as one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord powers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about the proposed peace mission of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Newspapers indicate a rather discouraging response by China. Is there a possibility of the Canadian Prime Minister joining that group in view of
2682	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the withdrawal of the Prime Minister of Ceylon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not think that the withdrawal of the Prime Minister of Ceylon would cause the Prime Minister of Canada to change the position he took earlier, when he indicated that it would be better for him not to take part in the mission because of his desire, and the desire of other countries, that the mission should be a balanced representation of the Commonwealth. As I explained to the Member for Ontario the other day, by "balanced representation" he had in mind the fact that if he were to go on the mission it would mean there would be two western countries on the mission who are, at the same time, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I may assure the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre that the Prime Minister has been following this initiative with very great interest and has exercised his well known talents for diplomacy to favourably persuade certain countries which, for reasons best known to themselves, have been somewhat opposed to the British initiative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I was not asking for a eulogy of the Prime Minister, of course; let us have a eulogy of the Acting Prime Minister. Perhaps I did not phrase my first question correctly. In view of press reports that China is antagonistic toward the purposes of this mission, has the Acting Prime Minister any word from London on whether the intention is to proceed with the activities of the mission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry I did not answer that part of my hon. friend's question. I hope he will excuse me for saying the obvious in praise of the Prime Minister for what he has been trying to do. The only way I could avoid that would be if the hon. gentleman would undertake the responsibility of praising the Prime Minister for what he has been doing.
I do not expect that the reported attitude of the Chinese People's Republic will deter the decision of the Prime Ministers' Conference to proceed with the mission. On Saturday night a communication was addressed bj the peace mission through its Chairman, the Prime Minister of Britain, to the Soviet Union, the United States, North Viet Nam, South Viet Nam, the Chinese People's Republic and the Secretary Ceneral of the United Nations.
It is the intention of the mission to proceed very shortly to call on all those governments
(Mr. Churchill.]
DEBATES	June 21, 1965
which are willing to receive them, so they can make representations designed to try to bring about talks leading to some stabilization in that section of Indochina.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of what took place in Algeria over the week end, can the minister tell the house if the government expects to recognize the new regime shortly or if it will wait a while?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it has been decided to postpone our decision until more information is available.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he been supplied with a copy of the telegram sent to the Prime Minister by 72 Canadian university professors concerning the danger of the war in Viet Nam escalating into a wider conflict? If so, can he give us the text of the telegram and the text of the Prime Minister's reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have the text of the telegram and I have a draft of the proposed reply, but whether it is the one the Prime Minister has actually sent I do not know. I will have to verify that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could produce these documents tomorrow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will endeavour to do that.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a very brief question to his Parliamentary Secretary. With regard to the review being made of the
June 21, 1965

system of university grants, can the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary indicate when this review will be completed and the changes brought into effect?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest this is a question for the order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has he received a communication from the Young Liberal Association of Spadina riding in Toronto asking that the words "God" and "the Queen" be deleted from the citizenship oath?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received such a communication. I must say, however, that I did not give them any encouragement.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that the Minister has refused this request?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said to the spokesman that as long as our constitution remains in the form it is we shall honour the Queen and allegiance will be pledged to her as our Queen. That is my stand, and that is the stand of the Government.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to oaths of citizenship, inasmuch as there are people who do not believe in a god, does the Government not take the position that they should be permitted to make affirmations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this question
has come before the House on several occasions. The matter is now pending before the Court of Appeal of Ontario and a decision is expected shortly. In view of the fact that the answer is sub judice, I do not think I should answer the question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the minister answerable for the C.M.H.C.
In order to enable all Canadian families to live in wholesome conditions and ensure, at the same time, the economic progress of our country, could the minister tell the house whether the government has already looked into the possibility of allowing a 3 per cent rebate on mortgage loans granted throughout Canada for the construction of one-family dwellings?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper?



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: May I ask the
Acting Prime Minister if he is in a position to reply to the question I asked him concerning the B and B Commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret that I am not, but I will look into the matter. I have been preoccupied lately.



VANCOUVER-QUESTIONS ASKED BY COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Order please. The hour assigned for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired and the House will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock."]
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I understood that this afternoon he would answer two questions which I raised last week. I understood he was going to give a report as to whether or not a questionnaire had been issued by the B and B Commission, under contractual arrangement, which had certain political overtones.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for information with regard to the interrogations being made in British Columbia under the auspices of this Commission. I have not yet got all the facts to provide the necessary foundation for an answer.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
June 21, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry direct a question to the Secretary of State who is responsible tor the Civil Service Commission.
Is it the government's intention to amend the Civil Service Act so that French speaking Canadians would not have to speak English any more than English speaking Canadians are required at present to speak French to get a job or a promotion, here, in Ottawa, so that both groups may get equal treatment?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. Since this is a matter of general policy, I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's statement on Wednesday last that it is the intention of the Government to apply the principles of the Canada Labour Code to all its employees, and that this will be done by July 1, can he tell the House what steps are to be taken to implement that undertaking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the Treasury Board has already issued a directive to cover all employees with respect to the minimum wage of $1.25 an hour; and it is my expectation, barring some unforeseen situations, that all federal employees will receive the minimum wage by July 1.
The question of applying the hours is in a somewhat different situation, because it may be necessary to observe the pattern of adjustment that would prevail in private industry; but with respect to the wages there is no question as to the commencement date, July 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether this will also apply to employees working on Federal Government contracts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been clear that this statute does not apply to contractors or employees working under federal Government contracts. That is why we have determined to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act in order to bring the wages and hours in line with the principles of the Canada Labour Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what has happened to the Government's promise to have the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act amended by July 1?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raised this question some time ago, and nothing has happened to the promise. It will be exercised as quickly as possible, but in view of the present parliamentary timetable it is quite unlikely that this can be done by July 1.


REPORTED DISCRIMINATION BY AIR LINES AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked whether the Government would give consideration to the serious matter of discrimination against married women in employment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have not got the answer to this question as yet, but now that my hon. hon. friend has asked it again perhaps the officials in the gallery will see that he gets an answer as expeditiously as possible.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an inquiry made by the hon. Member for Vancouver East on Thursday last. I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows. Mr. Caple, regional director of the C.B.C. at Vancouver, spoke solely on behalf of the corporation in requesting the Vancouver City Council to extend a 25 year lease to the C.B.C. as part of the former R.C.A.F. base at Kitsilano.
The city council was also advised that if the Kitsilano site were not available, the C.B.C. must necessarily investigate alternative sites. The C.B.C.'s interest in this matter is confined to securing an appropriate site for its Vancouver area operations as soon as possible and on the most attractive economic basis.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Secretary of State gave an answer to the first two parts of the question I put to him last Thursday. Is he now prepared to give a reply to the third section, which has to do with the interest of the Government in an urban redevelopment in
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission
Vancouver, with the C.B.C. being part of it and all three levels of government participating?


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for questions involving urban development, but I am quite sure that if a proposal were developed by those in authority then the C.B.C. would look into it very seriously.


Harold Edward Winch: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask him whether there was an understanding given by himself that the Government would be interested in urban redevelopment, with the C.B.C. as part of it, and whether he still stands by what I understand to be the position he took only a few months ago?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this question has been asked. I can say categorically that while I did say that the Federal Government or at least Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, an agency of the Federal Government, would look sympathetically on any proposal for an urban renewal study in downtown Vancouver that might be put forward by the City of Vancouver-because it must originate with the city-any proposal put forward by the city which carried the support and endorsement of the Provincial Government would receive prompt and sympathetic consideration here in Ottawa, I went no further than that.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On that occasion discussion took place as to whether a C.B.C. building could be included in the study. I said I could give no assurance, that this must come out of the urban renewal study itself; that if out of that study, with the C.B.C. participating in the study, there came such a recommendation, it would receive prompt consideration by our officials here in Ottawa. I might say that following this I spoke to one of the members of the Provincial Government and suggested that thought should be given to an urban renewal study, perhaps more than one, in downtown Vancouver. As the hon. Member knows, there are several areas that are worthy of study in this respect. I have also alerted the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing in Vancouver, British Columbia to be on the lookout for any such a proposal that might come forward, and so far as I know nothing has been done since that date. That was several months ago.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
last week I addressed a question to the Secretary of State, asking him to inquire whether the Redistribution Commission in the Province of Ontario would publish in the weekly press some of the new maps that have been issued as a result of its work. As the deadline for publication in the weekly papers is tomorrow, can the Minister advise whether a decision has been made to comply with that request?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the views of the hon. Member have been communicated to the commission, but I have not received any indication from the commission as to what would be its decision.


Michael Starr: Would the Secretary of State be good enough to communicate with it again and ask for a decision?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of Bill No. C-121, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the House go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the disposition of Indian claims and in relation thereto,
1.	To provide for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission;
2.	To provide for the duties of the Commission, its decisions and awards;
3.	To provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the Commission to an Indian Claims Appeal Court;
4.	To provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims; and
5.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that many, and I hope all, hon. Members have carefully considered this resolution. Its purpose, as indicated in the resolution itself, is to establish an Indian Claims Commission to consider fully the claims of Indian bands against the Crown.
The establishment of such a Commission has been advocated for many years, not only by Indians but by many others, in order that a tribunal might be set up which could effectively deal with claims put forward by the Indians of Canada. The claims made may or may not have legitimate bases; some of them undoubtedly have, but it is felt that when so many of these claims are being put forward, whether rightly or wrongly, there should be a tribunal set up to determine them, and settle them once and for all.
I think most people who have studied this problem, and more particularly those with any training in the law, will appreciate that it is impossible to have these claims dealt with in the law courts, where strict rules of evidence must be followed and where other legal technicalities would have to be adhered to. These claims, I might say, have mainly to do with allegations that lands were taken without proper compensation agreed upon by treaty or otherwise; also they involve failure to discharge treaty obligations, improper use of Indian trust funds, and in general include claims based on the alleged failure of Canada to deal in a fair and equitable manner with our native people, the Indians.
Two joint committees of the Senate and House of Commons which examined Indian affairs in the years 1946 to 1948 and again in 1959 to 1961, after hearing the evidence of Indians and others, recommended that a Claims Commission be established to hear and settle in an equitable manner these claims. I might say that from my perusal of Hansard and discussions I have had with officials of my Department, I believe and I am advised that the establishment of such an Indian Claims Commission has received general suport in the past from members of all parties in the Commons, and the Indians generally have come to expect that such a Commission would be established.
In the United States, after many years of advocacy, an Indian Claims Commission was established in 1946. This Commission was given very broad terms of reference to

deal with claims of Indian tribes, which are similar in many respects to those raised by the Indian bands and tribes in Canada. Indians in Canada are very well aware of the work of this Commission in the United States and they have continued-not only Indians but others who are interested in the subject-to press for a comparable tribunal in Canada to deal with these claims. I might say, Mr. Chairman-and I have had some experience myself-that some Indians feel such a Commission would be just another device concocted by the whites to whittle away Indian rights. We must do our best not only to establish this Commission as soon as possible, but when it is set up we must do what we can to ensure that everything is done to correct and remove any such impression.
Hon. Members will recall that in December, 1963 Bill No. C-130 was introduced in this House to establish such a Claims Commission. Immediately thereafter copies of the Bill were distributed to Indian organizations, Indian bands and other interested groups and individuals in all parts of Canada for study. The Bill now proposed and covered by the resolution before the Committee is similar in objectives but differs in some major respects, in that it includes several suggestions that were made by the Indian bands and others since the bill of December, 1963 was introduced.
The need to settle the claims of our native people, the Indians, is just as great today as it was when the earlier resolution was approved by a Committee of this House in December, 1963. The mere existence of these claims is an impediment, I believe, to progress. Some of the claims have their roots in the very deep past; they go back well over 100 years. Others are of more recent origin. But whether ancient or new, or whatever the merits of the claims may be, it is apparent that there is a continuing sense of grievance among the Indians concerned; they have felt that action should have been taken long ago, and that it is time for us to take action which will permit their claims to be dealt with in justice and fairness.
I firmly believe, therefore-and here I speak strongly on behalf of the Government-that it is highly desirable at this time to provide a means whereby the Indians can state their claims fully and have them determined. We hope that, once we have done so, these old controversies will be laid at rest, and by so doing will go a long way toward building the kind of confidence in the intentions of Parliament and the intentions of the Canadian
June 21, 1965

people which is so necessary for the future development of the Indian population of this country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As I have already advised the Committee, it is the Government's intention to recommend that this bill be referred to a Committee for detailed consideration. In view of the great interest taken by Members of the other place and the fact that they have participated in two joint Committees which recommended that such a Commission be appointed, we intend to propose that the bill be studied by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. When this bill is before the Joint Committee, and whenever it is considered necessary or desirable for me to do so, I, with the assistance of the officials of my Department in the Indian Affairs Branch, will deal with the various representations which were made to us during the year 1964 and early this year with respect to the former claims bill.
At this stage I will content myself by drawing attention to the objectives of the bill as outlined in the resolution. If all hon. Members have read it I need not take much of their time, but briefly they call for a measure to provide for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission; to outline the duties of the Commission, its decisions and awards; to provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the Commission to an Indian Claims appeal court; to provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims-I might say that was one of the matters recommended in several of the briefs that we received-and finally, to enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, we on this side, and I am sure all hon. Members of the Opposition, welcome this very long delayed and much needed resolution which precedes the bill establishing the Indian Claims Commission. This afternoon we heard the Acting Prime Minister indicate that the Government intended to take certain steps with regard to helping make up a deficit on the part of the United Nations.
This, of course, underlines the fact that Canada plays a very considerable part in connection with peace keeping operations around the world, and in addition, of course, through the Colombo Plan and other measures has participated very substantially in assisting underdeveloped nations. But I want to emphasize that for my part I think until

Indian Claims Commission we have remedied the problem we have in our own country by legislation of this kind and by other measures, our opportunities to participate in this very worth-while work throughout the world must be somewhat lessened.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister that another joint committee will be set up. I had the privilege of serving on the last joint committee, and our labours extended over a period of three years. A number of witnesses were called and there was an extensive examination-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If the hon. gentleman will permit an interjection at this point, I hope that the passage of this legislation will not take even three months, let alone three years.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hope so too; because it was in 1961 that the report was made, and it is now 1965. So the three years of discussion and the four years intervening between the filing of the report and introduction of the legislation makes a very long period of gestation.
I also wanted to refer to what the Minister said regarding the situation in this country in the past, particularly vis-a-vis the United States. In the United States for a great many years-hon. Members may not be aware of this-such treaties were given the same solemn obligation as were international treaties between sovereign countries. I think that was the case until about 1870 or 1880. This accordingly lent to treaties signed by the national government of the United States and the Indian people a far greater measure of solemnity, and gave them far greater opportunities to implement in different ways the benefits which the treaties purported to give to them.
I think this bill, as the Minister said, has its origin in the requests made over the years by various Indian bands and others who are equally concerned about the welfare and advancement of our Indian people. In particular it was the subject of discussion in the joint committee. At page 13 of the report of the Committee, the very last recommendation, the following appears:
An Indian Claims Commission should be established to hear the British Columbia and Oka Indian land questions and other matters, and that the cost of counsel to Indians for the two land questions specified above be borne by the federal treasury.
I emphasize the use of the words "and other matters", because in the course of delibera-
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission tions and during several days in July 1961, when the steering committee wrestled with the question of what should be included in the report for presentation to the main Committee, there had been suggestions by the officials of the Department that the Claims Commission should be limited to the two issues Of British Columbia and Oka Indian land questions. However, Members of the Committee, including hon. Members of the other place felt that this was insufficient; that there were other issues that remained to be settled and until these claims were resolved we could not be said to have done justice to the obligations, both legal and moral, which lay on our shoulders with respect to the Indian people of Canada. I want to make that quite plain because in concluding my remarks I want to point out the reason for the inclusion of the words "and other matters", and to emphasize and underline that certain areas of dispute should be included in this legislation or we have not lived up to our obligations.
We can consider the provisions of this bill later, but this discussion in committee gives me an opportunity to urge the inclusion of certain issues and questions which may or may not be in the bill. The Minister has not made it quite plain in this respect, and of course we will not know until we see the bill.
During the course of the last year or so there have been a number of court decisions which have brought up and emphasized the problems which still exist, particularly with regard to the rights of Indian people under the treaties which were entered into between the Federal Government and various Indian peoples. I am not going to go into all of them because this is not the time or the forum, but I should like to refer briefly to three. I will not infringe the rules, Mr. Chairman, and discuss the merits of these issues; I simply refer to them because some of them are still sub judice.
There is the recent decision of the magistrate's court in Saskatchewan declaring that what is known as the medicine chest clause in the treaties was sufficient on which to found a claim by the Indian people to receive certain medical and hospitalization privileges without having to pay for them. This in turn could cast a responsibility upon the Federal Government. Then there was a case in British Columbia involving traditional hunting and trapping rights which I think is still in the process of appeal. There may have been an abandonment of the appeal, but as far as I

know it is still being considered. Third, there was the George case in Ontario where an appeal court decided, at least by inference, that the Migratory Birds Convention Act did not apply to Indians, a decision which has subsequently, in effect, been cancelled by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the "lame duck" or Sikyea case.
These issues involve consideration of a number of treaties, and I am going to refer briefly to the treaties known as Nos. 1 to 11, involving all parts of western Canada save a large area of British Columbia, and parts of the northern areas in the Northwest Territories. They also involve a part of Ontario, e (4:20 p.m.)
A consideration of these treaties and the decisions of the courts, I submit, introduces a completely new element into the question of how we must fulfil our obligations to the Indian people of Canada. I precede my statement by referring to the Sikyea case, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which in effect has declared that the treaties in question can no longer be considered as having any validity when the Parliament of Canada acting within the course of its authority has legislated. In other words these treaties-and there are citations which bear me out in this regard-are not more than promises made from time to time by Government officials, from the year 1870 up to I believe 1922 or 1923, purporting to act on behalf of the Government of Canada, when actually they have no solemnity or validity in view of the fact that the Government has seen fit to legislate in a way which is prejudicial and contrary to these respective agreements.
As a matter of fact I believe I am justified in making this statement. If these treaties were in fact agreements between private individuals, under the laws relating to the interpretation of contracts every one of them would be declared completely invalid in so far as the Indian people are concerned. In the first place, there have been elements of undue influence. The Government was dealing with people who were then its wards. In many cases they were illiterate and unacquainted with the legal phraseology used and completely unaware of the consequences of treaties they signed. These were agreements which were improvident and were signed in exchange for a few thousand dollars in respect of each, plus a few thousand dollars paid each year in respect of all areas except the Northwest Territories, plus
June 21, 1965	COMMONS
a suit of clothes, medals and a flag to the Indians involved, purporting to quiet the title to the Federal Government of that vast area of Canada lying west of the Great Lakes, excluding a large part of the Province of British Columbia.
To illustrate my point that this was improvident, unconscionable and against national justice, I should like to refer to the terms of a later treaty which was signed in 1922 or 1923 by which the Indians, having already transferred to the Federal Government such rights as they had in their lands, gave up their traditional fishing and hunting rights in a comparatively small part of the country, for which they received half a million dollars. Contrast that with the paltry amounts paid to the various Indian bands and the amounts paid on a yearly basis to the Indians under treaties signed during the last half of the nineteenth century.
I think that is ample proof of my proposition that these agreements were improvident, and that if they formed the basis of private agreement between two parties any court would set them aside as being completely contrary to the interests of one of the parties. The treaties were fraudulent, in that they were accompanied by promises and statements by officials made, I believe, in perfectly good faith that the promises would be kept, but made under circumstances which would indicate that there could not be that 100 per cent compliance which should be essential in treating agreements between parties such as the Federal Government on one side and Indians or small groups of Indian people on the other.
I referred for example to Treaty No. 8, which I happen to know, and which covers an area in which I live of some 100,000 square miles. That treaty was accompanied by a report of the Commissioners who were present and saw it signed. In the course of this report the Commissioners in reporting to the Superintendent General or the Minister in charge of Indian Affairs made this statement:
Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed. The provision in the treaty under which ammunition and twine is to be furnished went far in the direction of quieting the fears of the Indians, for they admitted that it would be unreasonable to furnish the means of hunting and fishing if laws were to be enacted which would make hunting and fishing so restrictive as to render it impossible to make a livelihood by such pursuits. But over and above the provision, we had to solemnly assure them that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur bearing animals would be made, and that
DEBATES	2689
Indian Claims Commission they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.
Mr. Chairman, statements of that kind, in the light of what has happened since and in the light of the decision in the Sikyea case, by which the highest court of this country has confirmed that the Migratory Birds Convention Act, passed as a matter of fact some years before the last treaties were signed, are as fraudulent as it is possible to be in the case of an agreement of this kind. It is quite obvious that the rights to hunt and fish and trap have been curtailed not only as a result of increased settlement and the coming of civilization to many parts of Canada-this is something with which we cannot quarrel- but actually by Federal legislation, and that these are rights that have been substantially diminished or lost.
I maintain that if these had been agreements between two private parties any court would set them aside as being invalid and improvident, having in mind the relationship of the parties and what actually passed between them.
I have referred to the Sikyea case as a firm illustration of the decision of the Appellate Court of the Northwest Territories, and this has relation to Treaties Nos. 8 and 11, which is in effect a declaration that these treaties cannot be regarded as anything more than undertakings and promises, and not binding legally on the government; and that as such, according to the convention and constitution of practice which prevails, any Parliament is free to alter and change them. It is all very well for various courts to state, as has been stated from time to time, that the Federal Government would not change them; the fact remains that there have been changes and that Indian people have no reason to accept the statements and promises made at this time unless the legislation contains within its four corners stringent and adequate safeguards for these people is respect of those treaties. We must allay their alarm, wipe out their fears and make sure that they approach further negotiations in a far better spirit than has been the case in the past.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
1 do not wish to take up too much more time, as I know other Members want to participate in this debate, but I want to make this point quite clear. I suggest to the Minister and the committee that this legislation will be inadequate; it will be defective and insufficient unless it contains a provision that will permit the Indian people, either in-
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission dividually or in groups, to use this particular means of seeking recourse and remedy for breaches of treaties, even though these treaties can be legally broken by the Federal Government. The solemn responsibility resting upon the Government under these conditions cannot be discharged unless at this time legislation of this kind contains a provision that Indian people who have suffered in any way through failure to comply with these treaties will have an opportunity to seek recourse.
I understand, of course, that an interdepartmental committee has been established which is considering the effect of one of the decisions. I am not going to anticipate what the final decision may be in connection with the so-called medicine chest case, but there is no doubt that the Sikyea case is going to weigh very heavily upon those who carry the onus of trying to establish the rights of Indian people in that litigation. But when all these things have been decided I should like to see this legislation in such a state- it can only be done by enacting proper provisions now-that Indian people who have suffered injustices will be able to seek recourse through this means and not have to wait for this legislation to be amended later, for the Indian Act to be amended or for other provisions to be introduced.
I recognize that the facts of life are such that it may be difficult and may take a long time to bring this legislation back and secure amendments, and I suggest to the Minister that this should be an open-ended type of act. If the bill does not include such a clause I submit there should be a provision-I am not going to suggest at this time how it should read because we will have to wait until we see the bill-to the effect that people who have suffered prejudice in any way through failure to comply with the treaties will be free to apply, through an interlocutory application to a single member of the commission, for the right to have their case ventilated, considered and a decision made. I also suggest that any such provision should not be construed in a strictly legal sense.
The Minister is a lawyer, and I know he will recognize the difficulties facing the Indian people when they have to undergo the expense involved in the gathering of evidence to prepare a case for trial in the first instance for a subsequent appeal and for the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The length of time that has to be taken in considering a matter of this kind is also something which must be taken into account.

I suggest this is an admirable vehicle by which with the proper type of wording it will be possible, after final decisions have been reached in the existing cases involving treaty rights and the obligations of the government, either in honour or in law, for the Indian people to have their grievances remedied without the necessity of having to go through the courts. I suggest this is the right vehicle for it, and I hope if such a provision is not now in the bill something will be done to meet my request before the bill is presented to us.


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation whatever in expressing my own view that the question placed before the House in the resolution now under consideration is the most important matter which this Parliament will consider during its entire period of life. I listened attentively to the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Peace River, and it is evident that he shares my concern that when we see the legislation it will be adequate to do the kind of job that needs to be done. He dwelt at some length on the situation in the part of the country with which he is most familiar, and later in my own remarks I may try to illustrate the need for adequate legislation by some reference to the situation in the part of the country with which I am more familiar.
First of all, however, I should like to mention something on which the hon. Member for Peace River only touched in passing. It is because of my concern about this aspect of the legislation that I make the statement that in my view this legislation is the most significant of any we are likely to have presented to us in this Parliament. I feel that what comes out of the legislation being introduced by this resolution will have an impact upon Canada's stature as a nation in the family of nations for generations to come. In my opinion its effect for good or ill will last long after the current dialogue between the two so-called founding races of this country will have been fogotten; and the effect of the studies and findings of such bodies as the B and B commission will be dwarfed when contrasted with the significance of the bodies that will be established under this legislation. I am referring to the proposal set out in the resolution for an Indian Claims Commission and an Indian Claims Appeal Court.
If the two bodies proposed in the resolution do not do the job that it is quite obvious the hon. Member for Peace River hopes they
June 21, 1965

will do, and that I and I think most other Members of the House hope they will do, then Canada will no longer have any right or justification to hold its head high in the modern world in which we live. I think we have to view this proposal in the light of the realities of the world in which we now live; a world in which the peoples of European stock, who for so long were dominant, are now on the defensive; a world in which we are seeing the emergence of races and peoples so long subservient into a position where their right to freedom and self determination is being achieved and respected.
We have only to think of the discussions that have been going on in London between the Prime Ministers of the various Commonwealth nations to understand how significant it is that if we in Canada are to be a self respecting member of the Commonwealth we have got to take action within our own borders paralleling in statesmanship the action taken in recent years by the United Kingdom in permitting formerly subservient peoples of Asia and Africa to emerge as fully independent and equal partners in the Commonwealth of Nations. For as long as I can remember there has been a great deal of sentiment in Canada in favour of the people of such countries as India obtaining their freedom. This arises in part, of course, out of our own experience in emerging from colonial status. But it does seem to me that over the years we have taken a free and easy attitude of support for the freedom of the people of India and of other countries in Africa which have now become members of the Commonwealth, while at the same time we have been completely blind with regard to what we have been doing in respect of the freedom we won and which gives us our national stature. It seems now that for far too long we Canadians have been more concerned with the removal of the mote from the eye of Britain than we have with the removal of the beam in our own eye.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that our days are numbered; that the world is not much longer going to remain unaware of the situation that exists in this country in respect of the original inhabitants, whom we have so largely replaced. They are no longer going to hold us in the kind of esteem in which we are held in many quarters of the world, and which in reality we do not deserve.
I think we have to consider what this legislation is going to mean in the context of the North American situation, which is not
Indian Claims Commission exactly parallel to that which has prevailed in Africa or in Asia. I believe it is probably fair to say that even the Indian people themselves do not expect those of us of European descent to withdraw from this continent in the way Europeans have agreed to withdraw from many of the areas in Africa and Asia. It seems to me that the job that has to be done by this legislation, in effect, is parallel to the job which has been done by Britain in granting India her freedom and independence, and in following through by granting various other one-time colonial groups their freedom and independence.
It should be the function of the body set up by this legislation to do that job in the context of the realities of the situation, and with the objective of achieving for the Canadian people the same restoration of their basic freedoms that is being achieved by some of the other peoples in the world today. I think it is true, Mr. Chairman, to say that in the part of Canada from which I come what has happened is perhaps of more recent memory than it is in some of the eastern parts of this continent. It is possible for those of us who live in British Columbia today to talk to people who at least can tell us the stories they have heard first hand from their grandfathers as to how the European infiltration and occupation took place. For that reason perhaps we may be able to see more vividly the results of this than may be the case in the Atlantic half of the continent, where the process took place a greater number of years ago.
Perhaps I can best put before the Members of the Committee my own feeling and understanding by making some refences to a book written by one Gilbert Malcolm Sproat, whose name has now become associated with a very beautiful lake close to where I live. This book was published in London in 1868 and is entitled "Scenes and Studies of Savage Life". If the Committee will permit me I should like to quote somewhat liberally from this book, because I have not come across anything else in my own reading on the questions that are involved that sets out quite so vividly just how the Europeans went about their business, at least in the coastal areas of British Columbia. In the preface to this book Mr. Sproat says:
I did not intend, originally, to publish these observations and have made no attempt, now, at literary ornament in producing them. Any value found in these pages will consist, I think, in their freshness and minuteness of detail, as well as in the more special consideration of social feelings, moral and intellectual characteristics and religious
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission notions-matters which travellers among savages, ordinarily, have not full opportunity to do justice to.
This book, which was produced about 100 years ago, indicates to me at least the state of mind of the Europeans of that time, when Britain was at the height of her colonial empire, and perhaps some of the contrasts in the terms we might be prepared to use today in discussing some of these questions. Mr. Sproat indicates, and I am quoting again:
I did not merely pass through the country. The information which I give concerning their language, manners, customs, and ways of life, is not from memory, but from memoranda, written with a pencil on the spot-in the hut, in the canoe, or in the deep forest; and afterwards verified or amended by my own further researches-
Then in the first chapter, Mr. Chairman, he describes his entry into that part of Vancouver Island where I now make my home. He sets out his experiences which led to the establishment of the first export saw mill in British Columbia, in these terms:
In August, I860, I entered Nitinaht, or Barclay Sound, on the outside, or western, coast of Vancouver Island, with two armed vessels, Woodpecker and Meg M-errilies, manned by about fifty men, who accompanied me for the purpose of taking possession of the district now called Albemi, a name taken from the Spanish navigator who first discovered the inlet at the head of the Sound. Reaching the entrance to this inlet, we sailed for twenty miles up to the end of it-as up a natural canal-three-quarters of a mile wide and very deep, bordered by rocky mountains, which rose high on both sides almost perpendicularly from the water. The view, as we advanced up this inlet from the sea, was shut in behind and before us, making the prospect like that from a mountain lake. At the end of this singular canal, the rocky sides of which appear to have been smoothed by a continued action of moving ice upon their surface, and which itself gives an idea of having been the furrow of a mighty glacier moving downwards toward the sea, tne high land on the right receded from the shore, and a large bay or basin, with a river flowing into it through level wooded land, met our view. The range of hills which opened on one side formed an elbow about ten miles distant from the canal, and crossing in a direction almost at right angles to the course of the inlet, met a continuation of the other range, and thus shut in the district known to all the Indians as the famous berry-land of Somass.
Near a pretty point at one side of the bay, where there was a beach shaded by young trees, the summer encampment of a tribe of natives was to be seen. Our arrival caused a stir, and we saw their flambeaux of gumsticks flickering among the trees during the night.
In the morning I sent a boat for the chief, and explained to him that his tribe must move their encampment, as we had bought all the surrounding land from the Queen of England, and wished to occupy the site of the village for a particular purpose. He replied that the land belonged to themselves, but that they were willing to sell it. The price not being excessive, I paid him what was

asked-about twenty pounds worth of goods- for the sake of peace, on condition that the whole people and buildings should be removed next day. But no movement was then made, and as an excuse it was stated that the children were sick. On the following day the encampment was in commotion; speeches were made, faces blackened, guns and pikes got out, and barricades formed. Outnumbered as we were, ten to one, by men armed with muskets and our communication with the sea cut off by the impossibility of sailing steadily down the Albemi Canal (the prevalent breeze blowing up it), there was some cause for alarm had the natives been resolute. But being provided, fortunately, in both vessels with cannon-of which the natives at that time were much afraid-they, after a little show of force on our side, saw that resistance would be inexpedient, and began to move from the spot.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Then he goes on:
Two or three days afterwards, when the village had been moved to another place, not far distant, I visited the principal house at the new encampment, with a native interpreter.
"Chiefs of the Seshahts," said I on entering, "are you well; are your women in health; are your children hearty; do your people get plenty of fish and fruits?"
"Yes," answered an old man, "our families are well, our people have plenty of food; but how long this will last we know not. We see your ships, and hear things that make our hearts grow faint. They say that more King-George-men will soon be here, and will take our land, our firewood, our fishing grounds; that we shall be placed on a little spot, and shall have to do everything according to the fancies of the King-George-men."
"Do you believe all this?" I asked.
"We want your information," said the speaker.
"Then," answered I, "it is true that more King-George-men (as they call the English) are coming: they will soon be here; but your land will be bought at a fair price."
"We do not wish to sell our land nor our water; let your friends stay in their own country."
To which I rejoined: "My great chief, the high chief of the King-George-men, seeing that you do not work your land, orders that you shall sell it. It is of no use to you. The trees you do not need; you will fish and hunt as you do now, and collect firewood, planks for your houses, and cedar for your canoes. The white man will give you work, and buy your fish and oil."
"Ah, but we don't care to do as the white men wish."
"Whether or not," said I, "the white men will come. All your people know that they are your superiors; they make the things which you value. You cannot make muskets, blankets, or bread. The white men will teach your children to read printing, and to be like themselves."
"We do not want the white man. He steals what we have. We wish to live as we are."
These words I have quoted, and many others in this book, have brought home to me more forcefully than anything else the real situation, and what is really behind the so-called land question in B.C.; and though I would like to say a good deal more on the
June 21, 1965
subject, I hope they have indicated to the committee in some small way why I feel this is the most significant piece of legislation that we will be asked to discuss in this Parliament.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief, but I do want to commend the Government for bringing this legislation before us. I hope it will be passed as quickly as possible and that the joint committee it proposes will deal with its work expeditiously.
Now that we have reached this stage I hope we shall soon correct some of the errors of the past and enable the Indians to benefit from claims which have been held up for many years.
So far as compensation is concerned I hope it will be generous, because many acts committed in the past need review and correction. I am constrained to ask that the benefit of the doubt be placed on the side of the Indian, because so often we are not too relative in our thinking concerning the spending of money. A few years ago we did not hesitate for one minute to give the Canada Council $100 million, and since that time we have given it many more millions of dollars.
Based on this and other expenditures by the Federal Government, I hope the recommendations made in connection with compensation will be made from the point of view of dollars and cents, and that we will not be niggardly. I hope the main task of the commission will be quickly and effectively undertaken, and that the life of the commission will be short so the Indians can soon have the redress which has been long owed them.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, during the
next few minutes I should like to express our satisfaction with this resolution providing for the setting up of an Indian Claims Commission.
I think that this bill, which we will have the opportunity of considering in detail, comes at an opportune time and especially that it will meet the wishes of the Indian bands which have requested for a long time, every time we have met with the chiefs or Indian band authorities, such an agency through which they could plead their case before the federal government.
I think a grave injustice was done to the Indian people when they were confined within a reserve under the supervision of a manager called a reserve administrator.
As far as I know from my own constituency-I am not speaking about Indians in
Indian Claims Commission other provinces-Indians are often the victims of dealings which could hardly be called fair on the part of this reserve manager who, of course, is always a white man.
I myself found that Indians had complained in vain on many occasions and they certainly had legitimate grievances against the present administration of Indian reserves.
The worse part of it was that those Indians had no way of making themselves heard by the federal authorities, except through a branch that has so much to look after throughout Canada that it does not matter much when 10 or 15 small Indian families raise their voices in the Roberval area. I myself asked the minister to conduct inquiries. And what happened? The present chief of the Indian reserve himself was asked to do it. Can you imagine? When 10 or 15 families have a legitimate complaint against the chief and finally succeed in having an inquiry set up by the federal Indian Affairs branch, we are told that the chief is conducting the inquiry. Imagine the results.
I am very happy for the people of the Indian reserve of the riding of Roberval that this commission will be established. I hope it will be independent and that a great many of its members will be Indians so that it can provide benefits to the Indian people and that it will not again be influenced somehow by politics. When the survival of a people is at stake, it is not time to play party politics. The Indian people deserve consideration because they have been very patient up to now.
Since I have been sitting here, I have made three or four interventions myself to suggest to the government means of interesting Indians or of giving a little more meaning to their lives, because if you spoke with chiefs, you would find family heads telling you that the worst thing for them is to feel that they are useless.
Some people complain that those Indians are government pensioners. They do not want to be government pensioners, they do not want to be useless in a country like Canada. The government should assist them as it assists any other association, it should help them in matters of tourism. As I said a moment ago, I am only speaking for the Indians in my riding because the only way to help the Indians of Pointe-Bleue is by promoting the tourist industry. You have there the most beautiful tourist attraction in the area but nothing has been done about

June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission it, even though fully qualified personnel could be found within the reserve itself. If only the federal government agreed to spend a few thousand dollars to develop the tourist industry in the area. But, unfortunately, nothing is being done.
I have made three or four requests in that respect, but still nothing is being done, except forwarding the meagre pay cheques to the Indians, every month, but that does not help the economy of the area and yet, the Indians themselves would be so proud to participate in the development of Canada.
I have gone to the reserve and all those I have met said they had no way of expressing their views. I think that, through this commission, the Indian reserve will be able to submit its requests and express its views directly to the government agencies; the Indians have marvelous suggestions to make, but nothing can be done about them unless the government is aware of them.
I will no doubt have the opportunity of dealing with this again when this bill is before the house, but I wish to commend the government for introducing this resolution and I hope that the proposed legislation will be wide enough in scope to include any question which is important to the future of the Indian people in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with keen interest to the previous speakers and I think we can see that we are all thinking along similar lines and are, at the present at least, in full agreement, which is something new in the House of Commons. I would just like to say, as one who hunted, fished and trapped with the Indians in my younger days, that I am certainly very interested in and extremely pleased to see this resolution being brought in providing for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission. Such a Claims Commission is very important to Indians in the various parts of Canada, and I believe it will be of significant importance to the Indians of the Six Nations Reserve, who over the years have advanced their claims against the Crown.
The Six Nations Indian Reserve, one of the best known bands of Indians in Canada, is only a short distance from my own home and I have many personal friends there. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention a few historical facts about the Six Nations Indians and something about their claims. The Six Nations Indians have had a

long and historic association with the Crown. In fact, they fought on the side of the Crown in the War of Independence and as a result were invited to come to Canada after the close of the war. The reserve was purchased from the Mississauga Indians. It ran along the banks of the Grand River and extended some six miles on either side. It took in a large area of ground, something like 700,000 acres. The grant of land was made by Sir Frederick Haldimand in 1784 and the reserve was confirmed to the Indians by Governor Simcoe in 1793. It consisted of Haldimand, Brant, Waterloo and Wellington Counties. However, that huge territory has slowly been disposed of and today they have a reservation of some
40,000	acres in the Townships of Tuscarora and Oneida.
I would also like to point out that we have some very outstanding persons from the Six Nations Reserve. As I am a person who has been interested in athletics over the years, as many hon. Members know, the first name that comes to my mind is Tom Longboat, the great long distance runner whose achievements brought not only fame to himself but to his country, his people and the Six Nations Indians in particular. Then, of course, there is that one and only poetess, Pauline Johnson, the poetess whose beautiful and stirring ballads have been learned by generations of Canadian school children, and I sincerely hope always will be learned by Canadian school children. In the field of science there is Dr. G. C. Monture, noted Canadian mineralogist, who is another outstanding Six Nations Indian. Then there is the late Magistrate Martin who dispensed justice for both Indian and non-Indian; he was also from the Six Nations near Brantford. There are others, Mr. Chairman, but I will not enumerate them all. I am certain, from the few examples I have given of outstanding people who have come from this one reserve, that there are many Indians who will be able to contribute to the work of this Commission if given the opportunity. While the appointment of an Indian would have been possible under the previous bill, I am sure hon. Members will agree that requiring the appointment of at least one Indian will meet with the favour of Indians across Canada. I cannot stress this too much. Indeed, there were many briefs from Indians and others which suggested that this be done, and I sincerely hope the Minister will see that it is done.
June 21, 1965

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I also hope that the bill will make provision for the hearing of various kinds of claims. The Six Nations have advanced claims in the past, and I have in front of me an article from the Ottawa Journal for December 6, 1949, describing how members of the reserve were claiming compensation for part of the reserve which, they alleged, had been disposed of by the Governor to the old Grand River Navigation Company in the 1830's. These were just clear grants, by the way, without compensation. Without doubt this bill should provide, and I sincerely hope it will, that the claims may be brought where lands were disposed of by the Crown without payment of compensation, or where the compensation was not just and reasonable. There must be some consideration along these lines of thought; you cannot go exactly to the rule of the law itself.
If such provision were made it would meet the kind of claim that the Six Nations have put forward in the past.
In addition the Six Nations have alleged that about $160,000 of their trust funds were invested in worthless Grand River Navigation Company shares by the Province of Canada, and lost to them. I sincerely hope that this bill will make it possible to bring a claim which alleges that band funds have been improperly used.
It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that a means is being found by this legislation to deal with the old claims which have been of concern to Indians of the Six Nations reserve, and of course right across Canada, which for one reason or another they were unable to get settled in the ordinary courts. Indians in Canada, and the Six Nations Indians in particular, place great weight upon their treaties and agreements made with the Crown. They regard these agreements as solemn contracts to be honoured by both Indians and Crown, and I should add justly so. It certainly makes one feel good that at this time we have a Minister, the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who truly and sincerely, as I know all hon. Members feel, has the problems of the Indians at heart. With a Minister like this and with this Commission being set up I am sure something is going to be done at least.
As far as the Indians of the Six Nations reserve are concerned, it is interesting to note that the Haldimand grant by which the reserve was granted contained the following phrase:
-which them and their prosperity are to enjoy forever.

Indian Claims Commission
The Simcoe deed which confirmed the land grant contained the following expression:
-giving and granting, and by these presents confirming to the said Chiefs, warriors, women and people of the Six Nations and their heirs, the full and entire possession, use, benefit and advantage of the said district or territory, to be held and enjoyed by them in the most free and ample manner, and according to the several customs and usages of them the said Chiefs, warriors, women and people of the said Six Nations.
That is pretty plain, is it not? We cannot get around that, and I am sure we are not going to try to. I have quoted this extract to show the nature of some of the undertakings into which the Crown entered.
Some Indians have claimed that their treaties or agreements have been broken, as was stated by some of the previous speakers. Where there are cases of this I sincerely hope that the bill will allow the Indians to bring such matters before the Commission to seek redress. I feel very sure, the way things are going, that this will be done.
There is no doubt in our minds, and we have to face this, that the Commission will have a very complex job to do, as so much of its work will be to try and determine what happened years ago, yes even before Confederation. It will need to become familiar with many of the old documents such as the ones from which I have just quoted. It will need to do research into the history of Indian tribes and their relations with government over the years. Many investigations will be required. I certainly believe the Commission should have some researchers on its staff who will be able to do this and gather information and documents for the use of the Commission. I hope that under the bill the Commission will be able to conduct investigations, and perhaps others will be designated to do this. The Members of the Commission should also visit various places across the country to hear the complaints of Indians and to collect evidence from them, thus saving the Indians travelling long distances.
It is all very fine, of course, for the Commission to do this, and we want them to do it, but what about the Indian himself? Is he in the same position to acquire all this information? Therefore I should like to suggest that the Indians may need help to get necessary documents some of which may be in the Public Archives of Canada, others in the provincial archives, and still others in various departments of Government. Some of the reserves were established long before Confederation, as I have previously stated, and
June 21. 1965

Indian Claims Commission I hope that the Commission will make some arrangement whereby all these old documents are made available to the Indians. If the Commission is as sincere as we feel it is going to be, then they should make a special effort to see that the Indians have every bit of information possible so that these claims may be judged and dealt with properly.
I feel very sure that this legislation now being brought in will be a sincere attempt by the Parliament of today to make good some of the losses suffered by the Indians in the past. A great many of these losses were mentioned just a few moments ago. Therefore I believe this legislation should be supported and I hope that the Commission will be appointed as soon as possible, so it can get started on its important work. I believe we all recognize that mistakes have been made, but given a Commission which will be guided by the principles of equity and justice some of these old claims, such as those of the Six Nations Indians, can be finally settled.
I would hope that where compensation is received as a result of a claim it will be used to develop the reserves and to build them up to where the people can be fully selfsupporting, a state of affairs greatly lacking today. There is some excellent farming land on the Six Nations Indian reserve, and if they put forward a claim which is successful I would hope to see more put into agricultural development, as well as industrial and other development on the reserve, employing local residents, the Indians themselves generally raising the economic well being of people on the reserve, and on reserves right across Canada.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as a result of this legislation the Indians will feel at last that they have been justly treated and that the mistakes that may have been made in the past have been rectified in a manner which honour and good conscience dictate.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only a few minutes to comment on the opening statement of the Minister, and to express some of the worries I have outside the provisions which the Minister said would be in the bill.
[DOT] (5 :20 p.m.)
It seems to me that the provisions as outlined in the resolution and as briefly elaborated on by the Minister are fine, but perhaps I can be forgiven if I say that what we in the Opposition want are assurances. We have not seen the legislation yet and while I espouse 
the glowing remarks which the previous speaker has made in reference to the Minister, and while from my experience I am reasonably confident in his attitude toward the problems of Indian people in general, I should like this overlaid with some kind of assurance given by the Minister in this House, when he speaks in closing the debate on this resolution, that the outstanding claims of the Indian people are going to be settled in a fair and equitable manner.
The Minister said that the Indian Claims Commission legislation will go a long way toward renewing or re-establishing the trust of the Indian people. This is not going to be an easy task or something that is going to be done by any single piece of legislation. In view of the Indian's experience with the white man in the past, he would be foolish to trust the white man, and I believe it is going to take many years and depend on the first few steps taken by this Commission before the Indian people will trust the white man.
I can think of no better illustration of the situation than by quoting the remarks of Lieutenant Governor Morris in speaking to the Indian people of Qu'Appelle when Treaty No. 4 was signed. He was then the Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories. This is what he told the Indian people, and I hope Members of this House will listen and relate these remarks to what has happened since. He said:
Therefore, the promises we have to make to you are not for today only but for tomorrow,-not only for you but for your children born and unborn, and the promises we make will be carried out as long as the sun shines above and water flows in the ocean.
If the Minister thinks that one piece of legislation will undo the wrong, keeping that quotation in mind, and I am being slightly facetious, he is entirely wrong. Surely none of us would think that the legislation now before us is going to undo the damage which has been done by statements of that kind made at the time of the signing of these treaties. Those treaties were signed, and the promises were made, only to get the Indians to stop shooting and scalping. In nearly every part of the country the treaties were broken before the ink was dry. The words used by the negotiators were nothing but lies. I suppose the attitude adopted by many in these days, and we have come a long way since then is much the same, that it is quite a thing to put something over on the redskins. Moreover, when Lieutenant Governors made statements of that kind, following which the treaties and promises were broken, then
June 21, 1965	COMMONS
indeed as the hon. Member for Peace River has said, these are fraudulent documents, and at no time did the negotiators in my opinion ever intend to live up to them. The Indian people are conscious of that fact.
A few years ago a Royal Commission was set up to investigate the treaties in respect of the Northwest Territories, which were never fulfilled. I should like to read a few sentences from a report in respect of what some Indian people said:
At a number of meetings Indians who claimed to have been present at the time when the Treaties were signed stated that they definitely did not recall hearing about the land entitlement in the Treaties. They explained that poor interpreters were used and these interpreters urged the Indians to sign, saying "It will be good for you." It was emphasized that their chiefs and head men signed even though they did not know what the Treaties contained because the Treaty parties included high government and religious officials whom the Indians trusted to look after their interests. When the Chairman pointed out that the chiefs of each band, among others, had received copies of the treaties the Indians replied that they were published in complicated English and they could not understand them.
We now have a basis for suspicion, rather than trust, which goes back many years. I say these things not to deprecate the legislation in any way-quite the contrary-but merely to point out that there is a danger in suggesting that any piece of legislation is a final solution to the Indian problem, because this problem goes back hundreds of years and is rooted in mistrust.
I hope the vehicle provided by this legislation will obviate the necessity of marches such as that which took place on the Alberta Legislature a few months ago. At that time as a result of prompting by several individuals who had a beautiful sense of political timing the Indian people of the Hay Lakes area of Northern Alberta marched on the Provincial Legislature. It is significant that this march took place on a day when a bill to grant the Indian franchise was before the Provincial Legislature. The timing was no accident, and the hurried meetings and the subsequent dispatch of senior officials to the Hay Lakes area generally has resulted, it seems to me, in there being more Government officials in that area than Indian people, with a desire to redress their grievances. As a friend of mine remarked, all this proves is that the price of baubles has gone up. In the old days trinkets were used by the white man to placate the Indians. The price has now gone up, and the articles include saw mills, D-6 caterpillars and so on.
DEBATES	2697
Indian Claims Commission
It is to be hoped that such a vehicle as a Claims Commission will provide an opportunity for the redress of grievances, real or imagined, on the part of the Indian people. This legislation may well have another advantage which I think should not be overlooked. In the minds of many non-Indians the Government is pampering the Indian people by giving them more than they are entitled to. I am sure the Minister has been faced with the suggestion that the Indian people are being pampered and that in some way they are getting all sorts of things they should not get. Such a suspicion is detrimental to the Indian people themselves, and interferes with their being able to fill a proper role in the field of employment. There may be a side advantage to the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission in this regard. If that Commission can listen to the evidence and adjudicate in fairness it will do a great service for the cause of Indian welfare, social and economic.
I was pleased to hear the Minister state that a joint committee of the House and Senate is to be set up. Like other speakers,
I have a great deal of respect for the work that has been done by Members of the other place in respect of Indian affairs. I have too, a great deal of respect for the kind of knowledge that certain Members of the other place can bring to this kind of work. I was delighted when the Minister hinted during an interjection that the Committee would be faced with a deadline of three months within which it must report. That hint makes the Minister's announcement that there will be a committee established even more interesting and exciting.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It was unfortunate that the Minister could not be more elaborate in his statement regarding the resolution on the order paper. The resolution indicates that the legislation will provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims. When the Minister closes the debate on the resolution I hope he will be able to answer some of these questions. I hope that the provision of assistance in preparing and pursuing claims will include the hiring of independent legal counsel for the Indian people where necessary, and that departmental officers, even departmental legal officers, will not be advising the Indian people on the forms that are to be filled out or the legal ritual they are to follow. I cannot urge this too strongly on the Minister. In doing so I am in no way deprecating or holding suspect the approach
June 21. 1965

Indian Claims Commission of the officials of the branch; on the contrary, I am quite happy with them and trust them implicitly. But 1 do feel it is important to make it clear to the Indian people that they may engage legal counsel and that if financial problems arise in the payment of counsel the Government will be prepared to assist them in some way.
I endorse the suggestion of the previous speaker, which is one I intended to make, that the terms of reference of the Commission include the ability to travel and take the Commission to the people. This is particularly important in the more remote areas of Canada because otherwise there will be no real satisfaction of the grievances of the Indian people.
I want to come to my main point now. I am concerned lest the proposed legislation will not include any redress of the basic grievance of the Indian people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The hon. Member for Peace River referred to this matter in passing and I want to mention it again. Hon. Members may know that there are two areas of Canada where there are no Indian reserves, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. There is a good reason why there are no reserves there. The treaties signed with the northern Indian people were never lived up to, even the basic requirement of giving the Indian people certain parcels of land which they could hold.
I am not urging for one second the setting up of Indian reserves in those areas. On the basis of our experience in the south I do not think this would be a wise move, nor do I believe the Indian people in the north want it. But the fact that there are no reservations there, which in my opinion is a good thing in itself, results from the complete failure of the Crown and succeeding Governments to live up to the provisions of Treaty No. 8 signed on June 21, 1899. That treaty covered parts of northern Alberta and parts of the Northwest Territories immediately south of Great Slave Lake. It involved a total area of some 480,000 square miles. The actual cash payment made to the Indian people was $26,974 or roughly $27,000.
Just in passing may I say it would probably be well for Canadians not to make joking remarks about the Dutch buying Manhattan island for $42, in view of the fact that we purchased almost half a million square miles from the Indians for less than $27,000. The treaty provided that for every five Indian families one square mile of land would be

set aside. This was done for those Indian people living in the northern parts of Alberta, but for some strange reason the Indian people living just north of the 60th parallel in the Northwest Territories were never given the land to which they were entitled under the treaty. It may have been an oversight, but I rather suspect they were overlooked because of the move toward selfgovernment from 1903 to 1905 that resulted in Saskatchewan and Alberta being carved out of the Northwest Territories.
Treaty No. 11, the second treaty, was signed on July 17, 1922. In effect it involved the purchase of 600,000 square miles of land in what is now the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories for just over $23,000. It too provided that the Indian people there would be given one square mile of land for every five families. This was never done. So the basic reason there are no Indian reservations in the Northwest Territories is not that it was planned that way, but results from the fact that we did not give the Indian people those things we promised them.
There are many Indian people in the north who were present when these treaties were signed. To this day they carry with them a vaguely defined but burning distrust of white officials. This has rendered the job of the Indian Affairs Branch in these parts of the north that much more difficult because the Indian people know they cannot trust the white man. They have not been able to do so since 1922, when the second treaty was signed, and they have no reason to believe they are going to be able to do so in the future. In addition, the Indians were promised that they would be able to hunt, trap and fish on unoccupied Crown land. Those were the two major provisions of the treaties affecting the northern Indians.
I want to quote a pertinent sentence from the report of Commissioner Conroy which is attached to the treaty he signed with the Indians of the Northwest Territories. He said:
The Indians seemed afraid for one thing that their liberty to hunt, trap and fish would be taken away or curtailed but were assured by me that this would not be the case.
The two main things promised the Indians of the north were the right to hunt, trap and fish at will on unoccupied Crown lands and the setting aside of land for them. Some other things were promised such as 10 axes, five handsaws, a grindstone, the necessary files and whetstones and so on but they are not
June 21, 1965

important. One of the most important provisions was that they would be given land. Today in the Northwest Territories it is practically impossible for an Indian person even to purchase the land on which his house stands. At no time were they given land. They know they were entitled to thousands and thousands of acres of land as a reserve. They know they did not get it. They also know that when they apply for title in fee simple to the land they occupy they have tremendous difficulty getting it. Not only do the Indians have trouble in this regard but everyone else in the Northwest Territories has trouble in getting title to land. However, the injustice is particularly sharp in their case because they know they have thousands of acres coming to them.
The reason I am worried that this legislation will not be a vehicle for the Indians to get redress of this grievance is that this is not the first time the unfulfilled provisions of Treaties Nos. 8 and 11 have been looked into by governments. Indeed in 1959 the former Government set up a Royal Commission to investigate the unfulfilled provisions of Treaties 8 and 11 as they apply to the Indians of the Mackenzie district. This Commission travelled about the Territory, interviewed the Indians and made some recommendations. The difficulty was that the Government did not like the recommendations it received. When I say "Government" I am including all the officials of the various branches of the Government that have to do with the administration of the Northwest Territories.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
One can see why they might not be happy with it. The Royal Commission recommended that the Indians be granted title in fee simple to the plots of land on which they now resided and the plots on which they proposed to build their homes; that a cash settlement of $20 per acre be made for each acre to which the Indians of the Mackenzie District were entitled. This would involve a multi-million dollar cash settlement because the Indians were entitled to thousands of acres. In addition to this the Commission recommended an annual payment of one half of 1 per cent of the revenue derived by the Crown from minerals, gas and oil resources in that portion of the Northwest Territories described in treaties Nos. 8 and 11.
If you total up these recommendations in dollars and cents, the Indian people could make a good case for holding up the Federal Government to the tune of $20 million for a
Indian Claims Commission lump sum settlement. When the Minister speaks to close this debate, I hope he will indicate whether or not this legislation will provide a vehicle for satisfying these two basic claims of the Indian people of the Northwest Territories, whose treaties were never lived up to at all.


Frank Howard: I do not doubt for a moment but that every Member of the Committee has a very sincere desire to enact a law covering this general field introduced by the Minister and which will, in fact, bring justice to the native Indian people of Canada. Everyone who has spoken so far has indicated this, and from memory I do not recall anyone in the House every saying he was not favourably disposed to some mechanism whereby the native Indian people could find redress for their grievances. Perhaps we are activated by a sort of national guilt complex because of our knowledge of the unfair dealings with native Indian people in the past. It still remains a fact, however, that everyone sincerely wishes to do what is the just and correct thing.
I for one, however, am not agreeable to buying a pig in a poke, as the expression goes. I cannot bring myself to making any laudatory comments about a bill which I have not yet seen. The Minister's introductory remarks were far too brief in so far as the construction of the bill was concerned to permit the Committee to do anything else but hope that the bill does meet the sincere desires of everyone in the House for justice and consideration in this matter of dealing with the native Indian people. I know that at home some of the organizations of Indian people and some of the tribal councils were not in favour of Bill No. C-130 after it was introduced in December of 1963, I believe it was. After these people had an opportunity to examine Bill No. C-130, they were almost all of the view that if there were no changes in that bill, then they did not want to have any part of it. They did not believe it would bring favourable treatment to them or secure justice for their claims.
One of the major matters with which the native people are concerned is land. There does not seem to be any doubt but that the bill will pass speedily and that the Commission will be established speedily after the passage of the bill. One of the major things with which the Commission will be concerned, certainly with which the Indian people are concerned, will be the question of land. I believe it would be an error if the Commission were to be oriented entirely to the European
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission or non-Indian concept of what is land. It would be most desirable to have, either on the Commission or attached to the Commission, someone who had an appreciation or understanding of land from the Indian point of view. The native Indian people have a concept of land, of nature and the animal world that is vastly different from that which a European has or which Canadian society in general has. I think it would be necessary to have that idea or concept reflected in the processes of the Commission in order that they could make a fair adjudication of whatever claims are presented concerning land.
Undoubtedly Bill No. C-130 is the basis of the particular bill which will be introduced following this resolution. An indication was given two years ago when the bill was introduced, and this we all desired to have, that the bill would be introduced for the purpose of evoking a response to it and suggestions for changes in it. I presume therefore that in the consideration of this resolution it would be proper for us to express ideas about Bill No. C-130, and to express the hope that many things in Bill C-130 which were objectionable to the native people will not be included in the new bill.
Then, if I could make one or two brief references to Bill No. C-130, I would say that the word "band", was somewhat objectionable. I point out that the word "band" is an English or European word which applies to a particular grouping of native Indian people, and that the word "band" was for a time alien to the Indian social structure. If the word "band", therefore, were not contained in the bill this would be helpful, and instead we might use such words as tribes or nations. I believe these words would have application to just ordinary groups of Indian people, including individual Indians. I believe these terms would be more flexible in their relation to groupings of Indian people in so far as determining the proper group to present a claim is concerned.
I believe this idea has been presented to the Minister by the Indian people, but it is felt the Commission Chairman should be someone either from the International Court of Justice or who would be qualified to sit in that court. The reason for this is that we are not dealing with ordinary matters which come before courts in the normal course of litigation, but with law which relates more to the sphere of international law. We feel, therefore, that someone from the International Court of Justice or someone qualified to sit in that court would present to the

Commission a different concept, and assure a fair and just decision of any claim. Certainly there should be Indian people represented on the Commission as well, so that someone with an intimate and inherited knowledge of Indian thinking and ideas could reflect those for the benefit of the Commission.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I also think that an anthropologist should be on the Commission, or at least employed among its staff or personnel, in order to bring that necessary profession to bear and to be able to explain, from an anthropological point of view, the historical background of Indian exploitation and ownership of land areas.
Bill No. C-130 had within it a time limit of ten years, and a time limit of two years for the presentation of claims. I am one of those who believe the Commission should expire with the last claim, or we should leave it open to a future parliament to decide when the Commission should cease to exist, because we do not have the prescience and foresight at the moment to be able to predict that ten years, or any other number of years, is sufficient to permit the hearing of all claims. In other words, there should be an open-ended tenure of office for the Commission.
When Bill No. C-130 saw the light of day a couple of years ago, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni and I prepared a press release based upon an analysis of that bill. Perhaps with respect to what was the most important clause in that bill it might be worth while to read briefly from that press release, relating to clause 7 of Bill C-130. In that press release, which was dated December 17, 1963, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, who has always had an interest in Indian affairs, and I, said:
Section 7 is the worst part of the bill because it is misleading and contradictory and sets up prohibitions which, in fact, defeat the entire purpose of the bill.
It is misleading for it says that the legal rules of evidence shall not bind the Commission when it hears any claim. So far this is good because the rules of evidence demand proof or corroboration that it is not possible to provide in many of the claims which the Indian people have. But, the bill then goes on to say that there must be evidence in writing or corroborated oral evidence before the Commission can make an award.
This is a two-faced attempt to mislead the Indian people into thinking that they are going to get a fair deal from the Commission. It is double-dealing of the worst sort to say that the Commission will listen to anything presented to it but will only make an award when the evidence is in writing. It is virtually impossible to get written corroborative evidence of the wrongs which
June 21, 1965

have been thrust upon the Indian people when those wrongs took place many years ago and at a time when the Indian people could not read or write or keep written records of their dealings with non-Indians.
Section 7 further provides that the Cabinet shall have final say over the procedural rules of the Commission. This should be left to the Commission to develop without any political sanction.
Section 7 also contains the provision that the Cabinet can deny the Commission access to documents which are in the possession of the Government. This could lead to the situation where, by withholding material evidence, the Cabinet could force the Commission to decide against the Indians in any claim.
I merely quoted from that because it related to Bill C-130, and I hope the provisions of clause 7 of that bill are now sufficiently altered to remove what we had as objections at that time and which, incidentally, many Indian people at home have confirmed as being their objections also, after they had the opportunity to study the bill.
There is a long history in B.C. relating to the land question because, with one or two exceptions, there were no treaties in our province. I will not bore the Chamber with details of the attempts of the Indian people, dating back to 1913 and periodically revived since that time, except to say that it is a fact that this one question, the so-called B.C. land question, is the one with which the vast majority of native Indian people in B.C. are vitally concerned and which they want to see solved. Perhaps this Commission will be able to assist them in finding the solution.
For years our Indian people have been kept in ignorance and in isolation. As recounted by the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni in his reading of the historical accounts of missionaries and the like, in the early days they were seduced by whiskey, by land grabbers, and on occasion by missionaries, men of the cloth, who assisted the land grabbers, and in some cases assisted the rum runners and the whiskey traders to seduce the Indian people and take from them by deceit and dishonesty that which they had in their possession from time immemorial.
Now with the growing feeling in Canada about Indian affairs, with the growing feeling among Indian people that they want to participate more fully in society and that they want the solutions to their long standing grievances, I think we have a chance to balance the books somewhat, to try to undo the wrongdoing, to try to correct the errors. In fact, however, we cannot do that because we cannot turn back the clock, but under this bill I hope that at least we can get ourselves going partially in that direction.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We can try to treat the native Indian person fairly, justly and honourably. These are terms he understands. Fairness, justice and honourable dealings have been his watchwords from time immemorial. They have not been the guide lines or the watchwords of the non-Indian in his dealings with Indians, but now we have a chance to make some alteration in that.
There is a great awakening taking place. Education, communications and increased transportation facilities are unifying the Indian people and amassing them into a single voice, whether we like it or not. We can hear this voice swell and erupt like a volcano and consume our history and background, our background of prejudice and discrimination, just the same as the voice of the coloured people in the United States is consuming prejudice and bigotry in that nation. Or we can hear the voice of the Indian people swell and become sonorous and confident, making Canada a nation of which we can be more proud than we are at the moment.
We in this Parliament have a responsibility we cannot shirk, a responsibility to be a prod either in one direction or the other. We can assist the Indian people along the lines of honourable activities, or we can by this bill turn them in the other direction so that their voice would be a volatile and disruptive voice, and I am sure none of us want that.
Under this bill we can be helpful or harmful. I, and I am sure the Minister also, hope that whatever we do it will be helpful.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the Chair so that the House may proceed to the consideration of private Members' business.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 3 9A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this evening are as follows: The hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-reported statement respecting instructions in wire tapping; the hon.
2702	COMMONS
Trade with Caribbean Federation Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Canada Labour Code-application of minimum wage to federal work under contract; the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan)-education-Nova Scotia

request for increased grants to universities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing free trade between Canada and those West Indies islands comprising the proposed Eastern Caribbean Federation.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to discuss a subject which has been close to my heart for some time. Indeed, as I was thinking of this motion and the debate thereon I looked back through Hansard and saw last session's motion, and I was so impressed by my own arguments there, indeed convinced by them, that I was wondering whether there was anything I could say this year but "ditto".
I am somewhat disturbed by the rapidity with which the hands of the clock are moving before me; I had no idea that I was able to consume time with such vigour. The subject of trade with the West Indies Islands or a portion of them is not a new one in this House-


Mr. Barneli:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), perhaps we should say that the clock we see shows past ten o'clock, while in fact it is only a few minutes after six o'clock.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member will think it is later still before I am through. But as long as no one calls it ten o'clock when I am making an impressive peroration, I will not be disturbed by the faulty mechanism above. I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I came here in the twenty third Parliament the President of the Privy Council had a motion on the order paper in the phraseology of mine, except that I have restricted the area geographically. It is appropriate that a Maritimer

DEBATES	June 21, 1965
should be interested in this subject because we have had close relations with the people of the West Indies for a long, long time. Perhaps it is particularly appropriate that one from an island should be discussing the economics of the people who live in other islands. But I am thinking, too, today that there is something appropriate in directing our attention to this part of our hemisphere as we follow with care and concern the deliberations in London of our own Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference.
I should say that the Notice of Motion is restricted in the geographic sense. It is not that I have a lack of interest in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and trade with those areas, but it is because the fact that the smaller islands were left out when the proposed federation collapsed, or indeed when the federation dissolved, the so-called Outer Eight, strikes me as having both a political and an economic uncertainty that should cause us, I think, as friendly neighbours, a more especial concern. The islands of Barbados, Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Dominica are very small. The largest of all the group, Barbados, has less than a quarter of a million people, and Montserrat has just a little over 13,000. Generally speaking they have great difficulty in maintaining an economic viability. Most of them are obtaining direct assistance in their budgetary revenues from the United Kingdom. As has been said, this is a collection of islands of 13,000 square miles, but while the area is small, the problems are large; poor soil, shortage of water, lack of proper facilities, roads and airports, shertage of skilled labour, the crying need for assistance in their effort to approach something like self-sufficiency, and a pressing problem of overpopulation. All too briefly these are some of the economic facts of life of this part of the world.
Our trade with the region has been important. Figures which I have obtained from the Department of Trade and Commerce are interesting. It is hard to sort these out, but studies have indicated that the trade of the Atlantic region with the West Indies generally, and with this area in particular, is significant. The exports to the islands I have in mind for promotion totalled $6,600,000 in 1963. In 1964 this rose to $7,986,000. This is a substantial increase. The imports, however, dropped from $2,202,000 to $1,025,000 between 1963 and 1964. Naturally this would be of some concern to the people of the islands.
June 21, 1965	COMMONS
There are reasons why the figures should be going up at a higher rate. I would like to touch upon them briefly. I want to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to hear the views of other of my colleagues. Certainly these areas are close to us; perhaps they are not as close as they were in the past in the days of water transportation and communication, but we should be overcoming that now by the installation of direct air service. This has been a long time coming, but I rejoice to learn that we are to have direct air service from the Maritime region to the area in question.
We have had a long standing relationship, in the treaty sense, with the West Indies. I would point out to the House that when we had a Maritimer as Prime Minister and another as Minister of Trade and Commerce things got moving in this direction. Our first agreement with the West Indies was signed by Sir George Eulas Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce in Sir Robert Borden's Government. This was updated in 1926 and it is a reasonably generous treaty under which we now operate. There are some difficulties and restrictions in it, but generally speaking there is no great barrier to expansion.
I find that there are complaints-and this is not confined only to the West Indies area -about the lack of initiative of Canadian businessmen. We find that in certain products the competition from the western Europeans and the Americans is taking some of our markets, and vigorous promotions would be helpful. I was delighted to read in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, just today that the potato has become a status symbol down in Barbados. Coming from the land of the finest potatoes I was delighted to hear this. Mr. Frank Doyle, the Executive Editor, who is down in Barbados, says that the people there are turning more and more to the consumption of potatoes; and to give something to New Brunswick he tells us, too, that they are learning to enjoy fiddleheads. Although I am not suggesting it is competitive with rum, they are also drinking more and more apple juice from the Province of Nova Scotia. So I suppose that my concern and the concern of our Maritime colleagues is not 100 per cent altruism in this connection. We have commodities which we know they like, and which could be developed to a greater extent. We should be developing gains from our devalued dollar in this connection. We have good contacts through our universities. I remember many fine students from the West Indies in my classes at university. They were 22620-172
DEBATES	2703
Trade with Caribbean Federation fine, bright people who represent so well this part of the world.
Our businesses have invested in this area over the years. Canada has given a measure of aid. The ships, Federal Maple and Federal Palm-interesting names-are helpful in inter-island traffic. We have built wharf facilities there, but there is much more we could do in this connection. There are great problems in the handling of ships; we need more refrigerated ships, a more regular service from the Maritimes to this area. Also we need-and I think this is quite important and impinges upon domestic policies for us in the Maritimes-greater diversification, because as the standard of living improves in the West Indian area we find that their needs and tastes for some of our primary products, such as salt fish diminishes. Therefore it is essential, it seems to me, that we have greater industrialization; that there be located in the Atlantic Provinces industries which are capable of producing efficiently for a combined Caribbean and Atlantic Provinces market. We have constantly faced the difficulty in the Maritimes and the Atlantic area of having too small a market, too restricted a base of operation. Freer trade with the Eastern Caribbean Federation would improve this condition.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Finally-and here without apology I do come to the altruistic side of the matter-we talk a great deal about our love for the Commonwealth. We are delighted to entertain and meet and talk with visiting parliamentarians. All of these little islands, even the smallest of them, have grown up in the British parliamentary tradition. We are also justly proud of the Canadian role in the international community. We consider ourselves a good member of the international community, and I think we can say that honestly. Here at our doorstep is an area where we could concentrate our attention and not have to spread it so thin, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unnoticed and perhaps ineffective.
Some day I think we Canadians will have to set up a system of priorities. We are not a great country in the sense that the super powers are. We cannot bear the burden in all parts of the world. Therefore I think we might look to an area where we are uniquely qualified because we have a similar tradition, similar language, long standing friendship and practical trade arrangements. I think it would be well if we bestirred ourselves to do something more than the conventional and ask
June 21, 1965

Trade with Caribbean Federation these people in these small communities whether they are interested in something unorthodox-an economic union with Canada. I would not even be reluctant or hesitant in suggesting, if they desired it, even a political union. If they came in as the eleventh province, no doubt their economic standards would be lower than that of the other provinces; but we Maritimers could help them there, because we have had over 90 years experience in that regard.
Here is a challenge, an opportunity. We should not think of the Caribbean only as a pleasure resort or as a place to get worried about, lest a Castro emerge, or someone like him, and threaten to take over, as in the Dominican Republic. I should like to see Canada take a meaningful role here. I should like to offer free trade to these people. Basically our economies are complementary; our ties are close. The need is great. I think this would be one fine move and a practical recognition of Canada's desire to push back the frontiers of the past and to extend the opportunity for a full and wholesome life for people with whom we are in close contact geographically, and with whom we should be closer in many other ways. I recommend this as an initial step in what I would hope would develop into a closer and closer relationship between these peoples and ourselves.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). As a native Maritimer and a representative of the historic constituency of Westmorland, of which the City of Moncton forms a large portion, I must say that the energetic Board of Trade which we have in Moncton has visited the West Indies on various trade missions, and I am sure has been visited by West Indian delegations in Moncton. So I would wholeheartedly support this motion.
The West Indies are islands of great contrasts. Contrasts in population and language reflect their varied history, while they also differ in physical characteristics and economic development. The proposed eastern federation of the West Indies, which includes Barbados, the Leeward Islands and the Windward Islands, have a total area of 1,043 square miles and a population of 600,000, of whom
245,000	live in Barbados.
The Ministers of the islands of the proposed federation, referred to as the "Little Seven", or the "Little Eight" including Grenada, have held a number of meetings, the last in

December, 1964, to draft proposals for the formation of the federation. According to reports-and I refer to the Financial Post of December 5, 1964

there is unanimous agreement that Barbados should be the site of the capital, and that a customs union and free trade area would be established after the beginning of the federation. The economy of the islands has in the past been based on a few agricultural products, but the present aim is to diversify production.
It is very important that we should make a determined effort to help the development of the economy of these islands. We should give every assistance we can in raising the standards of living and providing more sources of employment for the people in this part of the western hemisphere. We should also take a more active part in the efforts to establish new industries in the West Indies and in the area of the proposed federation. The hon. Member for Halifax will be talking about that in a little more detail.
Canada is almost sure to receive formal requests for help in inter-island shipping, and will most probably be asked to open its doors wider to admit skilled West Indians. Free trade, of course, requires the co-operation and consent of both parties. From what I have been able to learn it would appear that some of the leaders of the West Indies have been reluctant to commit themselves to such a trading arrangement. Thisi is easily understood because tariff duties constitute a very important source of revenue for their governments, and free trade with Canada would tend to disturb their present gradual development.
It appears that most West Indians are not very enthusiastic about entering a free trade area or customs union with Canada at this time. They appear more actively engaged in promoting their economic growth and industrial expansion, and more interested in using tariffs as a means for development of new industries under their new legislation. We would have to be sure that, in proposing a free trade area with the West Indies, nonCommonwealth countries must be considered as well. Any arrangements which might be made with the proposed federation would have to take into consideration all arrangements we have at present with other parts of the West Indies. We are preparing and moving toward greater co-operation with these areas. Other speakers will elaborate on the programs of assistance and investment.
The Canada-West Indies trade is traditionally based on the exchange of food and
June 21, 1965

forestry products in exchange for sugar and its by-products. It could be suggested that possibly the entire Eastern Caribbean Federation might be brought into the area of the Canadian dollar and have them eventually leave the sterling bloc.
In all the islands there is a steady upward trend in the tourist trade which is one of the largest revenue-producing activities. This constitutes a drain on our international exchange payments, and if the West Indies were operating on the Canadian dollar this would be of great advantage to Canada. The recent announcement of a direct service by Air Canada from Halifax to Bermuda is just the first step, I would hope, in an effort to improve communications in the Maritime area and the West Indies.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Canada enjoys excellent trade relations and reputation in the Eastern Caribbean, which could be expanded and improved. Prospects for sales of increased varieties and quantities of Canadian products, especially foodstuffs and other consumer goods, are promising, provided we project our image as suppliers more effectively. This can be done by engaging in publicity and by more frequent visits by Canadian missions to the islands and, return visits of trade missions from the islands.
We in the Maritimes have a distinct advantage in that we can take advantage of cheaper water transportation between our Canadian ports and the ports in the Caribbean. There is also a mutual respect for one another which has been promoted over the years, which should be, I feel, of great assistance in expanding our future trade.
I should like to say in closing that I strongly support the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) in his motion that the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a free trade area between Canada and those West Indies islands comprising the proposed Eastern Caribbean Federation.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I should first like to say that I think the promotion of free trade is a very desirable objective, and that the motion before us is quite restrictive and does leave room for remarks to be made relative to trade in a general way. It is in that light that I hope to deal with this motion.
I have been appalled on many occasions to hear people speaking of trade as though it is something which makes people rich. There is nothing further from the truth. Trade never 22620-172*
Trade with Caribbean Federation made anyone richer because there are twoway transportation costs involved. The only time trade could make someone rich is when it is designed in such a way that horses are being traded for rabbits, and we are not considering that kind of a trade arrangement with the West Indies, or any other place.
I am sure the time will come when we will have an arrangement whereby an international assessment is made in respect of the values of commodities to be traded internationally. Once we get our attention focused on the fact that when we ship goods from Canada, we must import goods to balance our trade, we will have a clearer understanding of the situation. If we are going to put high prices on our goods for export and low prices on the goods we import, then Canada will benefit, but I do not believe that is the type of benefit we want in the world today. If we are going to ease tension, be better understood and be the good neighbours in the world community that we ought to be, we must make certain that when we trade with other nations, be it the West Indies or any other country, we must give value for value in the goods we trade.
In terms of trade, it is necessary in respect of some of these countries to make certain that proper credit arrangements are made so that production machinery and other things necessary to the production of certain commodities in those countries are available. Many of the primary products of various countries are exported at values that do not reflect the true value of the products, as a result of which there is an aggravation of a situation which should be avoided, and can be avoided by a more generous attitude on our part.
As an example of what I have in mind, let me refer to the rubber trade between Canada and Malaysia. The price of the rubber on the boats is only half what the actual rubber is selling for. The producers of this rubber are concerned because the Polymer Corporation in Canada is getting into competition with the rubber producers.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing wrong with that.


Bert Raymond Leboe: There is nothing wrong with the situation, and the problem of the producers in Malaysia is not associated with the Polymer Corporation, but with the fact that the raw material is not bringing a price at the free-shore in Malaysia which compares favourably to the selling price.
June 21, 1965

Trade with Caribbean Federation
The motion we have before us is a good one. We should extend our trade with these countries. I am sure the hon. Member who brought forward the motion was thinking in terms of the Maritimes as an exporting part of Canada.
I am sure that the rest of Canada including Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, would be glad to import more so that the Maritimes could export more of their goods, building up the economy of that part of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: What about the Japanese situation and the west coast?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am not going to argue about what is happening on the west coast as far as Japanese trade is concerned. The west coast part of Canada is a natural trading area, but in the over-all picture we must consider where the imports are to come from, as well as what we are going to export. Trade is a two-way street. It costs money to trade and no one gets rich in this field unless, as I say, he is trading horses for rabbits.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on this motion today because I spent a great deal of my life in the West Indies, and my first speech in this House was related to that area. When the hon. Member to my left talks about the importation of rubber from the West Indies, it is my impression that he is confusing that area with the East Indies. There may be some rubber being exported from Brazil, but most of it, if not all, is going to the United States.
I feel very deeply about this subject. When we were in Government we promised the West Indies Federation a gift of two 10,000 ton freighters.


An hon. Member:: They got them.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: It is true that they got them. These freighters were to be used for trade between the West Indies and Canada. I was in favour of that policy because our agricultural products and the primary products of the West Indies are complementary. We can provide products that cannot be grown in the West Indies and the West Indies can provide products that cannot be grown by us. Trade between us is a complementary complex.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have the great waterways and the ports of Halifax and Saint John. The West Indies grow grapefruit which is in season six weeks ahead of Florida grapefruit, but do we receive any of it? We do not receive any at all, because this is a controlled item.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Every Government that has been in office here in Ottawa has been afraid to move in the direction of trade concessions with the West Indies. What have these Governments been afraid of? Has their fear involved a question of immigration? We have the advantage of good will in respect of trade with this area, with its large population. They have bought salted fish for years. The Portuguese used to catch it off Newfoundland, salt it and then take it to the West Indies and sell it. That was slave food.
Times are changing. If we want to keep our trade with these islands, let us buy from them. The Americans are outselling us and outadvertising us. Why not advertise Canadian flour? Why not send somebody there who knows how to advertise? Have you ever seen that big sign-


Thomas Miller Bell: A tiger in the tank.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: A tiger in your tank. The Americans put a brand in there and the people will not buy anything else. We produce the best flour there is.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. Member a question? Has he seen the other sign at a rival gas station that says, "Come in and get the tiger fluff out of your carburetor"?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: That is fine. You are quite right. I could give you the other side of the story too.
I feel very deeply about this matter. I have had some experience in business, and basically the argument is that we not only have a market there for our goods but we have a market here for their goods. We now have friendly relations, but the day may come when there will be another Cuba. Why let it go that far? We have a market here for their goods and they have a market for our goods and we can set a fair price. So what are we talking about? Some guy growing apples in British Columbia figures it is going to hurt him. There are no apples grown in the West Indies. As a matter of fact, if you know the West Indies you know that whereas in Canada children get an orange in their stockings at Christmas, the fact is that in the West Indies there is an apple in the bottom of the stocking. An apple is a luxury there. Let us give them a break.
We built the seaway, and I was one of those who really believed in the expenditure. I said that it would bring West Indies produce into the heart of our land. I really believed that. I am very disappointed but I think we

June 21. 1965	COMMONS
can always change. So I am going to say: Let us have 100 per cent reciprocity with the West Indies. I do not include Bermuda or one or two of the other islands because they are off shore from Miami and are just as American as the people on the mainland.


Thomas Miller Bell: British.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: British? Listen to their accents.
I simply say: Why should we not establish proper trading relationships with people whose products do not compete with ours? We do not grow limes in Canada or oranges or grapefruit. We do grow some tea in British Columbia but you cannot drink the stuff. I simply say: Why not go all out for greater trade? The Liberal party is supposed to be the free trade party. They were going to do great things, but every time they propose a bill it is another restriction. That is all I can say. If you want to balance our trade, then all I say is that we can sell to these islands as cheaply as our competitors but let us let them sell something to us. Let us not bring everything into Canada from Florida and California.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, you will be somewhat surprised to see a member of the province of Quebec take part in such a debate, but my reasons are similar to those which prompted hon. members from the Maritimes to speak; the interests of Canada and satisfactory international trade throughout the world.
Indeed, as Canadians, we should be interested in the improvement of the economy in this part of the West Indies. We are therefore convinced that if our trade (exports-imports) with those islands increased, it would be beneficial for commerce, industry and the economy; in particular, traffic would increase considerably in the harbours of the Maritimes and even those of Quebec.
As stated by the member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout), the economy of those islands is based on the agricultural and tourist industries.
With regard to the trade relations between Canada and the West Indies, it should be kept in mind that a definite situation already exists, since our trade relations are still subject to the 1926 agreement between Canada and the West Indies.
Under that agreement the West Indies grant Canada specific preferential tariffs on certain commodities. Under a general provision, tariffs on Canadian goods must not
DEBATES	2707
Trade with Caribbean Federation exceed certain percentages of the tariffs applicable to the most favoured nations.
In return, a number of West Indian products are allowed into Canada duty free, except sugar, tobacco and liquor, and preferential tariffs apply to almost all other imports liable to duty, including sugar.
In addition, Canada has generally agreed, with regard to all merchandise not listed in the agreement, that import duties on West Indian products must never exceed 50 per cent of the general tariff of Canada. Therefore, there is a special system.
Canadian exports to the islands of the proposed federation were valued at $10,100,000 in 1962, $12,100,000 in 1963 and reached $14,-
900,000	in 1964. Canadian imports from the islands during those years amounted to $4,900,000, $6,200,000 and $4,900,000 respectively.
I should like to make a few suggestions here:
Canada has good trade relations with and enjoys an excellent reputation in the Eastern Caribbean and these relations should be extended and improved. Prospects are good for increasing the sale of a greater variety of Canadian products, especially foodstuffs and other consumer products, provided Canada makes itself better known as a supplier. This could be done through publicity and more frequent visits by Canadian exporters to the islands.
In order to explore fully the possibilities of closer and freer trade relations between Canada and the West Indies, all steps envisaged to improve and strengthen existing trade relations between the West Indies and Canada should be jointly examined.
Whether it would be desirable to have a Canada-West Indies free trade agreement should be considered in case the islands constituting the West Indies federation established in 1958 should unite and form a customs union.
Trade relations between Canada and the West Indies should be on the agenda of a Canada-West Indies Conference and should be discussed fully.
Here, I wonder if it would be possible to set up a customs agreement with the West Indies. First, it should be determined with what countries the agreement should be entered into, with the small or the big federation. It could be disadvantageous for Canada as well as for the West Indies. That is why I wonder if it would not be better to increase
June 21, 1965

Trade with Caribbean Federation our assistance to that area, since Canada has always helped it in the past.
For instance, Canada has built and equipped two modern vessels; it has built a residence on the campus of the Port of Spain University, and the assistance program was continued. After the federation was dissolved, we built and furnished four primary schools and put up two warehouses; we provided five of the eight islands with full deep water wharf facilities. Canada spent over $1 million on technical assistance. I think that the best method would be to recommend the setting up of a federal fund to make grants to those islands in order to help them establish basic plants with good prospects and having a direct and indirect impact on the economy of the area. Such a fund would be administered by an economic development board whose objective would be to make a complete survey of our trading potentialities with the West Indies which are close to our year round ports because the economies of Canada and of the West Indies are complementary. The board should also study the possibilities of trade with the West Indies and it should take every possible step to promote it.
I think there are exceptional opportunities that should not be overlooked. Everyone knows that the West Indies are going through a crisis at this time. They need support and now is the time to help them.
Surely, it is our duty to make financial or technical assistance available to those people or to provide for a more generous exchange of Canadian personnel or technicians to assist them. It would be in the interest of Canada to do so. We have done much, but we should do more since our country is a member of the Commonwealth and, as such, that is our responsibility toward less fortunate members. [DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be as brief as my interest has been long in the general subject of the West Indies. It is a pleasure to take part in a debate which has included the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout), a constituency adjoining mine, and also the hon. Member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy) who gave us a philosophical speech that revealed his practical knowledge of the West Indies. I cannot help but comment, Mr. Speaker, on the apparent lack of interest in this subject on the Government benches. I recall a day when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. 
Mcllraith) was a great promoter of this subject. One is forced to conclude that his interest has waned or his influence has become less.


An hon. Member:: That would be a wrong conclusion.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is no one present in the House on the Treasury Benches at a time when this subject, which is so important to the Maritimes and, in fact, to the whole country, is being discussed. This subject has always invoked an interest on the part of those who represent the Maritimes. Perhaps this is the reason we have never had any success with it, the only people interested in the subject are Maritime Members. If we could somehow or other get big business to look toward the West Indies, we might be more successful in our trading relations. Visits by parliamentary groups in the last few years have increased the interest in this area. I hope they will continue on an increased basis.
I noticed that some Members from the Province of Quebec have been following the debate. I recall reading somewhere the other day that it was Jean Talon who discovered that the people of the West Indies liked codfish, while the Maritimes liked sugar, molasses and rum. However he was transferred to France before he had an opportunity to do anything about it. This shows that even in those days they recognized this was a good combination, whether the ingredients were taken separately or together.
The time is ripe to do something about this free trade with the West Indies, and for two reasons. There is considerable disorganization in the area after the loss of full federation. Second, we all know that Communism is making strides in the general area of the Caribbean. Naturally, we would be concerned if our best prospects were not put forward. The power of the region itself is growing. This is the reason Canada should not only consider the benefits of a tangible nature that would flow from this proposal but we should realize that here would be a bastion in the battle against Communism. I recall reading somewhere that we spend millions of dollars in aid to some East Asian countries, the East Indies, if you like, whereas our assistance program to the West Indies is very low. Surely, they deserve more assistance.
Another reason for supporting the area, of course, is the interest in tourism. Canadians
June 21. 1965

are investing money there and many have travelled to the West Indies on holidays during the winter season. I believe we should increase our association. Surely a Royal Commission would be in order at this stage to investigate all the possibilities, including free trade, with our partners to the south. The United States, closer and more definitely connected with the area, has moved in there with their goods and their influence.
I remember the days in the Maritimes when the C.N.S. boats traded back and forth with the West Indies, and it was a great thing for us to see these vessels arrive in Saint John and Halifax-banana boats, as we called them. This form of communication with the West Indies has never been recovered. Surely now is the time for a full investigation of this problem, this free trade proposal that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie).
In closing, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity of complimenting the hon. Member upon having the energy, the power and the drive necessary to bring this motion forward. I commend him for his eloquence, his delivery and his vocabulary during the course of his presentation to us. I hope the Government will put forward a proposal which was advanced by one of their prominent Cabinet Ministers when he was in Opposition, namely the President of the Privy Council. I feel that he must still have an interest in the West Indies, but I wonder if it has not been whittled down a little bit by the big interest of Central Canada. I commend this proposal to the House and I hope that it will not be talked out.
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax) r I find it a little difficult to reconcile some of the observations made during this debate with the precise wording of the resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing free trade between Canada and those West Indies islands comprising the proposed Eastern Caribbean Federation.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
If I recall correctly some of the comments that were made, they ranged from what we would normally understand as a customs alliance with the West Indies, under which there would be no tariffs whatever on the products exchanged back and forth, to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Queens that the area might become the eleventh province. This, of course, has nothing to do with free trade. You

Trade with Caribbean Federation just eliminate the necessity for that type of arrangement. He expressed, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, a genuine concern for the social well-being of the people of those islands who suffer from the lacks which he so ably described. Indeed, it is difficult to know whether the primary purpose of the resolution is an appeal to Canada for social assistance to a region with which we have had long historical associations, or whether it is hoped that we in turn might get a reduction in the price of sugar, as suggested by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) who, when he was speaking, referred to Central Canada exploitation, and in this context mentioned an examination of what the sugar trade means to these islands.
So the debate ranged, including tigers in the tank, as referred to by the hon. Member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy), and we had an observation from the hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) about an examination of credit facilities.
Let us look at the facts and see what we have been doing. In the trade mission field, in order to stimulate interest both on the part of the West Indies and Canada, in the opportunities available through the material exchange of trade, a heavy construction equipment trade mission visited the West Indies in 1961. In 1962 a fish products mission, an electric equipment distribution commission and a forest products commission all went to the West Indies.
In the spring of 1963 a large scale export trade promotion drive was conducted by the Department of Trade and Commerce, which somewhat corrects the impression that may have been given earlier that the front benches on this side of the House have lost interest in this area. The facts indicate that this is not the case. On the contrary, if we continue to examine the record and the evidence of performance-not of talk-we will find there has been a great deal of realistic effort extended to promote trade with the islands of the West Indies, and indeed to do so with a great consciousness of the social needs of their people.
At the second export trade promotion conference at Ottawa, one phase of the drive I am referring to, more than 700 interviews were requested by Canadian businessmen with the Canadian Trade Commissioners in Port of Spain and Kingston, and more than 100 West Indian businessmen came to Canada to participate in another phase of the drive, and examined the products of 368
June 21, 1965

Trade with Caribbean Federation Canadian firms that manufacture consumer goods for export.
In another phase of the program industrialists and engineers from the West Indies came to Canada to visit Canadian machinery manufacturing plants. In October and November 1963 another delegation of Canadian industrialists visited Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad, and again in October and November 1964.
Therefore it is quite clear from the activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce that interest in the development of a healthy trade relationship between the West Indies and Canada has been ably undertaken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), and this kind of constructive and productive effort-not talk-is what we can expect from that very able Minister.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. Member a question?


Mr. Lloyd:: It is not very often that I speak in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and I prefer that I be permitted to carry on with what few remarks I have to make. Canadian investment in the West Indies is very extensive, and recent figures indicate that in the proposed Eastern Caribbean Federation Canadians have an investment of something like $200 million.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; since the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) would not extend the courtesy to the hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to permit him to ask a question, I would point out that the hon. Member is violating the rules of the House by reading from a prepared text.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I think the hon. gentleman who has raised the point of order has not noticed that the hon. Member who has the floor was referring to notes. I do not believe he was reading these as a prepared text.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, in keeping with established practice of the House, that when you are referring to facts and statistics and quoting figures you are permitted to be accurate about them. Some hon. Members disdain this reliable practice of the House and spend most of their time interjecting during the speeches of people who want to deal with matters factually, to get across some things which please them but which add nothing to the debate.

Canada's assistance program has also been extensive. Some reference has been made to what the Government has not been doing, but the record is quite contrary to the assertions that have been made. I think the hon. gentleman objects to statistics because he does not want to hear about the contributions which this Government has been making to the promotion of good relations with the West Indies. For example, in 1963 a decision was taken to initiate programs in fields including education, produce storage, transportation and water distribution, and contributions in these fields were continued in 1964 when substantially more funds were made available. In fact, funds allocated to the islands during the last year were almost as high as those spent in any one previous year in the complete aid program for the Caribbean.


Harold Edward Winch: Author?


John Edward Lloyd: If the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question, I have got a moment or two.


Malcolm MacInnis: You have talked it out.


John Edward Lloyd: If the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question he may do so if he wishes.


Harold Edward Winch: With only 15 seconds to go? You talk it out, not me.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, it requires no reference to papers to realize very simply that the kind of relationship sought for with the West Indies in trade and good neighbourliness-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hour assigned for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired and the House will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the disposition of Indian claims and in relation thereto,
1.	To provide for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission:
2.	To provide for the duties of the Commission, its decisions and awards;
3.	To provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the Commission to an Indian Claims Appeal Court;
4.	To provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims; and
5.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.
June 21, 1965
Mr.   Walson@Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie: Mr. Chairman, I know all hon. Members are happy that the Government has finally taken this overdue step to create an Indian Claims Commission, which is a necessary step toward removing the distrust that remains an impediment to full participation by all Indians in Canadian life and in our present day economy.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The resolution indicates that in providing assistance to Indian bands to prepare claims, the Government has gone far beyond what was proposed in Bill C-130, which was brought before the House last year, and we all welcome this evidence that the Government will provide this assistance. The 1961 Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons recommended that the costs of counsel in connection with these two actions before the Indian Claims Commission be borne by the Federal Treasury. The Government has now gone considerably beyond the recommendations of this joint committee by making the resolution general enough so that a wide variety of possible expenses of Indians presenting claims will be covered.
I would like to make two or three comments on the type of expenses which I feel should be covered by this proposal. Naturally legal expenses should be covered. Also, research expenses should be covered. Travelling expenses to and from Ottawa, or to wherever the Commission may be sitting, should be covered. I would go even further and say that when Indians have to come to Ottawa to present their claims and spend a week or more away from their jobs-or even if they have to spend only two or three days away from their jobs-they should be reimbursed, if they are in full time employment, their daily wage while they are here acting on behalf of their respective bands. Provision should definitely be made for paying the expenses of legal counsel; lawyers should be adequately and properly paid. There should be combined in the provision of adequate payment for legal counsel a provision which will eliminate the excuse which some counsel may find to approach these matters on a contingency basis. I for one would not be too happy if, for example, a $10 million claim was settled in British Columbia and a lawyer collected a 10 per cent contingency fee. Unless very strict control is worked out by the Commission, this is a very real danger.

Indian Claims Commission
I would refer to the suggestion made by the Indian and Eskimo Association in its recommendation to the Minister. They suggested that it might be possible to make grants to the Canadian Bar Association, to be administered by it, to assist the preparation of claims. They suggested also that it might be desirable for the Canadian Bar Association to set forth for its members rules of ethical conduct in connection with Indian claims where the present rules might be thought to lack clear guidance. I think it would be highly desirable for the Commission to work out some sort of arrangement with the Canadian Bar Association to prevent a situation arising whereby a lawyer who collected a $10 million claim, let us say, on behalf of an Indian band would be paid a huge contingency fee. I would not be too happy with a result like that, and I do not think any Member of this House would be.
I hope the Government will grant to every Indian band which has a claim adequate time in which to present that claim. The two-year period in Bill No. C-130 certainly was inadequate, and I hope the proposed bill will contain a provision for a longer claim period. Once the bill is passed I hope the Department of Indian Affairs will contact and recontact every Indian band in this country which has a possible claim, so that these claims will be made within a reasonable period and without too much delay. I believe the administration should work out a system whereby perhaps at three-monthly intervals notice would be sent to every band in the country, because I feel it is most important and it will be easier in the long run for the ministry if we can get all these claims in now, and not be faced two or three years from now with demands for an extension of the period for claims.
I hope that the bill will set forth clearly that the normal rules of evidence shall not be strictly enforced with regard to claims presented to the Commission. If we applied the normal rules of evidence strictly we would find that a host of possible claims would be ineligible. Custom and tradition should be taken into consideration in support of evidence. I believe this Commission must be instructed to be flexible. A lot will depend upon the selection of the Chairman of the Commission, but it is most important that the Chairman should consider his job as being one to assist in satisfying Indian claims if at all possible. He should not approach his job in any sense of acting on behalf of the Gov-
June 21, 1965

Canada. I am confident, and I am sure it is the hope of every hon. Member here, that the Commission will contribute toward purging from our midst this unfortunate past which continues to impede the progress of our Indian population. I hope that when the Department contacts individual bands requesting that claims be forwarded, this particular point will be stressed and that the emphasis will be on the future. I hope this measure, in comparison with the most important measures of community development and education, will not obscure what is the objective of this Government, and I think of every Member of this House, namely a better life for all our Indians with full participation in our national wealth.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that what I have to say this evening will be very brief, because all I can do is endorse what has been said by the speakers who have preceded me, and also congratulate the Minister for finally bringing in this resolution, the implementation of which will provide for the Indian people that long awaited Indian Claims Commission.
This is not an argumentative subject, Mr. Chairman. Everyone is interested in the welfare of the Indian people. It is my privilege to represent 7,000 of them in my constituency. I have watched these Indian people develop over the years, and this has been an extremely interesting experience. In my opinion these people have a great potential, which has been shown on many occasions. There has been a steady improvement in British Columbia, where we now have 90 per cent of the Indian children going to school. I think that probably this is the greatest step we can undertake to improve the status of the Indian in our country.
Indian claims, of course, date back to the coming of the white man. In British Columbia they would date back at least 160 years, so this is nothing new. Their rights have been abused, there is no argument about that. Some of this has been intentional, some of it unintentional. I feel that when this bill is introduced it should have terms of reference for the Commission which will be extremely broad. This bill should be for the general welfare of the Indian, rather than just establishing a Claims Commission to settle land rights. It can do a great deal to improve the lot of Indians throughout the country. I feel its terms of reference should include the improvement of their educational advantages, I feel they should be allowed economic advice. I

Indian Claims Commission feel they should have agricultural assistance and that we should encourage industry among these Indian people. Many could undertake industry on their lands, which at the present time are lying dormant. I am thinking particularly of the fact that some of these areas are rich in timber interests. Something should be done to encourage these Indians to develop their own timber rights. At the present time these areas are undeveloped or are being used by outside private interests.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
We must protect the Indians' hunting and fishing rights. These things should all be included in the bill to be brought down. We must assist these Indians to help themselves to become independent citizens in our communities. If we do this, these people will be a great advantage to our general economy.
Their land rights are going to be difficult to define and settle and undoubtedly this Commission will run into many problems. I can foresee that many of these claims to land! on the part of Indians will actually not be submitted in writing. Many of these treaties date back to the time when Indians could not read or write. Many of these Indians who have claims to lands today still cannot read or write. Under the circumstances it would be a very serious mistake to insist that the Indians present their claims in writing. That is what happened in respect of the bill that was brought into this House in December of 1963. It stated that the Indians should present their claims in writing and, of course, in most cases that was impossible. We must see that the Indians have good legal advice, and I feel that affidavits should be acceptable to the Commission. If we are to deal fairly with the Indians affidavits should be considered as being adequate proof of claims. These claims should be supported in the form of affidavits rather than by writing in a language which the Indian does not understand.
We must give the benefit of the doubt to the Indian people. Many of them are honest in their claims, and in most cases I know they are justified in claiming rights to lands. They should be protected and given the benefit of the doubt when their claims are being considered. I look forward to this bill being presented. I have every confidence that the Minister will introduce a Bill which will be acceptable to all parties and, what is more important, to the Indian people throughout Canada. I hope we will be able to accept the bill without prolonged dispute. I am sure
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission the Minister will be fair to the Indians and will help them develop their future, as I am confident that with our help the Indian people can be assured a great and happy future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks because of my interest in this subject.


An hon. Member:: Make them short.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: this claim. The lands which are claimed by the Six Nations now are not in the possession of the Crown. They belong to other parties, and have belonged for many years, and it comes to this simply, that if this land belongs to the Indians and is improperly disposed of, the Province of Ontario must make compensation to these Indians for the value of these lands. Somebody has got to make a compensation for the lands have been sold or disposed of, they cannot be transferred to these Indians, because they belong to other people, and therefore, if the Indians have been wrongfully dispossessed of these lands, of course, they must be compensated either by the Dominion Parliament or the United Province of Canada or the old Province of Upper Canada. We do not know its extent, nor its value, not what was really conveyed, or promised to be conveyed, to the Indians. I feel that the red man should be protected against the white man and against their intrusions upon his rights.
That is to be found in the House of Commons Debates of 1887, pages 207 and 208. This matter was raised again on May 11, 1914, by the hon. Frank Oliver, and as found on page 3537 of Hansard he said:
But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand River in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand River had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjects of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand River is of such a kind that this Parliament has no right to interfere with it. I admit that Parliament has the power to interfere with the rights of Indians under treaty made with this Government, but I say that this Parliament has no right to interfere with a treaty made between the Imperial Government and the Six Nations Indians.
I quote these two statements because they indicate that this problem was before the House in 1887 and was again brought to the attention of the House in 1914. It has taken a long time to consider these claims of the Indians and I am very glad to know that this Commission is being appointed for that very purpose. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with these few brief remarks I wish the Commission every success in all it undertakes to correct any injustices and in so doing lay the foundation for the further improvement and advancement of the native Indians of Canada.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly in support of the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission. I have the honour to represent an area which embraces Walpole Indian Reserve and I might point out that this reserve is quite far advanced in respect of social services, and so on. Indeed, I believe the Indians there
Indian Claims Commission are unique in Canada inasmuch as recently they have been granted self-government. They are master of their own destiny; they operate their own ship of state. I sometimes wonder if this is not a mixed blessing because there are many things that will have to be straightened out on this reserve. However, I have great confidence that the people there will master the difficulties which will face them in the next few months. I sometimes wonder whether, so far as the Indian Affairs Branch is concerned, the move was a matter of self-preservation from the point of view of getting rid of quite a problem and just letting the Indians operate on their own, or whether it was actually done for the advancement of the people. I prefer to think that the latter was the reason.
I have no hesitation in supporting the establishment of the Commission because I feel we owe so much to these people, particularly in my part of the country, who were our allies and friends in days gone by in the developing of this great country. Indeed, the death of that great general and ally, Chief Tecumseh, took place in my area and he is buried there somewhere. We are not just sure where, but he is there some place.
In the establishment of this Commission I hope the Government will be sincere and that the Indian people will not be led down the garden path of great political promises. At the same time I would caution the Indian people not to try to embarrass the Government with frivolous claims. I support the principle of the establishment of the Indians Claims Commission because I feel it is something that is long overdue.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this legislation because within the limits of my constituency, I have an Indian reservation of which I am very proud indeed. I am proud of their accomplishments because they have taken a keen interest not only in their own affairs but also in the affairs of the community as a whole. I am naturally interested in this legislation and more particularly so because I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who is introducing the legislation.
The general principle of the legislation under discussion and the reasons for establishing the Indian Claims Commission are to be commended by all Canadians. This is an important step toward the implementation of the Government's desire to do all it can to give the Indian people every op-
June 21, 1965

Indian Claims Commission portunity to secure their just rights. I dare say that the Commission will hear and make recommendations with respect to a broad category of Indian claims. Indian bands or groups will be able to put forward claims, which may very well go back in time, regarding loss of lands that were reserved for Indians and for which no compensation was paid to them, the failure to discharge treaty obligations, or the improper use of band funds and generally any transactions that have taken place that may be said to have caused injury to the Indians because of the failure of the Crown to act fairly or honourably with the Indians.
The Minister's interest in the welfare of the Indian people is reflected by his being the first Minister, to my knowledge to appoint a full blooded Indian to his staff as a special assistant. As pointed out by the Minister, band councils and Indian delegations were consulted after the introduction of Bill C-130 and this has resulted in changes which are going to be incorporated in the new bill. The purpose of the legislation is to hear and determine claims of Indians and it is intended that such a Commission should be independent and have a degree of permanency.
This afternoon and evening we have heard quite a number of worth-while contributions from hon. Members in all parties in the House, and I urge every Member to support the resolution moved by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This legislation means the acceptance of a legal and moral obligation by the Government of Canada to assure that Indians can have their day in court. Persons interested in the welfare of Indians will be happy to know that a start is being made toward the establishment of impartial hearings form claims, with the object in view that before more of the early Indians pass on to their reward redress for any injustices will be made.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, may I add just a brief word to this debate. I should like to associate myself with the other Members who have joined in welcoming this legislation to set up an Indian Claims Commission. The Indians of Canada have looked forward for several years now to the establishment of this Commission. As one of those who sat on the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for several years, I feel that this is possibly the most useful recommendation that resulted from the deliberations of that Committee. I believe from what the
Indians told us during the hearings of the Committee they have always felt a considerable degree of disappointment and frustration in the way they have been treated by the Canadian Government and the Canadian people, for better than 100 years. They accepted in good faith these agreements that were made with the various sovereigns of Britain. These agreements were to run as long as the sun shone and the waters flowed. They were accepted in good faith and in simple terms.
The Indians did not understand legal terminology or the finer points of business contracts. I should like to support wholeheartedly the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Peace River as he described how the Indians may have cause for complaint as a result of their lack of business experience and understanding of the law. I can understand their disappointment and feeling of frustration at the way these contracts have been honoured by the Canadian Government and the Canadian people.
I am glad that the Government has seen fit to put in the notice of a resolution on the order paper, item No. 4, indicating their intention to provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and presenting claims. I hope that the Government will see fit to be really generous in this regard. I suggest that, in so far as possible, the Indian people themselves should be permitted to choose their own counsel, and the Government should be prepared to pay the cost of such counsel. I feel that this is the only way in which the Indians could really have a feeling of satisfaction and fulfilment in connection with the matters to be considered by the Indian Claims Commission. These matters are very complex, very far reaching. There is the matter of their hunting privileges, which they have always understood would never be taken away from them. However, as the hon. Member for Peace River pointed out, the Government of Canada has seen fit to make agreements and laws, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which transgress the original contracts into which the Indian people entered. There is the matter of the Jay Treaty which the Indians still claim gives them the right to cross the border between the United States and Canada freely, without let or hindrance.
These things should be settled, and if possible a full explanation should be offered to the Indians so they will have a clear understanding, if their claims cannot be met, why they cannot be met. I hope that out of the work of this Indian Claims Commission the

June 21, 1965

Indians will find a feeling of satisfaction. If their claims cannot be met they will have a full understanding of why they cannot be met. I hope some of the claims can be met.
I hope that the feeling of frustration the Indians have with regard to the way they have been treated will have disappeared as a result of the work of this Indian Claims Commission, and that the Indians will have their confidence restored in the Canadian Government and the Canadian people.


Mr.   Paiierson@: Mr. Chairman, it seems as though this is one of those rare occasions upon which unanimity is reached on issues that are brought before the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity of listening to all the representations that have been made in the course of this discussion today. It seems quite a long time ago that I first heard discussions relative to the subject of an Indian Claims Commission. It has been discussed at some length in the House on various occasions. It has even found its way on to the order paper in the form of a private bill, as well as a Government order. Now it seems as though we have reached the point where something is going to be done to implement this recommendation to set up an Indian Claims Commission. Today we are certainly giving our wholehearted support to the resolution that is now before us.
I remember the measure that was introduced last year and the criticism with which it was met. Many suggestions were made and many amendments were proposed. Of course we do not know to what extent the Government has acceded to the requests for amendments or how many of them will find their way into this new measure. I had the opportunity of spending some time at an Indian conference in my own constituency just a short time ago. The question was raised as to whether or not a further opportunity was going to be given to study this bill before it was finally passed in the House. The Indian people at that convention felt it would be advisable, following second reading, for the bill to be given wide publicity and then adequate time elapse so the Indian organizations and the Indian people who are concerned about Indian problems would have an opportunity to make further recommendations and suggestions.
I raised this question some time ago in the House and I was not too sure of the significance of the answer. The Minister seemed to imply that this would not be done, that the amendments were now being considered and

Indian Claims Commission the bill would be carried through once we commenced these discussions. I do not know if I misunderstood him, but I just wanted to make it clear the Indian people feel they should have a further opportunity to study this measure before it is finally passed.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I shall not enumerate all the amendments that were suggested, but there are two I want to mention. It seems that the Indian people do not feel there should be a time limit on the registration of claims. In fact they feel the Commission should more or less be a permanent one, qualified to deal with claims that may arise from time to time down through the years. No doubt the Minister has given this careful, detailed study.
Another matter which is of great concern to the Indians is the rules of evidence that will be applied in submitting and processing claims. The Indian people will not be able to follow the customary rules in this respect because in many cases they do not have written documents, and their claims are based on what has been handed down to them through generations by word of mouth.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kamloops who said the Indian people should be given the benefit of the doubt in every circumstance.
The Indian people are desirous of offering suggestions and making recommendations on their own. The question was raised by them, "Are we going to accept just what the Government thinks is good for us, what the nonIndian thinks is good for us, or are we to have the opportunity to present our own views and have them implemented?" They understand their own problems best and can offer solutions for them.
During the debate my mind went back to previous references to charters. There is the workmen's charter and the veterans' charter. Would it not be a good thing to provide an Indian charter that would ensure the rights and prerogatives of the Indian people in this great country of ours?
Just recently it was revealed in Saskatchewan that some Indians had been deprived of certain rights in the health field, and the question was raised that there may be other instances of Indians having lost their rights because old treaties have been forgotten. There is growing concern over the needs of the Indian people in Canada. This is true with respect to Government, with respect to Parliament and with respect to the Canadian people as a whole, and I look forward to the
2718	COMMONS
Indian Claims Commission time when Indian people themselves will feel that everything possible has been done to assure them of their rights and privileges as the first citizens of this great country.


Frank Howard: Before the resolution carries I think it is important at this juncture to see if we can get some formal indication from the Government as to the timetable, if any, it may have in mind with respect to the proposed Committee.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the government has any desire regarding the speed at which the Committee should meet? Does it have any timetable or anticipation of how long it might be before the Committee could conclude its hearings? Does it have any desire to establish a Commission within a certain period of time? Does it have any intention to circulate the bill to all Indian bands and organizations in Canada, as was done with Bill No. C-130, and does it have any intention to allow a period of time to lapse between the introduction of the bill and the commencement of Committee hearings, in order to give native Indian people the opportunity fully to examine the bill and be prepared as best they can to present their ideas about it to the committee?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, since we cannot get second reading of the bill without unanimous consent today, it would be my hope that we could get second reading tomorrow, and following second reading I propose to introduce a resolution proposing the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider the bill. Of course, we can only do our part here in that regard, and then refer it for sympathetic consideration to the other place. Perhaps I may be speaking out of turn but I propose to suggest that the membership of the committee be 14 from the House of Commons and say 10 from the other place.
If the bill gets second reading tomorrow, as I hope it will, then the Whips of the different parties could get together and nominate their respective Members within a matter of a few days.
I do not think the Government should instruct the Joint Committee of both Houses as to how it should function, but I hope it will organize itself fairly quickly. I have advised representatives of the Six Nations Indians that they will be given an opportunity to appear before the Committee, if the Committee itself agrees-as I certainly expect it will. If the Committee wants to send out copies of the bill to others that can be done.

DEBATES	June 21. 1965
I would point out that we are all hoping we can get away for a break in the not too distant future, and I would expect distribution of copies of the bill could take place before we recess for the summer. There should then be ample time for the Indian people and others concerned to study the bill and put forward or make such representations to the Committee as they see fit.


Frank Howard: That answers one question, at least from the Government's point of view, but I had rather hoped the Government would delay progress on the Committee until the fall. We do not need the Committee simply to organize itself, think about the distribution of the bill, and then wait until the fall. Distribution of the bill could take place without formal organization of the Committee. The Indian Affairs Branch has all the addresses and names on addressograph plates, and could very easily send the bill out, without leaving it to the doubtful operation of a Committee as to the speed with which it wants to proceed.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I for one say it would be grossly unfair for Parliament, for a committee, for any part of Parliament or of the Senate, to proceed with speed in considering this matter, especially so far as the west coast Indian people are concerned. As the Minister well knows, they are just now embarking on the salmon fishing season, and the people there whose livelihood rests on the fishing industry will not have the time or the opportunity to study the bill carefully until some time in the fall. If there is any speed or any desire to rush this thing through at this juncture, it will simply mean, so far as the B.C. people are concerned, that they will be denied the opportunity to examine the bill fully. It would be my suggestion that the Minister might, as a matter of Government policy, simply say that it is the intention of the Government to distribute this bill to all Indian bands in Canada, all interested organizations and everybody who sent in briefs about Bill No. C-130, with an indication that the Committee will meet some time in the fall. He could make that declaration very simply.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Committee could meet within the next week or ten days. If there is any chance of delay in the Committee meeting because of delay in the nominations to be made in the two Houses, then I can assure hon. Members that steps will be taken along the lines of those taken following the introduction of the bill in December, 1963, to
June 21. 1965	COMMONS
see that suitable publicity is given. There is no intention to rush this bill through without giving all interested parties the opportunity to come here and discuss it in the light of the changes that we have made or put forward.
On second reading, which I hope will be tomorrow, I will deal with the several suggestions that have been put forward today.
I cannot do it properly until the bill has been made public. If for any reason this Committee should not be set up and be functioning within the next week or ten days, then the hearings could be fixed for such time in the fall as the Committee sees fit to determine.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, there is a suggestion I am going to throw out to the Minister that he might consider between now and the time the Committee is finally established after the other place has completed its deliberations and has given the bill second reading. We discovered during the course of the joint committee hearings that a considerable amount of delay was occasioned because of the difficulty made by various Indian people throughout the country.
I do not know what the view of the Government is with regard to this, but I know they have had representations made both orally and through letters and briefs. I assume the establishment of a Committee means that they are prepared as well to entertain representations from others appearing before the Committee, particularly of course from the Indian peoples and different bands. The Government might give consideration to including in the terms of reference the right for the Committee to adjourn from place to place. This might well expedite the hearings. I doubt whether the expense involved would be any more than the expense in connection with bringing to Ottawa from a number of areas the different witnesses who were heard before the Committee. I am not necessarily wedded to that idea, Mr. Chairman, but I have put it out for the Minister's consideration.
I was going to bring to the Minister's attention some questions that I and other hon. Members had put forward, but I take it from his answer to the hon. Member for Skeena that it is his intention when introducing the bill and asking for second reading to deal in more detail with the questions and suggestions which have been put forward, so we can relate them to the terms of the bill which will then be available. If this
DEBATES	2719
Indian Claims Commission is the case I do not intend to pursue my questions at this time.
I also suggest to the Minister that in order to expedite second reading the Minister might indicate that the Government is not wedded too firmly to the terms of the bill as it is introduced and that they are prepared, within the limits of their responsibility as a Government, to go along with and not oppose views brought forward by the Committee and brought to the attention of the Government following the Committee hearings. It may be that the terms of the legislation as presented tomorrow may be acceptable in toto, but I am inclined to think that there will probably be some suggestions made as to change. I would hope that the Minister when speaking tomorrow on second reading would indicate the Government's view that this is not a case of "take it or leave it" and that there will be a disposition to treat this as an equitable solution of a long, long standing problem, so that the solution will be a valid, binding and generous one in every sense of that word.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Member for his suggestions. I can assure him that they will receive serious consideration by me and my colleagues in the Government. I would hope that, judging from the comments which have been made today, hon. Members will feel that we have included several of the suggestions referred to in today's debate. I could deal tonight with some of the points raised by the individual Members, but since it would be much more effective to be able to deal with them when the bill is before Members of the House or the Committee, I would prefer to deal with them on second reading of the bill rather than at this stage, unless hon. Members press for answers now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think there might be a disposition on the part of the Members of the Committee to agree with the last suggestion made by the Minister. I am sure that what he may have to say will be much more meaningful when we have a copy of the bill before us. While I am on my feet I would like to say that I think the two suggestions made by the hon. Member for Peace River are excellent ones and I am glad the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to give consideration to them.
My colleague from Skeena, who was a Member of the joint committee to which the hon. Member for Peace River made reference, reminded me that at the time this problem
June 21, 1965

Canadian National Railways about the expense or the facility of meeting in different places was raised, the members of that Committee who are now supporting the Government put forward the same sort of suggestion themselves. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind when he is considering this point.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-123, to provide for the disposition of Indian claims.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the House go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from a point of the Froomfield Spur near Sarnia in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately twelve miles to the property of Canadian Industries Limited in Sombra Township in the County of Lambton at a total estimated expenditure of $850,000, not to be exceeded by more than fifteen per cent.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct out of funds within the railway company and out of their present capital budget a line of railway approximately 12 miles long running from a point commencing at mile 32 of the Canadian National Froomfield spur, extending in a southerly direction for a distance of about 12 miles to the property of Canadian Industries Limited in Sombra Township, in the County of Lambton, Province of Ontario. The estimated cost of the rail spur will be $850,000, which is the amount provided for, plus a 15 per cent provision for contingencies.
The Canadian National Railways have carried out an economic study of this particular branch line, which is designed to join the new plant of Canadian Industries Limited with the main line. The company has decided that it is an economically feasible branch line and will pay for itself within a reasonably short period of time.

The purpose of this Canadian Industries plant is the production of fertilizer. It is estimated that 400,000 tons of fertilizer per annum will be produced by this particular plant, and approximately 225,000 will pass over this branch line. The method of financing the construction, as I have mentioned, is out of the existing capital budget of the Canadian National Railways, so that this House will not be asked to vote additional funds for this purpose but merely to allow the Canadian National Railways to proceed with the construction of this new branch line.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Just one question. Could the Minister of National Revenue tell us how long the period is likely to be before this line pays for itself?


Edgar John Benson: I would rather not indicate the economic assessment of Canadian National Railways in view of the competition existing in the particular area, but I can assure my hon. friend that there are guarantees from the company involved that the line will amortize itself within a very short period.
I should also indicate there is some urgency in proceeding with this matter in that it is hoped that the new fertilizer plant will go into production on April 1, 1966. It would be very helpful if the Canadian National Railways had authority to proceed with this line in order that the construction materials for this plant could be hauled over the railway, thus providing additional revenues for the railway and also providing facilities for the manufacturers.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all interested in the fact that the Canadian National Railways are interested in building this new spur line in western Ontario. To me this pinpoints two factors: First, that the tremendous development that has taken place, which began in 1961 in the Province of Ontario and the whole Dominion of Canada, is continuing. After all, the Canadian National Railways, as the Minister of National Revenue has indicated, made an economic study and found that this branch line was economically feasible.
It also pinpoints the fact that branch lines are important in this tremendous development which we are passing through today. In the first place, Canadian Industries Limited, which is not a new company in Canada, realize that the railroad is important. Regardless of the fact that the plant they are thinking of building is served by some of the best highways in Ontario, and that the plant
June 21, 1965	COMMONS
is not too far away from good lake ports with access to the facilities of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which provides cheap and economic transportation, they also feel that the railroad branch lines are important to their continued development.
The second matter I should like to speak about concerns the importance of branch lines themselves. A tremendous study of transportation was made by the MacPherson Commission, which dealt extensively with the subject of branch lines. Much talk has been heard these days of a reduction in the number of branch lines, but I feel that the resolution before us pinpoints, as I say, the importance of branch lines as well as the importance of maintaining and preserving most of the present branch lines a fact which I feel the Government should stress to Canadian National Railways.
Representing as I do an area in western Ontario where there are many rumours and much talk of discontinuing branch lines, and having read the report of the Economic Council which indicates that our population and gross national product are going to increase, I feel that before there is any discontinuance of branch lines or downgrading of service Canadian National Railways or the Government should give very thorough consideration to the possibility that in this area new industry might like to develop. We are told our population will increase so that additional transportation facilities will be necessary.
As I say, in the area in which I live there is a lot of worry in small communities, towns and villages over the prospect that railways might be taken away and that some of the branch lines might be discontinued. But I feel that this particular resolution now before us indicates the importance of the railways to our economic development. There is not a community in my riding which is not worrying about ways and means of getting additional industry. That the Government is interested in this is indicated by the statement made by the Prime Minister on June 7, one paragraph of which I should like to read, because I think it is very important. As recorded at page 2023 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
With this objective we propose to establish new guide lines for the designation of areas where, under the terms of the Department of Industry Act, the industrial incentives will be made available.
We have heard a lot about designated areas and assistance which is going to be given
DEBATES	2721
Canadian National Railways to industry, but I feel that there are other areas in which assistance can be given to industry. In underdeveloped areas and areas where there is a crying need for industry the municipalities should be assisted by means of industrialized assessments to meet the tax rate in order to provide the schools, hospitals and roads and all the things required by a small community, just the same as in a large community. I feel that the Government should carry this proposal regarding the development of industry further afield into the area of assisting the means of transportation through some type of subsidy in order to facilitate the settlement of industry in such areas. After all, industry needs raw materials and components. This would be of great benefit to the smaller communities all throughout Ontario and Canada.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
One of the matters which I feel should be discussed in the Dominion-Provincial Conference which is going to take place on July 19 is the ways and means of decentralizing industry. In this connection our railroads are necessary. So many types of industry need railroads to carry their heavy equipment and products to and from the plant. Irrespective of the fact that this involves a branch line costing $850,000 to assist Canadian Industries Limited to get their fertilizer to the markets, this is an indication of the necessity of maintaining branch lines, and probably an indication of the necessity to build more. During our period in office there were quite a number of branch lines of this type built, and this pinpoints the areas in which our railroads are necessary for the development of this great nation.
We in this party are in favour of this resolution, but the Minister did not say in introducing it whether it was to be referred to the Committee on Transport and Communications. If it is to be referred, then it will be subject to that regulation that states that Standing Order No. 99 will be amended.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I hope, because this is a simple line to be financed out of the Canadian National Railways general finances rather than through the expenditure of public funds, it will not be necessary to refer it to a Committee.


William Marvin Howe: That puts an entirely new light on the situation and pinpoints the importance of the Minister's answering questions regarding the cost of the right of way, the tonnage to be shipped and, as the hon. Member for Middlesex West
2722	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways asked, how many years is it going to take to amortize the principal sum, how much interest is involved, and all those things. These questions will all have to be answered before approval is given to this legislation.
We hope that this legislation will carry, but we also hope that the Government and the Canadian National Railways, as well as those interested in transportation in our nation, realize the importance of our railways in the development of our nation.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, as one of the Members of the House closely connected with this development, being from the east part of Lambton County, of course I am delighted to learn about the development of the western part of the county. This new industrial area which is developing down the St. Clair waterfront is a continuation of that famous chemical valley area of Sarnia. This development has been brought about by a wedding of that industrial area and the richest agricultural area in Canada.
C.I.L. will be, as mentioned by the Minister, making fertilizers, ammonia and nitrates which in large part may find their way into the Essex and Kent areas of Ontario. The question in my mind at this time is this: This area is now served by a railway known as the Chesapeake and Ohio which runs from the city of Sarnia to Chatham. The right of way is in existence and the line is in good shape. Why is there a necessity to duplicate these services in this area? If the great bulk of the shipments from this town are for agricultural usage, it would seem to me to be an expense to backtrack to Sarnia, over to London and down to Chatham, Leamington, etc., where the great percentage of this material will be used.
There is one other consideration in this regard. In the same general area of Ontario the Ontario Government is building an extremely large hydroelectric power generating plant which is to be coal fired. This plant will use fantastic amounts of coal, yet I did not hear the Minister mention that the C.N.R. was going to get any of this haulage business.
There is an incongruous situation developing in Lambton County. In the past few years there has been abandonment of railroads, and one in particular which might have served this general area was abandoned two years ago. As of July 1 the Canadian National is abandoning 12 miles of railroad from Glencoe over to Alvinston.
Another consideration that bothers me at the moment relates to a new proposed park-
DEBATES	June 21, 1965
way. I should like to go on record as not opposing this development, of course, but in Lambton County a committee has been established to study the building of a parkway from Wallaceburg through to Sarnia, a matter of about 40 miles. It is hoped that this parkway will be similar to the system of parkways now in existence in the Niagara area. It is to be located on our international boundary with the United States. It will be and is now, one of the most beautiful scenic drives on this continent.


Mr. Whelan:: Next to the Detroit river area.


Mr. Winkler:: All the Members from Essex are the same.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: This is a very beautiful driveway and I can recommend it to anyone.
My point is, will the idea of having a second railroad down the waterfront create any additional problems for that committee on the development of the parkway? The Minister shakes his head and I hope he is correct, but I can hardly see how two sets of tracks will be as easy to maintain as one set. I hope that the Canadian National Railways officials have examined this project carefully and have made overtures in respect of the existing railway to see whether its facilities could be used for part of the freight, particularly the coal to be used by the generation system which I am led to believe will be brought in by water during a good portion of the year. The result is that if this line is to receive any of the coal haulage revenue, it will be in respect of a limited portion of the year.
With that short interjection, let me say that I hope the Canadian National has examined the situation closely to see whether any other alternative which is less expensive, but efficient, could be found. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that the operation of the C.N.R. costs the people of Canada enough money.


Mr. Foy:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in this connection. I listened with interest to my hon. friend, the hon. Member for Lambton-Kent, and I should like to assure him that the railroad's spur line will not interfere or in any way be detrimental to the St. Clair parkway.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The new C.N.R. spur line is a considerable distance from the highway, as the map that has already been published will show. It is my firm belief that this is one spur or branch line that will be a tremendous money
June 21, 1965

maker and asset to the C.N.R. The Canadian Industries Limited plant ships approximately a quarter of a million tons of its product, I understand, not only to the counties of Lambton, Essex and Kent but throughout Ontario and elsewhere.
I believe that the development of the St. Clair River is something of which the people in our area will be proud and there is little doubt that as a part of the St. Lawrence Seaway it is going to play a very important role in industrial Canada. I look forward to the extension of this branch or spur line beyond what is planned at the moment. The chemical valley of Canada, as the Sarnia area is known throughout the country, is a very progressive area. There is further development every year. The expenditures of industry are fantastic. With the additional service new industries will be interested in our area.
One thing in which I am very interested at the moment is the development of the Sarnia Indian Reserve as an industrial park-site. There are approximately 3,000 acres right on the St. Clair River within the city limits of Sarnia and the Indian Affairs Branch is vitally interested in this development. The Indians are also interested. They are active in the creation of this industrial parksite which they hope to lease to industry. The more services we have in the area, the more attractive it will be for new industries to locate there. I feel that the construction of this branch line is a very welcome addition to the C.N.R. services in this area.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Will the hon. Member permit a question? Have there been investigations to find out whether it would be economically feasible to use the existing railroad? Why is it necessary to build the spur?


Walter Frank Foy: I believe the C.N.R. Board of Directors would be businesslike enough to investigate the area to see if the Chesapeake and Ohio would be able to handle the influx of new industry. I am quite convinced they have made a survey, although I cannot tell the hon. Member they have. If he were in a position of authority with the C.N.R. I think that as a businessman he would take the same attitude. I have no doubt that this matter has been thoroughly investigated. I hope this satisfies the hon. Member.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Edgar John Benson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-124, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Ontario by Canadian Na-
Customs Act
tional Railway Company from a point at or near mileage 3.2 of the Froomfield spur of the Canadian National Railway near Sarnia in a southerly direction for a distance of approximately 12 miles to the property of Canadian Industries Limited in Sombra Township in the County of Lambton.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.


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


John Watson MacNaught: By leave, now.


William Marvin Howe: Are copies of the bill available?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Next sitting of the House.



THE CUSTOMS ACT

Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill C-119, to amend the Customs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the resolution covering this particular bill I explained the contents of the legislation very thoroughly, I think, and we had a rather thorough discussion of those contents. However, there are one or two points which arose during the discussion at the resolution stage and I should like to comment very briefly on them. One of them had to do with the proposed amendment introducing a new section 37A of the Customs Act whose purpose is to assist Great Britain and other compact countries in the sale of their products to Canada by adopting a means of alleviating some of the difficulties which arise in determining the cost of their goods for distribution in Canada, compared with goods coming from other countries which have a similar system of distribution to that used in Canada.
One of the points raised during the debate on the resolution by the hon. Member for Edmonton West was the matter of so-called ministerial discretion included in this particular section and which I should like to point out to him is not ministerial discretion but discretion of the Governor in Council. He tried very hard to compare this provision with a situation which arose a few years ago in which ministerial discretion was being introduced into the Customs Tariff Act and

June 21, 1965
Customs Act
legislation brought in by the former government was subsequently refused passage by the Senate.
I should like to point out that there is a great deal of difference between the legislation now being introduced in the House of Commons and the legislation to which my hon. friend alluded. First of all, the amendments which were introduced at that time had to do with the matter of class or kind rulings in Canada. It was proposed that the Minister be given the right to rule whether or not something was of a class or kind in Canada even though such goods had never been produced in this country. In other words, it was proposed at that time that the Minister would be given the right to rule something was of a class or kind made in Canada if production facilities existed, even though the item had never been produced in this country.
Ruling something to be of a class or kind made in Canada has two implications. First of all, if it is within one of the tariff items that has a class or kind condition attached to it a higher customs duty attaches to the item.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The other, and more important part, is that if it is ruled of a class or kind made in Canada, even though class or kind is not mentioned in the particular tariff item, then dumping duties are applicable. For example, there is no reference to class or kind in Section 438(a) covering autos. If the Minister of National Revenue, under legislation to which my hon. friend alluded, if that legislation had been passed, had ruled that these were of a class or kind made in Canada, dumping duties could have been employed even though there is no mention of class or kind in that particular item.
Now, I should like to mention that there are various methods by which the value for duty, already established under Order in Council, may be appealed under the proposed new Section 37A. First, there are the same rights of appeal to the Tariff Board and Exchequer Court as exist with regard to imports as prescribed in the Customs Act under Sections 43, 44 and 45. I will remind my hon. friend that in 1962 they changed Section 43 of the Customs Act by extending the period under which an appeal could be made to the Chief Appraiser. At that time, they did not take the point of view that it did not matter whether or not such an appraisal was made. A Canadian manufacturer who, under this proposed section felt that an importer was securing a value for duty under

this provision below the cost of production plus an allowance for gros profit, could appeal under existing appeal provisions. Similarly, an importer could use existing appeal provisions if he felt that the regular valuation of his goods, from which a reduction was being made under this section was too high.
The Canadian manufacturer similarly could appeal that such regular valuation, before the reduction was made, was too low. The Canadian manufacturer, if it were not feasible to use the regular appeal procedures under Sections 43, 44 and 45, could request the Deputy Minister to refer the matter of valuation to the Tariff Board under Section 46 of the Customs Act. The importer has a similar right of appeal. Finally, action by the Governor in Council is subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court on the ground that the discretion to reduce the value for duty has been recognized unreasonably. It is clear, therefore, that under this proposed section there will be the same significant rights of appeal both for the importer and for the Canadian producer to the Tariff Board and to the courts.
However, Mr. Speaker, the point I should like to make to the House is that the whole intention of Section 37A, which is being introduced into the Customs Act is to assist compact countries such as Britain in their exports to this country. While it is true that under Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, the Governor in Council can alleviate the duties in various situations which might arise, or almost any situation if it were deemed advisable to do so, it was felt by the Government, on the urging of the British Government, that it would be more useful to write into the Customs Act a specific provision such as Section 37A which would allow the Governor in Council to use the Customs Act for alleviating the duty burden, or the unfair burden as the British have often called it, which their goods must bear rather than having to use Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act.


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonion West):: From the Minister's brief remarks with regard to Bill No. C-72 of 1961 it is rather apparent that the Minister, who was not then in the House, is not seized of the full import of what was being attempted at the time. I think if he consulted the debates of the day he would have found that what was being attempted at that time was precisely what is being done now, to incorporate into the legislation some-
June 21, 1965

thing which had existed by Order in Council. This business of class or kind was not something new. It had existed prior to 1936. In fact, the percentage of Canadian consumption of 10 per cent was something fixed by Order in Council in 1936. These provisions were being substantially incorporated into the Statute in 1961.
However, the point I was after was one which dealt more with the objections that were made by the Opposition of the day. Primarily, what they said was there was a denial of the right of appeal. I maintain that under Section 37A there is no true right of appeal. One can say that there are rights of appeal. However, let us examine them, and then we will see whether there are really the rights of appeal the Minister has indicated. A decision by the Governor in Council on a report by the Minister, as envisaged by Section 37A, is not a decision that the Dominion Customs Appraiser will set aside, nor will the Deputy Minister who, after all, had a great deal to do with the preparation of the report of the Minister. Certainly, we are not going to get a divided House in the Department of National Revenue. Therefore, I fail to see how, in essence, a Deputy Minister could still maintain his decision and grant an appeal to any interested party with regard to a reduction in valuation as envisaged under Section 37A.
Certainly we know that Section 37A has in mind, as its objective, really exercising a form of discrimination in favour of a certain country or countries. Conversely, I suppose we might say there is discrimination against others. Here is a specific valuation that is being set up for the reduction that is recommended by the Governor in Council, and as I indicated I do not believe the appeal to the Dominion Customs Appraiser is a true appeal. Neither is it a true appeal to the Deputy Minister. The Act would allow an appeal to the Tariff Board; that is so. However, when we come to the appeal to the Exchequer Court, the Minister must take cognizance of the wording of Section 45, wherein it is stated clearly that the appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada relates to any question of law. Certainly, the Minister is not going to argue that the Exchequer Court is going to say that the reduction in value was unreasonable; that is a matter of discretion, not a question of law. [DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The only point of law, I would submit, would be if the Government moved in some fashion procedurally contrary to the pro-
Customs Act
visions of the Act. But no court will substitute its discretion for that of a Minister acting within the letter of the law, nor of the Governor in Council acting according to the letter of the law. The Minister knows this, and it is my contention that there is very little room for appeal, if any, in this instance.
I can compare what is being done now with the outcry that was raised by some of the Minister's former colleagues, and some of his present colleagues, when they sat on this side of the House. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the former Minister of Justice were like the Bobsey Twins on that occasion. The debate lasted for nine days.
Sometimes hon. Members opposite wonder about legislation taking a long time to pass, but on that occasion an amendment, much the same length as this one, was discussed for nine days. Was that filibuster?


Mr. Ricard:: Oh, no.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Was that obstruction?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Oh, no.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They were not accused of it. The Government of the day said hon. Members were exercising their right to object and it may be that, except for administrative reasons, there was some right to object. If the Minister reads Bill C-72 I am sure he will agree with me that if the duty were to evolve upon him to determine a classification of a class or kind, it would be much easier to proceed under Bill C-72 as then proposed. The Minister cannot deny this, yet we had that great outcry. Why, it was almost a traducing of Magna Carta, hon. Members were so indignant on that occasion.
Why is there this sudden change? I am not complaining about discretion within the Act, because both under the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act the Minister possesses all sorts of discretion. As I indicated the other day, the counting shows there are over 60 areas in which the Minister may exercise his discretion. Introducing a further discretion at this time does not unduly worry me. What concerns me is that we are told this is subject to appeal, which I say is not a true appeal.
I shall not bore the House by reading passages from the previous debate to which I refer, but the hon. Member for Laurier of that day, and the Minister of Transport, figured prominently in it, and I think the Minister should read that debate.

June 21, 1965
Customs Act


Edgar John Benson: I did.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I hope he was educated as to how attitudes can change. It depends on what side of the House you may be on. I can only say that a lot of the protestations of that day must have been hollow. In so far as the former hon. Member for Laurier was concerned, there was a little bit of in-fighting. Mr. Deputy Speaker is the hon. Member representing Cornwall and he knows whereof I speak. There was a good deal of confusion and difficulty with regard to the textile industry in Cornwall; but let it be known that today, as a result of action taken by the administration of a few years ago, the level of activity in the textile industry is much healthier than it was in 1957 and 1958, when plants were closing.
I wonder what the textile industry may have to say if the Government is to exercise its discretion under Section 37A with regard to textiles. After all, automobiles are not the only area in which the British government has expressed its concern about Canada's anti-dumping legislation. Anti-dumping legislation is not new in this country, and certainly it was invoked in regard to textiles. Is it going to be invoked again, or is the Minister going to exercise the prerogatives of Government under Section 37A to let in British textiles to the detriment of the Canadian textile industry? This is a question which the Government will have to determine. The provision is not limited to automobiles. It covers all sorts of categories of goods, and we will see the reactions of industry in regard to these provisions.
The methods of marketing in Great Britain are different from what they are here, but the point is that Britain is selling to this country. If I may give a personal anecdote, early in the days when I was a prisoner of war we held one of the first commonwealth trade and economic conferences among a body of very informed people who were officers from various commonwealth countries. It was a highly educative and interesting experience.
I remember one old South African colonel who was a very sage man. He had discussed with British manufacturers the marketing of a simple implement, a hoe, among native farmers in South Africa. They preferred to have a red handle on the hoe, but the manufacturers said, "We don't sell our hoes with red handles in Britain and therefore we are not going to send them out with red handles." This simply meant that they would not sell any hoes to South African native farmers. It is
a simple story, but it illustrates what happens in a tightly organized market such as exists in Great Britain and other countries.
If those manufacturers think they are going to sell their goods in this country, where tastes and preferences are different, in the same way as they do in their own country, then of course they will have to take their chances, and if they cannot sell them using their own marketing methods then they will have to change those methods. I do not think the answer lies in a change for valuation purposes There are two sides to this coin.
A lot of the changes proposed are eminently sensible, such as the provision of bond rather than cash. There is the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee to regularize a practice that was actually in effect, and now this is going to be embodied in the Statute. But I still maintain that section 37A is not as simple as the Government would have us believe.
It can introduce a very dangerous principle into the Act. It does not provide the type of appeal that the Minister would have us believe is there. Therefore I enter this caveat at this time, as I did the other day, and as I shall when we are in Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
On clause 1-Duties to be paid unless goods are warehoused or entered in prescribed manner.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with regard to paragraph (2) of clause 1, the regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette. I wonder whether the Minister would undertake that as soon as the necessary regulations have been passed by the Governor in Council, they will be tabled.


Edgar John Benson: I will be pleased to do this, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now, by leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the Bill.

June 21. 1965

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill No. C-120, to amend the Customs Tariff.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary making some explanatory remarks with regard to this Bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for the implementation, without any change in substance, of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff which were considered by the Committee of Ways and Means on June 17 and 18. The clauses of the Bill are in the same order as the resolutions, and since there is no change in substance there is very little that I can add at this time that will be of assistance to the House.
Clause 1 provides for the renumbering of the Customs Tariff by Order in Council. Clause 2 provides for the deletion of certain items from the Customs Tariff and the insertion of the items which appear in Schedule A tc the Bill. Clause 3 establishes the new drawback item shown in Schedule B to the Bill. Clause 4 amends item 1220, which appears in Schedule C. Clause 5 provides for the establishment of the item dealing with periodicals, and Clause 6 relates to the coming into force of the previous clauses.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has made it appear rather deceptively simple, but I think there is more to this than he would have us believe at the moment. I am dealing primarily with Schedule D referred to in Clause 5 of the Bill. The other day I did say that I felt this was completely exclusive legislation in that a periodical which transgressed the requirements of the item would be excluded from Canada. I was wondering why a magazine with a split run and which contained more than the maximum permitted percentage of advertising directed to Canadians would be excluded from the country as though it were in the class of pornographic material. It is about in the same category. I hope I am not getting the wrong impression of the legislation, but it seems to me that this is a very heavy penalty.
Customs Tariff
If a publication, whether it be from the United States or from another foreign country, has a split run and contains certain advertising directed to Canadians, why should it be banned from Canada? Is this not a form of censorship? I quite agree with the idea of the Minister, namely to protect Canadian periodicals from the effects of the so-called split run; but surely the remedy is to impose a higher tariff or a fairly punitive customs rate. But at the present time-and I think the Parliamentary Secretary would have to answer this question-why ban the periodical entirely? I cannot quite see that. Certainly the economic impact of a higher customs impost would make it economically impractical to continue to distribute such a magazine in the country. But why ban it?
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can put me straight, if I am wrong in my estimation of item 1221. I did not think we went quite as far as banning the circulation of such publications-any publications, as a matter of fact-which did not offend morals, were not seditious or did not offend the public interest in a similar way. Why, if there is a split run and there is a non-permitted degree of advertising directed to Canadians, should it be banned? There have been protestations that the Government does not want to impose any form of censorship, but this is censorship; at least in my interpretation of this particular item. With regard to Schedule C, I suppose this would be intended to cover collectors' items. After all, the only change in Item 1220 is in subparagraph (d), which reads:
antique articles eligible for entry under Tariff Item 693(i) or Tariff Item 693(iii), and bona fide collectors' items, as determined by the Minister;


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, but what particular clause is he now reading?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Item 1220, subparagraph (d). The only change in the whole item is the introduction of the words "bona fide collectors' items", and of course this is a matter for determination by the Minister; it is dealt with by ministerial discretion.
With regard to the rest of the items as enumerated in Schedules A and B, we discussed these at the resolution stage and I will limit my remarks to Item 1221 particularly.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Parliamentary
Secretary speaks now he will close the debate.

June 21, 1965
Customs Tariff


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, before the Parliamentary Secretary rises to reply to the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and close the debate, I should like to ask, because I am not familiar with this, why there is no specified tariff laid down in schedule D on periodicals, catalogues, newspapers and so on, on which a duty may be imposed. Schedule A and schedule B, for example, contain specific items, and the various rates of duty are also specifically stated.
Bill No. C-120 is asking the House to authorize the Governor in Council to impose by order from time to time amendments and tariffs. I think it is something of a departure to give the Governor in Council the authority, first of all, to impose taxes without the consent of Parliament, and second, a new category of goods is brought in, such as catalogues, newspapers and periodicals. Surely it would be useful to the House, and generally, to know what the Government has in mind by way of tariff rate on these magazines, newspapers and so on.
Another interesting point in this bill is that clause 5 simply says:
Schedule C to the said Act is further amended by inserting therein the item and enumeration of goods specified in schedule D to this Act.
I would ask if schedule D was some kind of afterthought on the part of the Government. Why do we specifically spell out the amendment to Section 17 and itemize the new schedules A, B and C, and then add a further schedule, schedule D, to schedule C? It seems a strange way to write a bill, yet it is what we find in front of us.
If it is not customary for Parliament to grant the Governor in Council the authority to impose tariffs from time to time, such as clause 1 suggests, then I should like to know why it is being done in this manner. If it has been customary in the past for the Minister or the Governor in Council to have this kind of authority which is being asked for here, then this will certainly add to my information.
I was not in the House at the time of the newspaper reports in 1960 and 1961, when the former Government brought in a bill which was going to give the Minister some discretionary power to impose tariffs from time to time on certain classes of goods, but a tremendous amount of objection was taken by the Liberal Party of the day to the effect that passing the bill would in fact give the Minister or the Governor in Council almost what you might call an

executive authority to impose taxes. This is an authority which has been very religiously, if I may use that word, confined to Parliament. First of all, the House of Commons and then the whole parliamentary system are the only bodies with the right to impose taxation. I know of no other instance where a bill has gone through the House transferring this authority to the Governor in Council.
So, Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies perhaps he could explain why there is no provision as to the specific rate of tariff which will be imposed, and why the bill is written in such a way that Schedule D is simply added to Schedule C, wherein this power is transferred to the Governor in Council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Parliamentary Secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe it has been the practice that a Parliamentary Secretary is empowered to replace the Minister who moved second reading of the bill. At any time the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken in the past it has been with the unanimous consent of the House. I do not think this is a good practice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not establishing the practice now; it has been established before. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) did not make the motion but spoke on behalf of and for the Minister who made the motion. There is precedent to the effect that the Parliamentary Secretary who has made the originating speech in support of the motion, and who speaks later in reply, closes the debate.
I would refer hon. Members to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener, reported in the Journals for Tuesday, May 17, 1960. He said:
I think I should inform the House that if the Parliamentary Secretary speaks now he will close the debate. I do so with a comment, however, because Standing Order 37 refers in express terms only to the honourable Member who has moved a substantive motion. The Parliamentary Secretary did not move this motion. It was moved by a Minister and the Minister spoke as the first speaker but I believe that one of my predecessors has assumed that the Parliamentary Secretary taking part in debate to all intents does so as though he were the mover and would be considered as such for the purpose of closing the debate.
After further debate, the question being put on the said motion, it was agreed to.
I would suggest that the Chair is bound by the previous ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener.
June 21, 1965

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might deal first of all-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it understood that the Parliamentary Secretary is now closing the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Perhaps it might be of interest Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members, dealing first of all with item 1220, the one dealing with offensive weapons, to note that the amendment to this item has been brought in to make the law applying to those importing firearms the same as the law applying to those who obtain firearms within Canada.
The words "form 42" are deleted from the item so that a person now importing a firearm would do so by using form 43 or form 44. Form 42 was the form which permitted a person to carry a firearm in a place elsewhere than the owner's home or place of business. Form 43 is used to apply for a permit to buy firearms for resale; and form 44 is the application form used for the registering of firearms. I do not know whether this legislation is prompted by the experience in the United States, but on form 42 there is very little provision for description of the firearm. Therefore it would be possible for a person, until this legislation is amended, to take form 42 into the United States, purchase a firearm there and bring it back into Canada, and the firearm in question would not be sufficiently identified, because, as I say, form 42 does not require a detailed description of the firearm. By this amendment we are deleting form 42 and leaving the section requiring only form 43 and form 44. [DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The second amendment will mean that automatic firing military type rifles will be deemed to be a firearm. The other military rifles will continue to come in under subsection (c) as rifles of standard or autoloading type for sporting use only. I think Members should bear in mind the distinction relating to firearms, as I understand it. Under the Criminal Code, firearms include revolvers, pistols, and automatic rifles which continue to fire on a single pressure.
Turning to the somewhat more contentious schedule D, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)
Customs Tariff
that this might be some type of censorship, and that we should consider dealing with this problem under a higher tariff, let me suggest to him with great respect that it seems to me that his suggestion would be a censorship. We are not aiming at the prohibition of magazines from other countries by schedule D, although it does set up a prohibited list. What we are aiming at by this suggestion is the implementation of a recommendation of the Royal Commission which, and I do not say this in an offensive way, was supported by hon. Members opposite. We are attempting to implement almost verbatim a suggestion of that Royal Commission. What we are doing here is to prohibit magazines if they offend so far as their advertising is concerned.
Split or special editions are usually aimed at capturing the Canadian advertising market, and that is the sort of thing we are aiming to guard against. If a split run, so far as advertising is concerned, is directed primarily at the Canadian market then it will be prohibited. A publisher may adjust his advertising and get around this prohibition. If there had been four editions that have not offended then the fifth edition would be permitted entry into the country. It seems to me that perhaps the tariff items will not have a great effect on the circulation of the type of magazine such as Saturday Evening Post, Harper's and other publications which enjoy wide distribution in Canada and the United States.
Dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question for clarification? Is schedule D intended to absolutely prohibit the entry into Canada of that type of periodical if it offends under tariff item 1221?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It will be prohibited momentarily, yes, if it offends; but it is open to the publisher to amend the offending advertising and gain readmission. If you read the amendment closely, you will see that any periodical which contains advertising which is primarily directed at the Canadian market but which did not appear in the identical form in all issues of the periodical distributed in the country of origin, then, of course, it would be placed on the prohibited list. I must say, however, that the publishers have been in close contact with the department and are aware of these regulations. We feel they will have no difficulty in meeting the

June 21, 1965
Customs Tariff
requirement and bringing their publications within the exception as set out, in order that they will not be prohibited.
The first part deals only with special editions. Under the second part, in respect of their regular editions, if there is more than 5 per cent of the total advertising space in the magazine used for the purpose of indicating specific sources of availability in Canada, or specific terms or conditions relating to the sale or provision in Canada, of any goods or services, except for the indication of such source of availability or such terms of conditions primarily directed to persons outside Canada, they are prohibited.
The point I want to make, as I suggested in respect of travel magazines, is that the advertising may be about Canada but directed to persons outside Canada, and therefore they will not be prohibited. These are magazines setting out the advantages of visiting Canada and are directed to people outside Canada in an attempt to induce them to come to this country. They would therefore fall within the exceptions and would not be prohibited.
The hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) raised a question, if I understood him correctly, about the method of proceeding by Order in Council. My understanding is, and it will be appreciated that my experience is very limited in this matter, that under Section 10 of the Customs Tariff there may be implementation by Order in Council of certain tariff items. The method being adopted here is one which I think is in keeping with the practice, and is quite proper. All we have done here is state that the prohibited list as set out in schedule D will fall in schedule C, to the Customs Tariff and I cannot think of a more expeditious way of doing this. This is an open move with the intent and purpose being apparent on the face of the clause.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. When one reads schedule D, 1221 (2), he will see that the first part deals with four immediate preceding issues of a periodical. Is it the intention that the words "at least" should be considered as having been inserted there? What I am getting at is, this is taxing legislation which is construed as striking against the Government. What would be the situation if of the four immediately preceding issues two were offensive in the way in respect of which the Government is trying to prohibit their entry? I am not trying to suggest that there may be a flaw, but in reading this and after listening to the explanations given by 
the Parliamentary Secretary, I cannot decide whether a case could be made for the argument that if two, rather than one, were found to be offensive, and this might be reductio ad absurdum, although plausible, it is admissible.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am satisfied with the wording, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I should explain that as I understand the clause, if it is found that one publication or issue is offensive then the publisher will have to wait until four consecutive publications are deemed to be inoffensive before the fifth one is admitted. In other words, there have to be four clear publications without any infringement of the item before the fifth is admitted. If there were two publications with infractions, the four issues would be counted from the most recent one, and the fifth would be admitted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Schedule A amended.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Schedule A which forms part of clause 2 I note that items 209e, 210i and 263e have an effective date of December 31, 1966 compared with what I presume had been an effective date of December 31, 1965. They are the first three items in Schedule A. What is the significance of the change in the effective date? Has it something to do with production facilities or negotiations or what?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand they are merely being renewed for another year and will therefore continue to December 31, 1966.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But these are commercial chemicals. What is the purpose of this particular level of duties in so far as Canada's domestic production is concerned?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Is item 21 Oi one of them?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is one of them.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand that this item covers laundry bleaches. I am not able to give the House any information as to the amount of imports, but I might say that this item was originally introduced for the period July 31, 1961 to December 31, 1963 and in 1963 was extended until December 31, 1965. Item 210i is in the reference on chemicals before the Tariff Board.
June 21, 1965	COMMONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the answer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By leave, now.


Mr. Hellyer (for Mr. Gordon) moved: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CONSUMER CREDIT


John Watson MacNaught: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to enquire into and report upon the problems of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to enquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That twenty-four members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit while the House is sitting, and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary, that the Minutes of Proceedings of and evidence given before the joint committee at the past session be referred to the said committee and be made part of the records thereof; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is largely self-explanatory. It is merely to reconstitute a committee that was set up at the previous session of this Parliament. The Committee has done a considerable volume of work but has not yet completed its job. It is proposed that the committee be set up and that the evidence taken during the previous session be referred to it.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations at this time concerning the resolution
DEBATES	2731
Consumer Credit Joint Committee now before the House. In introducing it the Minister said it was self-explanatory, but there is one part he forgot to explain and upon which I should like to enlarge and raise serious objections. I am referring to that part of the resolution reading "and to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary".
As the Minister said, a Joint Committee on Consumer Credit was set up during the last session and it had its first meeting on June 2,	1964 under the joint chairmanship of
Senator Croll and the hon. Member for Renfrew South. It was my pleasure to be a member of the committee and at its first meeting it was indicated that it was the wish of the committee to hire a lawyer and an accountant to assist. This was something altogether new. To my knowledge I do not know of any other standing committee established by Parliament which has proceeded to hire lawyers, accountants or other professional help.
Objection was raised to this proposal. The matter was discussed in the committee and put to a vote and it was decided that counsel and an accountant would be hired. So the Committee proceeded with professional help. At the first meeting I inquired as to what remuneration these people would receive and these are their rates of pay. Mr. Urie, who was hired as counsel to the committee, was to be paid $250 per day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Shocking.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In addition, he was to be paid $25 per hour for preparation time-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Disgraceful.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -or for time he spent on the work of the committee over and above attending the committee. The other gentleman, Mr. L'Heureux, was paid on the basis of $100 per day and $20 per hour for preparation time. I think this is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the taxpayers of this country are not prepared to pay any such sums.
I object strenuously to the House adopting a resolution with such a provision in it. In my opinion it is outrageous. Let us compare such remuneration with that received by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), for example. If he works 300 days a year he only makes $143 a day compared with this counsel who is being paid $250 a day. If there is any doubt about the outrageousness of these fees, one only needs to ask the hon. Members on the Government side of the House who were mem-
June 21. 1965

Consumer Credit Joint Committee bers of this committee. I think each and every one of them will object to the outrageous fees that have been paid to these two men.
I think they would also agree that their presence had a deteriorating influence on the operations of the committee. When you have a paid official in a committee the members are inclined to say, "Well, why should I take any active part? He is paid $250 a day to do the work. Why should I do any research?" Therefore members do not take the same interest in the committee. There were occasions when matters arose in the committee and the counsel was doing all the speaking. I must say that the accountant hardly ever spoke.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I did not hear him speak during the time I was there. However, there were times when counsel spoke, and he took an altogether different viewpoint from that of the committee. I do not believe this displayed a true picture of the thinking of the committee.
These are some of the objections I have to this clause in this resolution. Now, just to keep the record straight, the committee held 18 meetings during the last session. Mr. Urie completed 170J hours of preparation time and Mr. L'Heureux completed 52J hours of preparation time. The total for counsel amounted to $6,350.55, up to and including February 22. Mr. L'Heureux received $1,855, up to and including the same date. I have therefore, Mr. Speaker, the strongest objection of having this resolution go through in this form. I request the Minister to withdraw that clause and let this committee operate on its own so that any report would be a true expression of the committee. This move would save the taxpayers of this country in the vicinity of $8,200. This is utterly ridiculous, and I am sure there are other Members in the House who would like to support me in this objection.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I was
going to begin by saying that I wanted to commend the Government for bringing forward this resolution. I cannot commend them, however, for bringing forward the resolution at this late date when the House is likely to adjourn within the next couple of weeks and when this House has been meeting now for almost two months. This resolution calls for the reconstitution of the Joint Committee of the House and the Senate to deal with consumer credit. The committee met last year on a number of occasions and was just well into its work when the House adjourned.

Over the years, because there have been so many private Members' bills from all parties in this House attempting to amend the laws of Canada to put some control on the outright robbery which is being perpetrated on the consumers of Canada by various business organizations, this committee was suggested. I am not suggesting for a moment that the vast majority of business organizations in Canada are not legitimate operations. However, there are many organizations coming under federal and provincial jurisdiction that have been fleecing the public high, wide and handsome. It was because of this feeling that Members on all sides felt we should do something, so this committee was set up. I think it is regrettable that the committee has lost two months when it could have been working. The committee has a lot of work to do, many people to hear and many organizations to hear. If it is going to do the job it will have to consult with Provincial Governments.
A number of Provinces, such as the Province of Manitoba from which I come, the Provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia, as well as others which I cannot think of at the moment, have been looking at the question of consumer credit in great detail. The committee of the Ontario Legislature brought in its report last week and made some very sweeping recommendations. If we are going to do something, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public, then we are going to have to dovetail legislation which will be passed by the Parliament of Canada with legislation that will be passed by the Provinces.
Now, I want to take issue with the Member who just spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition concerning the necessity and the virtue of the committee having expert advice. I agree that the rates at which the accountant and legal counsel were paid sound large. However, this is a separate matter. I think the committee ought to have a good, hard look at that. I served on that committee for a good part of its deliberations. The committee is faced at every meeting with a whole group of expert counsel. I am sure they are paid more than the committee paid the one lawyer and the one accountant who were hired by the committee. The retail credit organizations, the department store organizations all these organizations had their legal counsel there, and they were all there for the definite purpose of trying to convince the committee we ought not to have legislation of this type. They tried to impress upon the committee that fact, that it was impossible, and it would
June 21, 1965

be a disaster-while they did not say for them, that is what they meant-for the committee to recommend and for Parliament to pass legislation which would require the disclosure of the true interest rate. We had a whole series of lawyers and accountants before the committee telling the committee why it should not be done, why it could not be done and why you could not disclose an exact figure for the interest rate.
I want to say, as one who served on that committee, that the committee counsel and accountant served a very useful purpose. I should like to give one small illustration. The accountant was able to develop an exact formula for showing people the exact rate of interest in percentage that they would be paying. The representatives of the financial organizations which appeared before the committee were saying it was impossible to do this. This one statement by the accountant, if that is the only statement he makes for the duration of the committee, will be well worth what he is paid.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The same is true of counsel. The last speaker said this cost the taxpayers of Canada some $8,000. If the committee does a job, if the committee reports to the House on the advisability of such legislation and if the House adopts such legislation, then I submit that the taxpayers of Canada, the consumers of Canada, will save millions of dollars. The expenditure of a few thousand dollars, even if it should be two, three or five times the amount which has already been paid, will be well worth while. I want to say again, as I said when I started discussing this matter, that I am expressing no opinion on the actual amount the committee agreed to pay the lawyer and the accountant. I think that should be looked at. Speaking as a layman who has never been able to earn that amount of money, it sounds a little high to me. However, I say that the principle of hiring expert advisers is a good one which I hope other committees will follow in the future. If they do, then Committees of the House will be able to make reports which will be of value to the House and value to the country as a whole. I hope this joint committee will get going. Before we adjourn for the summer recess, if there is to be one, the steering Committee will be able to map out the next series of witnesses to appear. If there is no recess, I hope the committee will proceed very shortly to finish its work and bring in a report so that Parliament can finally enact

Consumer Credit Joint Committee legislation which is so necessary to protect the buying public.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the re-establishment of the Committee on Consumer Credit. For a long time the public has been concerned about the procedures used in some financial transactions, and is aware of the need for a study into consumer buying. It is unfortunate that so much of the session has gone by before reaching this motion. Valuable time has been lost.
Reference has been made to the committee counsel and accountant, and the suggestion was made that we should not pass the resolution in its present form. However, I do not see anything in it to indicate how much these gentlemen are to be paid. The committee engages its own staff, and therefore I support its re-establishment so that it can get to work immediately.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I too support the resolution and agree with others who have said it is unfortunate that the session is so far advanced before re-appointing the Committee. It is a Committee which has a very heavy task, and its work and findings will be followed with great interest by the consuming public, particularly by those who have to resort to credit in order to buy the things they require.
I support the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) about the amount paid to counsel. Are we losing all sense of values in our society, paying $250 a day for counsel for a committee like this, and $25 an hour for preparation? Compare that with what a university professor gets, or a farmer, or a skilled workman. People who charge this sort of fee are sucking the blood of our society, and in my opinion are not making a worthwhile contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to see I get some support from the Government benches, including from some of my legal friends. Officials from the staff of the Department of Justice could be used for this purpose.
The hon. Member for Wellington South suggested the resolution should not be adopted because of the fees paid to counsel and accountants, but I agree with the hon. Member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) that we should pass the resolution. It is entirely up to the committee, whom they employ and the amount they are willing to pay; but I trust the
2734	COMMONS
Consumer Credit Joint Committee committee will take note of what has been said in this debate.
Turning to the question of accountants, in my experience accountants are very necessary in the society in which we live. They are the ones who do the exact thinking, who make the precise decision which can be of great interest to all persons, particularly those who have to pay income tax and things like that. Accountants play an important role in our society and, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), one of the accountants who appeared before the committee-in passing, they are not paid nearly as much as members of the legal profession-made an important submission which might save a great deal for the Canadian consumer.
Before resuming my seat, once again I protest the exorbitant fees paid to counsel in Canada because I think they are entirely unnecessary in relation to the services they perform in our society.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should rush passage of this resolution, for two good reasons. It has been brought forward as a filler because we completed the list of items the Government had placed before us, which shows our anxiety to cooperate and get on with the business. It would appear as if the Government were not ready to go ahead with something it could announce a day or a week before.
The second reason is that suggestions have been given tonight which would warrant second thoughts by the Government with regard to the resolution. Important as it is to reconstitute the committee, the session is possibly drawing to a close. The other House does not appear to be meeting. I do not hear any faint noises from the other part of the Parliament buildings and it might not be possible to get the committee set up quickly.
Objections have been expressed to the committee appointing its own counsel and accountants. These are valid objections. The competent Civil Service that Canada possesses should be able to provide all the skilled personnel required for this type of work, whether from the Department of Justice, the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Industry. I could name half a dozen members of the Civil Service

DEBATES	June 21. 1965
who would give competent advice and assistance to the committee without the employment of outside assistance.
May I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will take up the second reading of Bill No. C-123, an act to provide for the disposition of Indian claims, and the second reading of Bill No. C-124, an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by the C.N.R. near Sarnia, Ontario. Then we will consider three resolutions; first, the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to amend the Children of War Dead Act, the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, and the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to amend the Judges Act, to provide salaries for additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, etc. Then we will take up second reading of Bill No. C-118, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Then, if there is any time left over, we will take up the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to amend the Research Council Act, and the resolution preceding the introduction of a measure to establish a Science Council of Canada.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, once again I draw to the attention of the Acting House Leader that those two items which he mentioned were not included in the list which the Prime Minister gave us on June 9.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I would draw attention to the first paragraph of the statement of the Prime Minister, wherein he said that the business he was then outlining was "subject of course to the usual reservation that there may be emergencies which will change the order and indeed change the matters brought before the House".


Gordon Minto Churchill: Emergencies, yes.


John Watson MacNaught: There is some necessity to get these resolutions through so that the bills can be introduced and read the first time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You want us here to September, again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this connection, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there seems to be parliamentary time about which the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) was worried this afternoon, why cannot the Gov-
June 21, 1965

ernment now bring in the amendment to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, so that it can be passed before July 1?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the answer which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) gave to a question of mine last week in respect of the use by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of wire tapping and electronic equipment. The Minister's statement was very clear; when you strip away the legal phraseology, the Minister said in effect that the R.C.M.P. does not carry on wire tapping in this country.
I do not believe that the Minister of Justice would knowingly misinform the House of Commons. I must therefore believe, on the basis of evidence I have, that the R.C.M.P. is not telling the Minister of Justice the real facts of what goes on in this country. I want to deal tonight, because my time is very limited, with only one illustration. On February 13, 1965, the Toronto Globe and Mail carried a story the headline of which was "Wiretap Set Up for Lamontagne-Rouleau Call: R.C.M.P. Officer". The story is dated Ottawa and the first paragraph says:
An inspector of the R.C.M.P. told the Dorion inquiry yesterday that arrangements were made last August to tap a telephone conversation between Pierre Lamontagne and Guy Rouleau, then Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Lester Pearson.
I am not here to defend Mr. Rouleau but I think, like an American Supreme Court Justice, that wire tapping is a dirty business and ought to be prohibited. I also think the Minister of Justice should tell the House what really goes on. I asked the question about this after that news story appeared, and the answer I got was that the R.C.M.P. did not and does not tap wires in order to listen in to telephone conversations. So after a great deal of difficulty I got a transcript of the hearings of the Dorion Commission of February 12, 1965, and I want to put on the record in the few minutes available to me the exchange 22620-174
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of questions by one of the counsel, Paul Jolin, and the answers given by Inspector J. R. R. Carriere of the R.C.M.P. I will give the page number so that the Parliamentary Secretary can check this later. On page 4808 appears this question by Mr. Jolin:
-is it accurate that it is you who have suggested or have insisted with Mr. Lamontagne in order to detail somebody to listen to the conversation, or is it not rather Mr. Lamontagne who asked you to send someone?
A. It is I that called Mr. Lamontagne, having been requested to do so by Inspector Drapeau.
Q. Is it you who have taken the necessary steps in order to have the conversation taped?
A. No. My instructions were to ex-Sergeant Crevier to listen to the conversation on an extension line.
Q. Has anyone to your knowledge taken other necessary steps to have the conversation recorded?
A. The only knowledge that I have of that was that on a previous occasion, on the 11th, I believe, I had sent Sergeant Crevier with specific instructions to record-
It says "record"; I want to underline that.
-a telephone conversation which was presumed to be-which was believed to be in the offing at eight p.m. that evening. The conversation did not take place. Therefore there was no recording made.
At page 4815 appears the following:
Q. Mr. Carriere, do you presently have at your disposal, or did you at that time have, that is to say did you have at your disposal the necessary technical means to tape amongst other things telephone conversations?
A. Yes.
Q. Were at that time the facilities available to you?
A. Yes, there were.
Then at page 4816:
Q. It was possible then. Were the instructions that you received from your superiors to the effect that Mr. Crevier was to listen to the conversation on another line or on another telephone?
A. No, there was a request from Inspector Drapeau to cover a telephone conversation which was going to take place between Raymond Denis and Lawyer Lamontagne.
Q. M. Carriere, does the word "cover", in your mind, simply mean that M. Crevier was to sit beside another telephone and listen to the conversation, or could it not also have meant: tape the ongoing conversation?
A. It could mean either, either to listen or to record it.
At page 4817:
Q. Would not Mr. Carriere have been in a position to instal your equipment the preceding day or during the night?
A. No, that would have been impossible because I was not aware of that coming conversation until that morning, possibly nine-thirty, ten o'clock.
And so on, and so forth, Mr. Speaker.
I point out again that this is an official record of answers given by the Inspector of the R.C.M.P. who worked on the Rivard case, who said at the public hearing before
June 21, 1965
2736	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Justice Dorion that the R.C.M.P. was preparing to record the conversation which they expected to take place between Mr. Lamontagne and Mr. Rouleau, and that they had the equipment to do it.
I would repeat what I said on other occasions. I am opposed to wire tapping. But surely if it is necessary, and the law enforcement agencies of this country believe it is necessary, then they ought not to hide the fact that it is done. They should not lie to the public or to this House but should ask the Minister to bring in the legislation which is required.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member for Winnipeg North has put on the record this evening is very useful. I would suggest that hon. Members should also consider a statement made by the Hon. R. A. Walker, the former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, of the C.C.F.-N.D.P. Government, and in this respect I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam here this evening. As hon. Members will recall, what the hon. Member described was not a wire tap but a recording. In fact, it was the same practice used by the Government over which the hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam presided when he was Premier of Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then in that event, if the hon. Member will listen, I should like to read a statement made by the former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Hon. Robert Walker, as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix for December 17, 1964. This is a brief quotation from the statement by Mr. Walker. He says, first of all:
The Liberals tried to make an issue of a certain tape recorder on my office telephone when I was Attorney-General.
Then he goes on:
First of all, it was a recorder, not a wire tap on someone else's telephone, as was inferred. Secondly, it was not illegal, as implied by Mr. Pin-der.
In other words, what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were doing in this case was exactly the same as the action taken by the hon. gentleman's former colleague in Saskatchewan. They were making a recording. It was not a wire tap without the consent of the person owning the telephone, but rather a recording. On that thesis the facts cited by


the hon. Member for Winnipeg North are exactly identical with this statement.


David Orlikow: That does not make it right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, that is not right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. Member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam says this is not so. I would remind the hon. gentleman that this statement was made by Mr. Walker, and I read from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which says that:
The following statement by R. A. Walker... was marked "news release-not to be released before 8 p.m."...
This was a direct quotation from Mr. Walker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On what date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: December 16, 1964.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



CANADA LABOUR CODE-APPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE TO FEDERAL WORK UNDER CONTRACT

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the policy of the Minister of Labour in respect to extending the basic provisions of the new Canada Labour Code to all individuals who, in my opinion, come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government even though not legally, at this time.
The Minister of Labour is very proud of the Labour Code, and so he should be, although I do not think he is right in accepting all the credit for it as suggested in a recent ad which cost the Canadian people tens of thousands of dollars.
There is a large number of people in Canada who work for the Federal Government but who are not today, and will not for the next three months, be receiving the minimum provided under the Code. I should like to summarize my position by reading from that famous ad which some of us thought included a picture of the Minister, but decided on a second look that it is not a picture but a good drawing of him. In any event there is no question that it is the Minister of Labour who was interviewed for the purposes of this ad. This is also clear as a result of the heading which states "Canada's New Labour Code, Hon. Allen MacEachen, Minister of Labour, answers some questions:". The question is: "Let's get down to specifics. What, exactly, does it promise to those employees who are affected by it?" The Minister's answer is:
June 21, 1965


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and earlier the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have taken in amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has in previous years introduced a bill with regard to conditions for employees in federal industries. Such a bill was on the order paper at the last session, but as I recall it did not contain any provision for the extension of the principles to employees under federal contract-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The expenditure of money is involved. A private Member could not do it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -although it is apparent that the principles of the Canada Labour Code could hardly be applied without taking the other step and amending the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to cover federal contracts.
In many instances, of course, employees under federal contracts are normally under provincial jurisdiction, certainly with regard to labour relations, and the only reason that the Federal Government can stipulate wages and hours conditions is simply that the Government can stipulate the conditions under which it awards contracts. One of the really difficult problems in considering how to apply the principles of the Canada Labour Code to employees operating under federal contracts arises because federal contractors in most instances are operating under conditions of a more local character and are influenced by market conditions of a more local nature than are industries that are under federal jurisdiction and operate certainly nationally and interprovincially.
June 21, 196S
2738	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister's time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come back again tomorrow night. It will be on again.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



EDUCATION-NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR INCREASED GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker,
I know it is 20 minutes after ten o'clock but I wish to discuss tonight the problem of the financial emergency facing universities in Canada in general and in particular those in Nova Scotia and the other Maritime Provinces. Under the present federal university grants formula which has been in existence for some years a very great injustice is being done to provinces which, because of the quality of their universities, are able to attract students in great numbers from outside their own provincial borders. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that it is in the interests of Canadian unity and Canadian nationality that our universities should not become strictly provincial in scope and outlook with regard to the area from which they are to draw their students. The present formula,
I contend, forces upon universities and Provincial Governments such an attitude because under the present formula federal grants to universities are based on the population of the province rather than the student population. We find a situation wherein, in Nova Scotia, the amount per student is $183 per year, compared to the universities in Ontario which receive $282 per student per year. So, you see there is a difference of just $99 extra being paid to universities for each student in Ontario as compared to Nova Scotia. Of course, you find these figures vary between the various Provinces. British Columbia is the second worst done by province after Nova Scotia, and they receive only $194 per student per year.
1 suggest that this is an extremely unfair formula and must be revised very quickly.
I am aware that the Bladen Commission is presently investigating the revision of the formula. I am hopeful that they will come forth with some answer that will provide recognition to the provinces which have, through the quality of their universities, been able to attract students from outside their provincial boundaries. I want to say that in the Province of Nova Scotia the problem is twofold. There is not only the question of imported students coming from other areas, but in addition there is the problem of exported graduates. You will find there is a
[Mr. MacEachen.l

sizeable proportion of the student graduates from universities in Nova Scotia going forth to take prominent positions in other parts of this country. We have seen graduates from our universities, who represent other areas in Canada, who have subsequently become Prime Ministers and Premiers of Provinces. I believe there are recent examples. We have seen graduates who have become Cabinet Ministers in other parts of the country, captains of industry and in general men who have played very prominent parts in the life of other provinces. In effect, therefore, the Province of Nova Scotia has been subsidizing other provinces by educating these people and then sending them forth. These are two factors which I think should be given consideration in considering a new formula.
I want to say that while we must wait for the Bladen Commission report, it is a fact that at the moment the Federal Government is spending about one third of 1 per cent of federal expenditures on direct grants to higher education. I believe that just is not good enough. Our universities today have only one controlled source of revenue, and that is tuition fees. If they do not receive greater grants from the federal and provincial governments the only way they can find the money they must have is to put the squeeze upon hard-pressed students, who I think already pay enough to get an education. We in the Maritime Provinces area feel that before the Bladen report comes out the present grants should be upgraded. As you know, they are based on university costs of operating, and operating expenditures for the year 1962.
The previous Government, in fairness I must say, twice upgraded the amount of the grant. I feel that even while the Bladen Commission is investigating the formula it should be changed. There is no reason why the Government could not now, as an interim measure, base the grants on 1965 costs and thus increase the amount. This is in consideration of the fact, we are told by eminent authorities, that there is a 16 per cent annual increase in operating costs of universities in this country.
We in the Maritimes take education very seriously. We consider universities an industry, and they have been an important industry, an industry which is well suited for an area in which it is sometimes difficult to get other types of industry. If we cannot receive from the Federal Government, through these grants in the future an amount that is equal to the assistance that is desperately
June 21, 1965

needed by these universities, then we must think in terms of asking the Atlantic Development Board for such assistance.
It should not be necessary to do this. Nevertheless we might have to think in terms of turning to the Atlantic Development Board to seek assistance in providing the ability for our universities to continue with the fine work they have been doing across the years.
I suggest it is important and crucial in the Maritimes at present, and in Nova Scotia in particular, and that our universities are in desperate need of new funds. I hope the Government will consider this very serious matter.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, no one is under any illusion that financial assistance to the universities is not a matter of fundamental importance, it is scarcely necessary for me to say that the Minister of Fi-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion nance (Mr. Gordon) has responded to a number of questions over the past few weeks similar in nature to the one posed by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). I should also point out that the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) made a very useful statement on the same subject a few weeks ago.
I would underscore that the Minister of Finance, in a statement to the House last Friday, pointed out that he expects this whole question of financial assistance to universities to be on the agenda of the Federal-Provincial Conference that will commence on July 19. I should also reiterate that the Minister has indicated that upon receipt of the Bladen report the Government will take such action as is deemed necessary in the light of that report.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 22, 1965