1965-06-22

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965-66

[Stage Direction]
A Message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1966, was presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance) presented the first and second reports of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.1
['The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said 400 million bushels was our objective, which would be the second largest year in history.']
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
we object because the house is asked to sit at the same time as the committees and there are always irresponsible members who accuse others of not attending committee meetings when they are actually present in the house. As a matter of fact, the member for Saint Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has charged certain members with not attending certain committee meetings while they were actually in the house. We are, therefore, recording our objection.


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


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I remember that we always objected, while in opposition, to the sitting of the committees when the house was sitting. I objected to it then and I still object to it today. I know that nevertheless the house will pass this motion, but I intend to voice my objection
to the committees sitting while the house is in session.
We are a minority government. We need all our votes, and when we send members to the committees we cannot depend on them especially when the house itself is in committee. Therefore, I object to the sitting of the committees when the house itself is sitting.


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


Gilles Grégoire: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[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. In view of reports that Prime Minister Wilson may withdraw as Chairman of the Commonwealth Peace Mission because of Chinese criticism, and since this would remove the only NATO member from the mission, is the Government giving consideration to having Canada represented by its Prime Minister whose interest in this matter has been evident from the very beginning?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister has demonstrated an interest in this matter from the beginning. However, I cannot make any other comment at this time.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister has been approached in the past 24 hours to be a member of this mission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were suggestions last week that he should be a member of the mission, and I gave my hon. friend then the reasons that prompted his discouragement of the idea at that time. But I cannot reply at the moment with any certainty
June 22, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry in regard to the last aspect of my hon. friend's question, and I must take it as notice.


[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. Is he in a position today to table the text of the telegram that 72 Canadian professors sent to the Prime Minister with regard to the situation in Viet Nam, together with the text of the Prime Minister's reply?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think I said yesterday that I had seen the telegram. The telegram was sent to London. I had not seen the telegram but it was read to me over the phone from London, and just as quickly as I get the text I will send it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam)r
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report issued yesterday by the Board of Grain Commissioners which shows that at the end of May our exports of wheat were down by 100 million bushels compared with the previous crop year, does the Minister anticipate that exports of wheat for this full crop year will be close to the exports for last year, or does he expect a heavy decline in total exports of Canadian wheat?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have reported to the House my expectation that this would be the second largest year on record. I would expect, however, that this second largest year would be considerably short of 1963-64, an extraordinary crop year. In 1963-64 exports were of the order of 600 million bushels, and I expect that if we can reach our second largest year they should be something over 400 million bushels.


Mr. Douglas:: Does the Minister mean he expects to have nearly 200 million bushels exported in the months of June and July? May I rephrase the question. The report yesterday showed at the end of May the export of some 311 million bushels. Does

the Minister think we can reach the 500 million bushels he is now predicting by the end of July?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said 400 million bushels was our objective, which would be the second largest year in history.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: May I
direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Have the preliminary investigations conducted by the R.C.M.P. indicated whether there has been a leak of the contents of the Dorion Commission report? Perhaps he could also tell the House if now, with the accelerated translation and other activities this report can be printed somewhat sooner than was indicated yesterday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that the Prime Minister indicated on Sunday at a press conference that he hoped the report could be published as quickly as possible. I mentioned this to the Chief Justice yesterday morning, and he told me everything was being done to issue it as quickly as possible but that this would not be before the end of the week. I need not remind my hon. friend of course, that control of this matter is in the hands of the Royal Commissioner, as it should be.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Can the minister tell us when a feed grain agency will be set up, as was requested by the Federation canadienne de l'agriculture and the Union catholique des cultivateurs?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, that this policy was announced in the Speech from the Throne. I announced a feed grain policy and said that in due course the government would advise the house of its policy.
June 22, 1965	COMMONS


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister. Can he tell us if this matter is part of the government's emergency measures and if we can expect this agency to be set up during the next session?


Maurice Sauvé: The Prime Minister announced last week the legislative program for the coming weeks; it will depend on what progress is made.


Mr. Clemeni Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry?
Can the Minister tell us if it is true that several cabinet members object to the establishment of a feed grains agency for eastern Canada and whether that was the reason for his Drummondville speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In order to avoid useless and disastrous controversy between Eastern and Western farmers, which controversy would prevent the report of the Special Committee on Feed Grains from giving rise to legislation, would the Minister tell the house if the Canadian Wheat Board has made serious objections to establishing a feed grain agency for Eastern Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Wheat Board is not a member of Cabinet. I have no objection to a feed grain agency for eastern Canada.



PROPOSED CONFERENCE ON DROUGHT CONDITIONS IN OTTAWA VALLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscam-ingue):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question that was put yesterday concerning the assistance the government intends to give farmers in trouble, the Minister said he would answer today.


Maurice Sauvé: Responsibility for applications made to the federal government concerning assistance rests with the provincial authorities. There have been some discussions between the pro-22620-175
DEBATES	2743
Inquiries of the Ministry vincial authorities of Ontario and the Minister of Agriculture, as reported in Hansard of June 10. The government is prepared to enter discussions with any other provincial government under the same circumstances.
Besides, the hon. member has probably read the following in today's Journal: "The federal government will share the cost of rain making... ". There have been no official requests on the part of the provincial authorities of Ontario.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the minister tell us whether there were any consultations with the representatives of the Quebec Government?


Maurice Sauvé: Not recently, as far as I know.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the federal Government intend to take action on its own initiative with the provincial Governments in this case?


Maurice Sauvé: The Government cannot do that. The request must come from the provincial authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. members that there have been already five or six supplementary questions? They will probably have the opportunity to raise the question once more in a few minutes. [English]



TOBACCO-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ONTARIO MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps I may direct it to the Minister of Finance. Has the Government as yet reached any decision with respect to the recent request of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board for certain urgent financial assistance?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered to be called upon to answer a question which otherwise might have been directed to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I will be very pleased to look into this matter and do my best to reply in a day or two.



EGGS-PROPOSED IMPORTATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assompfion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
2744	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
In a statement made in London by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), he indicated that he wished to allow the export of eggs from Great Britain to Canada. Would the Acting Prime Minister give assurance to the house that there shall not be any import into Canada of eggs from Great Britain since egg producers in Canada are now faced with over-production?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the best thing would be for me to examine the statement first. Then I would be in a better position to give a precise answer.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister with regard to the question asked by my colleague. I think this matter of the Minister of Agriculture anticipating the import of eggs from Britain is extremely important, because of the black outlook for egg producers in Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; order.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he is yet in a position to answer the question I put to him several times this week and last week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I may not be able to answer it completely. There is a conference on cultural problems being held in Yugoslavia. This conference is not in any way under the auspices of the Canadian Commission on Biculturalism. If there is confusion on this point, it may be responsible in some measure for the impression my hon. friend may have had. Consideration is now being given as to whether there will be Canadian representation at that conference.
I believe my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is looking into this matter. We hope to be able to confer later in the day and perhaps complete this answer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when that conference takes place perhaps the Acting Prime Minister might be able to bring an answer back to the House as to whether any part of the organization of the B and B Commission will be attending this meeting.

DEBATES	June 22, 1965


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an aspect we are looking into.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is it true that seizures and prosecutions are now taking place in the Beauval area of Saskatchewan with regard to materials that were taken from the Port Black radar site situated close to Beauval? After demolition of the site had taken place by the destruction crew I understand the settlers were told to help themselves by members of that crew. Is it the intention of the Government now to take proceedings against these settlers who were misinformed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest this is a question that should be placed on the order paper.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: With all due
respect, Mr. Speaker, an investigation by the R.C.M.P. is now going on in that area, and I think the people should know. The question is urgent and should be answered. My last question on the order paper lay there for six weeks, and in view of the fact that action by the R.C.M.P. is now being taken in this area I think the question is urgent.
I would like an answer to my question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. Member would rephrase his question it might be reconsidered by the Chair.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Will the Minister see to it that all proceedings are stopped at this point until his department has had time to investigate the whole matter?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I should first have to ascertain whether this matter comes under the jurisdiction of National Defence or the Defence Production Department. I will certainly look into it, and if proceedings have been initiated I will see that they are stopped for the time being.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: should like to ask him whether the Government is now willing to give consideration to the setting up of a special committee to investigate expenditures in connection with Expo '67 in view of the answer which was tabled for me yesterday, showing that expenditures had risen from a commitment of $20 million to more than $64 million as of today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: have not had an opportunity to examine the return to which the hon. Member has referred. I am sure we are all confident that Expo '67 is going to be one of the greatest events in Canadian history. I am sure, too, that all Members will want to see that it becomes one of the greatest expositions of all time. I think the hon. Member may be able to satisfy his understandable interest and curiosity by putting questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce when his estimates are before the Committee of the Whole, and I think he will find that the Minister will ably and responsibly deal with the questions which concern him.


Robert Carman Coates: I would like to say to the Acting Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I have not sent him notice, but I am in a bit of a hurry today. I trust I may phrase the question correctly in accordance with the rules.


An hon. Member:: Ask it, then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the Minister of Justice obtained advice from the law officers of the Crown as to whether a bill passed by the British Columbia legislature entitled an act to incorporate the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority violates any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: will have to inquire. I will take the question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF WORLD WAR I OVERSEAS REQUIREMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: My
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the Minister received a letter dated June 19 from the Canadian Corps Association asking that the 365 day overseas requirement applying to World War I veterans in respect of war veterans allowance be cancelled; and is the Minister in a position to say whether this is being considered?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


David Walter Groos: Or would the Minister consider recommending-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. Member to complete the question.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member asking the question is perfectly aware that this letter was addressed to all Members of Parliament.


David Walter Groos: The letter was addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


An hon. Member:: How did you get it, then?


David Walter Groos: I hear a lot of noise from the Opposition. Obviously they do not realize how important this matter is to World War I veterans.
Som hon. Members: Hear, hear.


David Walter Groos: Would the Minister consider recommending that the question be referred to the Veterans Affairs Committee for its consideration?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the commitment which the Minister made in this House to the effect that he would introduce veterans legislation before the summer recess, may I ask him whether the two items now standing on the order paper are the extent of that commitment, or is he going to take into consideration the report submitted by the committee on Veterans Affairs handed to him in the fall of 1963, in which the 365 day clause was brought up
2746	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry and which was mentioned previously by the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C. Is the Minister going to consider this before the summer recess?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In answering a similar question a few days ago I indicated that there were two other bills to be brought forward. I am hoping they will be on the notice paper either today or tomorrow.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is this. In view of the widespread concern about a constitutional issue of great importance, has the Government reconsidered the question of submitting to Parliament a resolution dealing with the address to the Queen seeking an amendment to the British North America Act limiting the power of the Legislative Council of Quebec? Is the Government reconsidering bringing this measure before Parliament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made a comprehensive statement the other day, and I see no reason to make any modification in it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. As I understand it, the other day the Minister suggested that the matter might be brought before the House on a supply motion. Suppose the Official Opposition do not choose to carry out this particular procedure, does that mean the rest of the Members of the House are not to have the opportunity of discussing this important constitutional issue?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Prime Minister said was that there would be an opportunity given to the House to discuss this matter if it wished to do so. I suggested in my statement that we had in mind a supply motion for last Monday and Tuesday, and that it would be up to the Opposition to determine whether or not it wished to discuss this matter. Then because the Leader of the Opposition, an important officer of this House, had firm commitments previously made, an effort was made to accommodate him and that was done.
I point out to the resourceful and intelligent Member who raised this question that there

DEBATES	June 22, 1965
are procedures which are open to any Member who is ingenious enough to think of them.


Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonton West):: supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Perhaps he might cast his mind back -and I invite him to do so-to the time when he frothed with indignation that the Government should ever dictate to the Opposition the choice of a subject for a supply motion.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I always look ahead.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this means that the Government has decided not to submit this matter to Parliament of its own volition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made a statement last Tuesday when I dealt with this question-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and dealt with it quite thoroughly.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF SUMMER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Privy Council. Several weeks ago the Prime Minister indicated that some time in advance of the summer recess the Government would announce the date they would like to rise. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council as House Leader thinks this would be a suitable day to announce that Friday would be an appropriate day to adjourn for the summer?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to make a firm commitment on that, but it is a wonderful idea.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It stems from a press release which arrived on my desk today which states that six graduate students in political science will be taken on the staff under a program of student internship. Reading on
June 22, 1965

a little further it appears that five of the six students were selected from the Province of Quebec. My question is, why are these students not selected on a more geographical basis, especially when the Department of Northern Affairs has interests in other provinces?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is perhaps a grievance, but I would not think it is the type of question which should be posed at this time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Your Honour, I think the
Minister has an answer to this question and I should like to hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the visit to Canada of the Queen Mother of England, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the house whether the Premier of the province of Quebec sent her an invitation so that he could welcome her in the City of Quebec?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer immediately, but I will take this question as notice.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the consumer credit legislation now being considered by several provinces, can the Minister inform the House when the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons will be convened, so the Federal Government can play its part in this important legislation?
I did give the Minister notice of this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is now being discussed in this House.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE TAX REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the Government of the United States is reported yesterday to have repealed $4.7 billion in excise taxes for the purpose of lowering prices, does the Minister or the Government have any plans to keep Canadian industry competitive by taking similar action; and would he consider repeal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and production machinery as a suitable step in this direction?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to congratulate my hon. friend on his perseverance.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Government any other specific considerations under investigation so that a real attack can be made against the high cost of living which exists today?


Eric Alfred Winkler: How dictatorial does the Government want to be?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That question suggests to me that my hon. friend was perhaps thinking of going on a fishing trip with his leader.


Alfred Dryden Hales: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the question just asked by the hon. Member, which indicated that excise taxes are being reduced by the United States Government, I should like to point out that this will affect the price of motor cars in the United States and will therefore widen the gap between Canada's price and the United States price. What does the Government intend to do in order to narrow this gap?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friends that this matter is being given very careful consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question in view of the answer of the Minister of Finance. Is he aware of the article appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press for June 19 which pictures him along with five others in whose company he belongs, namely Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Peron and Stalin-all of them dictators?
June 22, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION



LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH DEMOLITION OF ROXBOROUGH APARTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on June 16 the hon. Member for Kootenay West asked a question of my colleague the Minister of Labour concerning the employees of the Roxborough Apartments. This matter has been transferred to me for reply.
The employees of the Roxborough Apartments property have signed employment contracts ending September 30, 1965, with a two or three month bonus. In addition they will be paid 4 per cent holiday pay on leaving.
The National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works are investigating the possibility of employing any of the persons concerned should vacancies arise on the Commission's staff or in the Department for which they would qualify. The Commission is further trying to help them with other departments of the Federal Government, particularly by advising the National Employment Service of the availability of these persons and seeking the full co-operation of the National Employment Service. The National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Labour are doing everything possible to assist the employees of the Roxborough Apartments and of La Touraine restaurant to find suitable employment.
A list showing their names, birth dates, years of service, type of employment and present salary has been prepared and circulated to the Departments and agencies mentioned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the employees directly concerned be advised of Government policy in this respect?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I presume the employees concerned are now aware that the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission are trying to find them employment.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Acting Prime Minister stated
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
in reply to my question that he did not have the answer but would confer with the Minister of Finance. Today I should like to direct the question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether, in view of the 50 minute conference that was held among himself, the Acting Prime Minister and representatives of the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the Government is now prepared to accede to the request made by them that the Government put off further action on the newspaper legislation until a better way is found to deal with this problem.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer, if my hon. friend will bear with me, to deal with this question when the income tax bill is before the House, and I hope that will be before the afternoon is over.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could give us an answer now I think it would save a great deal of time in the passage of this Bill.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche was irresponsible because he happened to have stated that the said member had attended only four of the 21 meetings of the consumer credit committee and only two of the 25 meetings of the committee on banking and commerce. The hon. member for Lapointe said he was absent because the committees had met while the house was sitting. Now, Mr. Speaker, those two committees only met twice while the house was sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is an instance of irresponsibility. He is irresponsible.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In respect of the proceedings now taking place, any question of this nature surely is out of order because it would necessitate some notice being given to the Speaker.
June 22, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has already been ruled out of order.



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-123, to provide for the disposition of Indian claims.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister would be happy to make a statement in this regard.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that I am so happy about making a statement, but I did make certain commitments to the members of the committee who considered the resolution last night, and in fulfilment of these assurances, I think some remarks are appropriate at this time.
First I wish to thank the hon. Members who participated in the debate yesterday at the resolution stage of this bill. Needless to say I was encouraged by the unanimous expression of support of the resolution which came from all quarters of this House. That augurs well for the early passage and the success of this long overdue legislation.
As I said when I introduced the legislation yesterday, two joint committees of the two Houses of Parliament, one in the period 1946-48 and the other in the period 1959-61, after hearing the evidence of Indians and others concerned, strongly recommended that action be taken to deal with this problem.
It was decided both by the former administration and by this administration that steps should be taken to implement the recommendations of those two joint committees to establish an Indian Claims Commission. As was mentioned more than once yesterday, legislation was drafted and introduced in this House in December, 1963. Following this the proposed legislation was sent to Indian organizations, band councils and other interested groups across Canada for study and for suggestions as to improvements to these provisions. This was done during the year 1964 and during the first month or two of this year. Some 300 briefs and letters concerning the proposed legislation were received. These were reviewed and, as hon. Members, who have had an opportunity to peruse this bill and compare it with the older one will see, certain major changes have been made which I think will commend themselves to all Members of this House.
DEBATES	2749
Indian Claims Commission
I should like to refer briefly to the main provisions of this new Bill C-123. First of all, the Commission will comprise five members, the chairman to be trained in the law, with experience on the bench or at the bar. There was a suggestion made that the chairman should be an international jurist selected by the United Nations. In fact the hon. Member for Skeena put forward that suggestion again last night. However, while those of us who have considered the representations feel strongly that the Chairman should be a person with adequate training and experience, we do believe there are persons in Canada who are eminently qualified to perform the duties of chairman of an Indian Claims Commission that is functioning solely in this country.
There were other suggestions made as to the qualifications of the Commissioners. Some thought that such persons should be trained in anthropology, ethnology and sociology-I remember hearing mention of a lot of other "ologies" during that discussion-and history and economics. There were many representations to the effect that an Indian should be appointed to the Commission and, as you will see from a perusal of the bill, we have accepted that suggestion. Provision has been made for one of the Commissioners to be appointed from among persons who are defined as Indians under the Indian Act. e (3:20 p.m.)
However, it is not considered desirable to specify in the legislation the discipline in which any Commissioner other than the chairman must have been trained. But we are going to have a chairman trained in the law. We are also going to have at least one Indian on this commission of five. In the new bill we have made provision for a vice chairman, who may exercise all the powers and functions of the chairman if he is absent or unable to act for any reason. I think this is also an improvement which came out of suggestions that have been made.
Each Commissioner may be appointed-not "shall be"-but may be for a term not exceeding 10 years. We do not say "shall be" because if you were going to appoint a man in his late sixties or early seventies you might not want to appoint him for such a period as would mean he would serve beyond the age of 75, which is the limit for all judges in the superior courts of this country. However, he can be appointed for a term of 10 years.
June 22. 1965

Indian Claims Commission It was suggested in some briefs that this Commission should be made permanent, and that no time limit should be put on its life. But we must keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this Commission is to deal with claims which have arisen in the past, not new claims but claims that have arisen in the past. And while no Commissioner may be appointed for a term exceeding 10 years, if the Commission has not completed its work and if a member has served the full term of 10 years there is no reason why he should not be appointed for another term not exceeding two years, if he is doing a good job. This provision will permit the reappointment of one or more Commissioners when their terms expire. But I can assure this House that the Commission itself will go on until the last claim has been determined, and not until then will the Commission cease to function.
I hope this will not take 10 years, but based on the experience of our neighbouring republic to the south it may well take longer because, as I have learned in the last four months, some of the claims are very complicated. They will take months or longer in preparation, and it will take some time for the Commission to deal with the very complicated and involved claims that have come in from different parts of the country.
A word or two might be in order about the classes of claims. The classes of claims that may be brought are very broad, sufficiently broad, it seems to me, that known claims arising out of any past events can be heard. In 1948 the joint committee recommended that the Commission deal with claims under treaties. The 1961 joint committee recommended that the British Columbia land question and the Oka land dispute be heard by the Commission. Under the bill as drafted the kinds of claims that both joint committees had in mind have been included, and we have gone even further than that.
There are now five general classes of claims, which may be brought. First there are claims that land was taken without Indian aboriginal interest having been extinguished. This is the kind of claim that has been advanced by the Indians of my Province of British Columbia and which is commonly known as the B.C. land question. This was referred to at some length in the report of the 1961 committee on Indian Affairs.
The second class of claims covers claims that lands set apart as reserves for Indians were disposed of without compensation, or 
compensation so inadequate as to be unconscionable. We heard several references to that type of claim in the debate last night on the resolution. There have been many allegations that reserve lands have been improperly disposed of without compensation being paid, or that the compensation was inequitable. Suggestions were made, which I might say appealed to me at first when I was making a study of the matter, that the use of the word "unconscionable" would make it difficult to prove a claim based on the inadequacy of compensation, because as long as there was some substantial or almost reasonable compensation it might be argued that it was not unconscionable.
I might say that point troubled me at first but when I went into the history of the matter I found that similar language is used in the United States legislation, and that there have been a number of successful claims in the United States involving inadequacy of compensation as the basis of an allegation of unconscionable conduct. It is reasonable to assume that such an interpretation will be placed upon the word by the Commission or other bodies dealing with the matter in this country.
The third class covers claims that the Crown failed to discharge any obligation to Indians arising under any treaty, agreement or undertaking. Last night several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Peace River and I think the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, referred to this point. Provision is made in the new bill to consider allegations that the Crown has failed to live up to its obligations to Indians under any treaty, agreement or undertaking. This provision will enable bands that believe treaties have been abrogated in any way to make a claim; or if they feel that any other agreement or undertaking with them has not been fully discharged they may also bring a claim. May we have order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The fourth class consists of claims that moneys held by the Crown in trust for Indians were improperly used. Some have alleged maladministration of trust funds. Where a band feels that such is the case it may bring a claim. These four classes cover claims involving aboriginal land rights, reserve lands, band funds and treaty obligations. Finally, in order to ensure as far as possible that any other matter which does not fall in the above four categories can be heard, there is a further provision for claims
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
based on the alleged failure of the Crown to act fairly and honourably with Indians in some transactions, thereby causing injury to them.
It will be seen that the classes of claims that may be brought under this bill are very broad and will permit the hearing of claims of alleged wrongs against Indians in the collective sense. The collective interest of the Indian is represented by the Indian band, and this is set out clearly in the bill. Claims of individual Indians are not included, although there have been suggestions that they should be. However, if there is any individual alive today who feels he has such a claim he can seek his remedy in the courts. The same is not true of Indians in their collective capacity with respect to claims arising out of treaties made 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 75 years ago or possibly even 25 years ago. Therefore under the bill such claims must be put forward by Indian bands. There is probably no individual Indian living today who is directly affected, so I think the question of the individual becomes academic. However, by making it possible for an Indian band as an identifiable group to seek redress, their rights as a group are recognized.
There were also suggestions that claims might be permitted against the Crown in right of a province. For constitutional and jurisdictional reasons obviously this has not been included. However, claims arising during the preconfederation period may be heard as well as all claims against Canada since Confederation.
I might say a word or two about claimants with particular reference to clause 6 of the bill.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As I have said, claims may be brought on behalf of Indian bands. Normally the band council, as the duly constituted authority to act on behalf of the band, will put forward the claim. In some cases, however, there are no councils, and accordingly the chief will be in a position to bring the claim on behalf of the band. There may be a few cases where there is no band council nor a chief, and in in such cases any adult member of the band may bring the claim, provided the Commission is satisfied he has been authorized by the band to do so. Provision is also made for bringing claims in cases where the bands, in the past, have either been amalgamated with other bands or have been divided to form two or more bands. These bands, through their
DEBATES	2751
Indian Claims Commission authorized responsible councils or their authorized spokesmen, will be able to bring claims.
I might say there were suggestions in some of the briefs and letters that were submitted, as well as in a telegram I received today, that Indian organizations should be able to bring claims on behalf of the Indians of a province. This was also mentioned last night. I may say this suggestion was given very careful consideration, and the conclusion reached was that this would pose insurmountable difficulties because Indian organizations, being purely voluntary organizations, do not necessarily represent a particular band or group of Indians. For instance, you will find in my native Province of New Brunswick, Indians of several different tribes. The same situation applies in Nova Scotia, as well as in practically every province of Canada. Where you have a band having a specific claim with regard to the disposition of some land that has been reserved for its use, you may well have another group with entirely conflicting views. This suggestion, therefore, after most careful consideration has been rejected, or at least has not been incorporated in the Bill now up for second reading.
The membership of Indian organizations, I might say, in the short time I have been Minister-and I have met several of them- fluctuates from day to day, from month to month and certainly from year to year. Conflicts of interest could arise where one or more organizations decided on their own initiative that they were the true representatives of a particular group or band of Indians. On the other hand, the band is well defined. In most cases the Indian bands had lands set apart for their use. They have a well defined membership, a membership that is established and maintained by law.
I might say that while for the reasons I have given we have not seen fit to include Indian organizations in the Bill, or make it possible for them to be claimants, this does not mean that Indian organizations might not take the initiative and advise the band or the chief to bring a claim. They could assist the band council or the chief or the adult, if the Claims Commission directed that an adult could represent a band, in the filing and prosecution of a claim. It may well be, and I think probably will be, that this will be the role that many Indian organizations may wish to play. There is nothing in the provisions of the Bill that prevents them from doing so. They can do all these things, but they cannot be claimants. On the other hand, I reiterate
June 22, 1965

Indian Claims Commission that we certainly do not feel Indian organizations, with their fluctuating membership, should be permitted to present claims to the Commission.
There is another important matter to which attention was drawn in the briefs that were submitted, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the time limit for filing claims. There has been considerable publicity given to the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission during the last few years. For several years it has been the announced policy of successive governments to establish a Commission. The purpose of the Commission, as I stated yesterday and I believe I reiterated today, is to clear grievances from the past. On the whole I believe the great majority of Indians know what their grievances are. They have talked about them enough over all my adult life. Accordingly, in order to bring some finality to this matter that has been in the air for at least 40 or 50 years, we believe that claims should be filed within a reasonable period of time. The previous Bill, No. C-130, provided that claims must be filed within two years after the act comes into force.
There were many suggestions regarding this limitation, ranging from suggestions of two years to no time limit at all. Some people were recommending a permanent Commission. Some arguments were advanced that the time limit for filing claims was too short, particularly since some bands seemed to think they not only must file their claims within the time limit but they must also prepare all the documentation necessary to support the claim. This is not the case. Only a notice of the claim need be filed, setting out what the claim is about with reasonable certainty. The documentation can follow later.
However, to meet the basic objection that the time limit of two years originally contemplated was too short, the time limit established in subclause 2 of clause 6 of the bill has now been extended to three years. It is considered this is a reasonable time within which to file a notice of claim. It may not be heard for five years, but they must give notice within three years. In the light of all the publicity that has been given to the Indian Claims bill, more particularly by the distribution of Bill No. C-130 in 1964 and the publicity we propose to give the establishment of the Commission when the bill becomes law, I would hope Members would agree that three years is a generous time.
One of the most far reaching and most novel provisions in the bill is the one having to do

with the nature of the evidence that may be considered by the Commission. An important principle embodied in the bill is the fact that the Commission will not be bound by the ordinary rules of evidence. This is most important, since the Commission in its work will be able to dispense with the rules of evidence which in the past resulted in the rejection of some evidence relating to claims. Having practised law for more than two decades before I went into business I realize that in cases such as we have here, where most of the claims arose in the last century or perhaps even earlier, if we adhered to the strict rules of evidence there would be no possibility for these claimants to get justice. Some of the evidence that may be submitted may not be accepted in ordinary courts of law, yet it may be credible and trustworthy. It was considered necessary, in view of the antiquity of some of the claims, that such evidence be allowed.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Perhaps I might pause to interject that we have all had our own experience of somebody telling us an incident. Our parents may tell us of an incident; when we pass it on to somebody else there is usually a slight variation, and when it is passed on to our children and our grandchildren there will be even more variations. So, while people may repeat in good faith claims and stories they have heard, in some instances these might be so far removed from the truth that they are almost fairy stories.
I am not suggesting that would happen here, but it is important that where oral evidence does not exist, because there is no person alive today who could give the testimony, there must be some evidence to support the claim, something contemporaneous with the origin of the claim. It was thought that it would be unwise if the claim were supported by oral evidence only. It should be corroborated in some material way by other than oral evidence, that is by something to show that the oral evidence was true or was likely to be true. This could be an artifact, a marking, or some other corroborative evidence. The question of what weight should be given to testimony is being left to the Commission to decide.
With respect to the production of papers, I hardly think it is necessary to deal with this question at any length. The Commission will be authorized to make rules respecting its procedures and will be given such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
superior court of record in respect of the difficult question of the production and inspection of documents, procedures for the bringing of claims and powers as to attendance, summoning and the examination of witnesses.
In some of the briefs, it was suggested that direction be given to the Commission as to the kind of evidence it would entertain and the weight to be attached to such evidence. There were also suggestions that there be detailed provisions with respect to the production of documents. It was considered, however, after full examination that it should be left to the Commission to determine what, in the light of practice, would be necessary to provide the claimants with full and reasonable opportunity to prepare their claims and be heard; and that the Commission should also determine what testimony it would hear and what weight it would give to such testimony.
Because of the nature of the claims, and because the problems that might be encountered in dealing with them cannot be foreseen, it is considered that it would be impractical to try to prescribe in a detailed way what the Commission shall do with respect to evidence, documents and the examination of witnesses. It is expected that the Commission will hold hearings in various parts of the country and, as required, may conduct special investigations into any particular aspects of a claim.
Another significant innovation and great improvement in this bill as compared with the former one is the provision for assistance to Indian bands in bringing claims. Provision is made in the bill for providing assistance to Indian bands that do not have sufficient available resources to enable them to bring a claim before the Commission or to pursue or oppose an appeal. There would be no point in setting up a commission if destitute bands could not get the lawyers, anthropologists and other research experts that they may need.
It so happens that there are a few Indian bands which are very wealthy, either through possessing land which made choice sites for industrial purposes or through the discovery of oil and gas. Such bands will also have claims to put forward and will be in a position to do so, but other adjoining bands in a province could not make claims unless assistance were provided them.
One of the fundamental problems that we had to consider was whether Indian bands would be able to finance the cost of having their claims adequately investigated, documented and presented before the Commission.
DEBATES	2753
Indian Claims Commission In many cases this will involve not only legal advisers and counsel but research personnel as well. The real problem is how to assist those bands that may not be able to finance in whole or in part the bringing of their claims.
Having determined that bands unable to finance their own claims should be assisted, the question arose as to how such assistance might best be made available. I may say it did not take long for the officials who were advising me or for me to decide that the administration of such assistance could not be associated with the Department of Indian Affairs, even though I may have a very high opinion of my own integrity; nor should it be associated with the Department of Justice, which will have the responsibility of defending the Crown. It was therefore considered that the most appropriate way in which the assistance might be provided would be to make it the responsibility of the Indian Claims Commission, and to assure the Commission that it would have funds to do this work.
Mr. Speaker, may we have order?


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Howard:: The only disorder is behind you.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not suggesting that there is not some lack of order there.
The Commission will set the terms and conditions of the assistance to be provided, whether in the form of direct assistance, such as by way of research staff, or financial assistance to help pay for research and legal counsel. Provision is made so that a band desiring help will be able to make application for assistance to prepare and bring a claim before the Commission, or for assistance in any of the appeal proceedings or further hearings that may be held as provided in the bill. In special circumstances, the Commission is given power to forgive all or part of the financial assistance so provided. The scheme of assistance as set out in the bill will, I believe, go a long way toward meeting the expressed requests of many band councils and others.
It is not possible to determine in advance how much might need to be provided to meet all the requests for financial assistance that might be made. However, the requirements can be met year by year in such amounts as might be appropriated by Parliament for this purpose. As soon as the bill becomes law, authority will be sought in supplementary estimates for an amount deemed sufficient to
June 22, 1965

Indian Claims Commission cover any requests for assistance that might be made to the Commission during the current fiscal year.
The Commission will be required to render a decision on each claim, setting forth its reasons therefor and awarding money compensation where it is warranted. The Commission can make a money award only. There were suggestions that it be given the power to restore land, or to award both land and money, and also to make declaratory orders in respect of treaty obligations.
It was not intended that the Claims Commission would take the place of ordinary courts in determining points of law such as the validity and effect of an Indian treaty. [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Commission is now being given wide powers, however, to determine whether an obligation under a treaty as determined by the courts has been discharged. The restoration of land may be quite impossible for any number of reasons. Land may have been patented years ago. I know that a project in southwestern Ontario with which I was associated for some years, and which is now the hub of a billion dollar industry, is all established on a former Indian reserve. Even if there has been some flaw in a title of this kind, it will be impossible to return land where patents have been issued. But if there has been an injustice the Commission will be able to give the band or bands concerned adequate compensation. There is no limit to the amount of compensation which can be awarded.
As regards the suggestion that declaratory orders may be made in respect to treaty applications, it is considered that such orders can quite properly be dealt with in the ordinary courts in accordance with the established rules of legal evidence. It would be a case of interpreting a document.
A word as to appeals. The Commission will sit and decide on the merits of these claims. The decisions of the Commission are final and conclusive, subject to appeal to a special Indian Claims Appeal Court which is being constituted under this bill. The Commission being a tribunal which is not bound by legal rules of evidence, and not applying facts to existing law or being guided by established principles, there are no grounds on which an appeal could be taken to the Supreme Court or to the Exchequer Court. It could not possibly be done. But all judges of the Exchequer Court are to be ex officio judges of the Indian Claims Appeal Court and are to be given authority to confirm or vary decisions of the 
Commission, or they may refer claims back to the Commission for further hearing.
Apart from the appeal to the Indian Claims Appeal Court as to the reasonableness of an award, provision is made for reference to the Exchequer Court on questions of jurisdiction, and for appeals from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court in respect of any such decision concerning a question of jurisdiction.
A word on the subject of awards. This is dealt with in clauses 9, 10 and 11. Where the Commission finds that the claim of an Indian band is justified in whole or in part, it may make a money award. In determining the amount of the award the Commission shall take into account the amount of any moneys already paid or the money value of any other compensation given to the band in respect of the matter out of which the claim arose. This is where the question of unconscionable transactions arises. For example, if the Commission were to find that band X was entitled to Y dollars under the provisions of some treaty or agreement but had in fact received only Z dollars, then it would take into account the amount Z already paid when determining the amount of the award.
I turn now to the disposition of funds. Any amount which may be awarded by the Commission or fixed by the Indian Claims Appeal Court will be paid into the capital fund of the Indian band concerned to be used for the purposes to which the capital funds of a band may be devoted. The purposes for which expenditures of capital funds may be made are prescribed under the Indian Act. In general, the funds may be used only for purposes of benefit to all members of the band; a percentage can be used for per capita distribution, but the total amount cannot be dissipated in this way. Of course before payment of an award can be made to a band fund, money must be appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. Once the moneys have been paid over the claim will be deemed to have been discharged. The reasons for placing restrictions on the use of band funds is obvious. The fund is the property of the band as a whole, and not only the present generation but their children and grandchildren have to be considered.
In summary, may I say it is felt that the tribunal which is being established will enable a final determination to be made as to the claims of all Indian bands. We must realize that this Commission has a monumental task ahead of it. And when the last
June 22, 1965

claim has been settled we hope old controversies will be laid at rest, and this should go a long way toward rebuilding the kind of confidence in the intentions of Parliament and of the people of Canada which is absolutely necessary if we are to do our work for the future development and welfare of the Indian people.
I hope that this legislation which is so vital to the settlement of Indian claims will help achieve this end.
As I assured the Committee yesterday, as soon as this bill has been given second reading I intend to ask that it be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons for examination and report, and I am prepared to move the appropriate resolution at the earliest opportunity.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think I should commend the Minister for the careful and detailed statement he has given to us on the motion for second reading of this bill in connection with a contentious, difficult and tenacious problem which has existed over a great many years. The measure deals with a problem to which I do not think there will ever be a complete and equitable solution, though by the terms of this legislation the Government intends to move as far as it possibly can in that direction.
I think, too, I must commend the officials of the Minister who undoubtedly participated to a large extent in the preparation of this legislation following the numerous briefs and representations which I am sure were made to them and which, I am convinced, must have raised a great many difficulties.
My own disposition is to give guarded and somewhat reserved approval to this motion, subject to what I shall have to say later in the expectation that a measure of this kind is one which must bristle with legal questions based on varying interpretations of the different clauses to which the hon. gentleman has referred. Some of these will no doubt be passed on the Claims Commission itself. It seems to me that only by means of a joint committee such as has been suggested will it be possible to give this legislation the careful and detailed study which its great importance deserves.
I hope when the Minister closes the debate he will refer to the proposal I made yesterday, that the Government should indicate its good faith in this issue by expressing willingness to comply with the recommendations which may be made by the joint committee concerning changes and alterations. I have this in mind

Indian Claims Commission when I indicate my own view that the bill is one to which in principle we may give our qualified acceptance.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Having said that, to indicate the nature of the reservations I have I should like to refer to several of the matters which I think are of very considerable importance and which will require clarification and a more detailed statement by those who will be appearing before the committee during the course of the study of this bill. I am not blaming the Minister for this, but the bill came into my hands only about half an hour or so before the opening of the House. It is a very lengthy bill comprising 32 clauses involving in many cases new departures, and for this reason I feel I must qualify my acceptance of it.
Some of the things I wish to refer to, which I assume will be the subject of study and consideration by the committee, are these. First of all, may I bring to the attention of the Minister that in the interpretation clause "band" means a body of Indians that is a band for the purposes of the Indian Act. I point out that while it is apparent from this interpretation that there is a limitation in this legislation to Indians within the Indian Act, this leaves a very considerable omission in that the bill fails to take into consideration the Eskimos of northern Quebec and the Northwest Territories, in respect of whom there have been no treaties signed and who are now in the position of having in many cases to give up their birthrights in respect of the material assets and real property in the areas in which they reside without any agreement being reached at all. This, of course, is not a matter within the Minister's jurisdiction, but as Minister charged with responsibility under the Indian Act I think this very signal omission should be called to the attention of the Government.
I have no comment to make at this time with respect to the suggestions advanced as to the personnel of the Commission. I think there has been an improvement in this respect, in that there is now to be at least one Indian, within the meaning of the Indian Act, among the commissioners. The qualifications which the Minister mentioned are a condition precedent. I think they have been well put, and I have no inclination to quarrel with him on this score.
When we reach the duties of the Commission as set out in clause 5 of the bill we come to the very heart of the problem. I would
June 22. 1965

Indian Claims Commission be of the opinion that certain clarification might be required in connection with some of the areas which are the subject of the proposed jurisdiction of the Claims Commission. Subclause (a) of clause 5 refers to claims which may be brought in respect of-
-lands in any area that now forms part of Canada-
-which were taken from Indians by the Crown, and so on, without any agreement or undertaking to give compensation. It seems to me at first blush that the word "adequate" should be inserted before the word "compensation"; because any compensation at all, no matter how inadequate, would disqualify an application being made under subclause (a). Subclause (b) says that claims may be advanced in respect of-
-lands set apart for the use and benefit of Indians in any area-
-I assume that refers to lands set apart as reserves and which subsequently were granted, sold or otherwise disposed of by the Crown. I also assume it includes the natural resources and the mineral rights under the land as well, and I think this is a matter subject to litigation at the present time in the Province of Alberta. The subclause continues:
-and no compensation was given in respect thereof to such Indians or the compensation given was so inadequate as to he unconscionable;
In other words a very heavy onus is thus laid upon the Indians and the band to establish, before any right is vested in the Claims Commission to make an award, that the compensation given was so inadequate as to be unconscionable. I think this is rather anomalous, because it is essential for the band to prove this in order to get into court, if I may use that expression, or, to get before the Claims Commission. But once they have the right to come to the Claims Commission, I would judge that the Commission may make an award which may be reasonable and adequate in their opinion. I think the provision, that they have to establish to the satisfaction of the Claims Commission that the compensation given was so inadequate as to be unconscionable lays a very heavy onus on a band. One must suggest that this is an area where there might be some discussion during the course of the committee's deliberations.
I am very pleased to see subclause (d) of clause 5 in the bill. We had an interesting discussion on this matter yesterday. The hon. Member for Northwest Territories and other hon. Members who spoke brought this subject to the attention of the Minister. The inten-

tion is that this subject shall be covered by subclause (d) in any situation where there has been a breach of a treaty; and this despite the fact that by what now appears to be a decision of the highest court of this land there is no legal restriction against a Government legislating, if it sees fit, in any way so as to vary the terms of a treaty, or to legislate in such a way that there is no longer any compliance with the terms of a treaty.
This brings up another problem which I think is serious, and where I now feel there might not be that complete compliance which I would hope would be present. Subclause (d) is to the effect that a claim may be advanced where the Crown failed to discharge any obligations arising under any treaty to Indians living in an area that forms part of Canada. The meaning of the word "obligation" is involved here. If this is construed to mean, as it well could, a legal obligation, then subclause (d) has no value at all. I feel that for a 100 per cent opportunity to be given to Indians and Indian bands to seek and obtain a remedy for breach of a treaty the word "obligation" should be followed by "or promise". I throw out that suggestion to the Minister for his consideration. I do not want to be splitting hairs, but I want to make it quite plain that I am sure from time to time there would be constructions sought of the various parts of this legislation, and to me the words "obligation" connotes a legal obligation.
The question arises, because of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to which I referred, whether there is any longer, if there was ever at any time, any legal obligation on Canada to fulfil the terms of these treaties. An obligation in honour, in equity, in decency, yes; but there is a question in my mind as to whether there is now a real obligation within the meaning of the word as it appears in subclause (d).
With regard to the length of time within which a claim may be brought, I understand there might be a conflict of views on this. I would be prepared to accept three years provided the Minister might consider adding the words "or such further time as the Commission might recommend". It seems to me there may be very special and unusual circumstances where a band may be unable to gather together the evidence, or where there may be some conflict. I can think of a number of reasons whereby the band might fail to bring proceedings within the term of three years. It would not be unreasonable to grant the Commission the right to extend the time
June 22, 1965

if a proper case was made to it. This is something the Minister might well consider, because it would really not do much violence to the meaning at this time, but it would provide an extra safeguard.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In legislation of this kind there must be the most liberal and generous construction possible. I commend the position that has been taken, that the usual rigid legal rules of evidence shall not apply. However, this position is subject, of course, to subclause 1 in respect of which, as the Minister pointed out, no award shall be made unless there is evidence in writing that is reasonably contemporaneous to the time the subject matter of the claim arose. I understand the reasoning behind this, which relates to the general principle that no one shall be entitled to manufacture evidence in writing to support his own claim, but evidence in writing which was made at a time fairly close to the time when the claim arose could not be considered as being manufactured in respect of proceedings which will not take place until many years later. I think the whole thing depends on an interpretation of the word "reasonably". Certainly there must be some distinction made, but I hope in its decisions the Commission will not construe this word "reasonably" too rigidly against the Indians making the claims.
In clause 13 there is provision for an appeal to the Exchequer Court on the grounds of jurisdiction. This is a very reasonable provision and provides a simple and expeditious method whereby either the Crown or the banks may seek the opinion of the Exchequer Court as to whether any claim made comes within the provisions of clause 5. The appeal from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court is also quite reasonable.
Under subclause 2 of clause 14 I suggest there should be the inclusion of the same saving provision I referred to earlier. This subclause states:
No appeal lies after leave therefor has been obtained under subsection (1) unless it is entered in the Supreme Court within sixty days from the making of the order granting leave to appeal.
Having in mind that many of the Indian bands live in areas which are very considerable distances from the places where these courts are held, I think it would be wise to add after the word "appeal" some saving words to the effect that this time can be extended if in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada a case has been made to do so. I

Indian Claims Commission should not like to see this 60-day period left in its present terms.
The Indian Claims Appeal Court I think is an innovation. It is very desirable and gives an opportunity both for the Crown and the bands to appeal on the ground that an award was unreasonable.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the question of costs, I think the Minister made it reasonably clear that provided the Commission is satisfied, on application by a band, that it simply does not have these resources, all that is required in forming and preparing its case-engaging counsel, calling witnesses and bringing witnesses to the place of the trial; in other words, everything which in any sense of the word is a condition precedent to the band being able to make an adequate, fair and full presentation of its case- will be made available, in terms of the money required, to the Indian band or bands making the application for an award. Anything less than that would certainly be unreasonable, unfair and restrictive in respect of benefits which might flow from this legislation.
Before I leave this subject there is one other point in clause 32 which deals with the question of assistance to Indians. While there is nothing specifically stated, I would assume, and perhaps the Minister can clarify this, that in the event the Indians making application are unsuccessful, there will be no question that costs will be awarded against them. That is an inference we can possibly take from clause 32, but I am sure the Minister is willing to make this point clear beyond any shadow of doubt; that in the event an application is unsuccessful, no costs under any circumstances can be assessed against the applicant band.
The remarks I have made represent a general indication of some of the problems involved, and I have not touched on them all, which can only be adequately and properly disposed of when the matter is before a joint committee to which officials of the Department are made available for questioning. I assume it will be possible for that committee to have access to the officials of the Department of Justice in order to consider some of the legal problems which could arise in connection with the interpretation and construction of this legislation. We must do this with the understanding that no stone will be left unturned to assure that the blot on our nation, in respect of the claims of Indians which can be brought within the four corners of this legis-
June 22, 1965

Indian Claims Commission lation, is, as far as it possibly can be, erased forever.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, since the bill was introduced yesterday we have had a brief opportunity to examine it in some detail. The hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cow-ichan-The Islands and I took the opportunity last night of obtaining one of the copies used for introduction purposes. We perused it until late in the evening, so perhaps we have had a better opportunity of examining it and preparing a critique than some other Members.
Before I make any formal comments I should like to state that it is my understanding an appointment with the Minister was made some time ago with a group of Indians representing the Iroquois nation for four o'clock this afternoon in the Minister's office. Obviously the Minister is not in his office to meet with those people, and I understand they are patiently or impatiently awaiting his attendance. In view of the fact that it appears the Minister will not be able to keep that appointment in person, would he be kind enough to issue an invitation to those representatives, of whom there are many, to sit in the gallery this afternoon as his guests to listen to the discussion which is taking place? I know they would like to participate in the debate, but perhaps they could be afforded the opportunity of at least listening to it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. Member. I might say that last night when I realized that we would have second reading of this bill today, I immediately took steps to try to notify the delegation with whom this appointment was arranged a week ago. There was no thought in fixing that appointment that the bill would be before the House today, and the hour of meeting has been changed to six o'clock. But they do have at least an hour and a half or a little more to wait now, and I am sure my secretary will be glad to arrange for passes to get them into the gallery if they so desire. I would ask one of my officials to communicate such a message to my office.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. Member for Skeena would end his remarks immediately and allow the bill to be given second reading so the Minister could then keep his appointment with the Indians.


Frank Howard: I am not that anxious to vote for the bill or to let it pass without comment.

In the Minister's opening remarks on second reading he indicated that he welcomed what he termed the unanimous support for the bill that was given yesterday at the resolution stage. If the Minister made that comment sincerely I do not think he could have been listening to what was said, because there was not unanimous support for the bill. There was not unanimous support because we had not seen it and did not know just what it would contain and whether it would be worth while supporting. If the Minister will read the comments of the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, who spoke first for the New Democratic Party, he will see there was no endorsation of the bill, nor did I indicate that we would support the bill. There was no unanimous endorsation of the bill, but rather an expression of the fact that this was perhaps the most important piece of legislation with which we would be dealing at this session.
In my view, yesterday and today are but further sad and sorry days for the native Indian people. When the contents of the bill became public for the first time last night the hopes of a great number of Indian people in Canada that finally they were going to get a fair hearing and justice and equity at the hands of Government were dashed to the ground. I would not be saying this if this were the first time a bill to set up an Indian claims commission had been presented to the House. It is not the first time. As is well known, Bill No. C-130 was presented in December of 1963. That bill was roundly condemned as inadequate by large numbers of Indian people, and with few exceptions the bill now before us is identical with Bill No. C-130 introduced in 1963.
In the intervening period the Indian people, whose views had been sought and whose ideas and proposed amendments had been solicited, had hopes that their proposals and suggestions for amendments to Bill C-130 would be accepted with the result that the new bill would be drafted in such a way as to establish a commission which would be able to deal properly, fairly and adequately with their longstanding grievances. They discovered last night that this was not the case. They discovered last night that the bill before us is just the same as Bill C-130 so far as is substance is concerned and the establishment of a commission which, properly and fairly, will be able to hear and adjudicate upon the claims of the native Indian people.
June 22, 1965

Last night we issued a press statement about the bill under the names of the leader of the New Democratic Party, myself, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from that press statement because I think it succinctly sums up our position with respect to the bill and the Government that has introduced it:
The provisions of the bill introduced tonight by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which provides for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission make it obvious that the Government has been speaking with a forked tongue and that it is firmly entrenched in the position of a modem day combination "land-grabber and whiskey-peddler".
There is no change of substance in Bill C-123 over Bill C-130, which was introduced on December 14, 1963, that would permit the Commission to be fair and equitable in hearing and deciding upon claims presented to it. There are, however, two important changes. One is that an Indian shall be a member of the Commission and the other is that financial assistance shall be given to bands to prepare and present their claims.
It seems obvious that the Government in Bill C-130 of 1963 deliberately refused to accept these two suggestions in order that it could spend a year and a half listening to submissions by Indian people, then offer them something as a sop. Even some of the early day rum runners were more subtle than this.
The press release goes on to deal in some detail with the bill itself and in fact is an identical reproduction of a similar statement which was made with respect to Bill C-130. The statement can be similar because the bills are identical with the exception of the two points I mentioned and one or two other extremely minor technical changes.
The history of the dealing of governments with the Indian people includes, of course, their dealings with the Indian people of British Columbia, those with whom I am most familiar and who I believe by and large have the greatest single complaint to make about treatment at the hands of Government in that because there were no treaties with the Indians in British Columbia, they are now faced and have been continuously faced with what is commonly called the B.C. Indian land question. There was no war against the Indian people of British Columbia by which territory was won. There were no treaties, no negotiations, nothing except simple encroachment upon lands exploited and owned, in the sense that the Indians understand that word, by the Indian people of British Columbia.
In 1910 Sir Wilfrid Laurier promised the Indian people of British Columbia that the

Indian Claims Commission Indian land question would be taken to the Privy Council. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not do that. In the eyes of the Indian people who were affected Sir Wilfrid Laurier told them a lie. In their eyes the Liberal party of that day was deceitful, and it looks like they are not improving with the passage of time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In 1913 a group of native Indian people from the Nishga tribe, or what is now the Nishga tribal council, prepared a petition for the presentation of their claim to the Privy Council. Eventually the Federal Government got around to attempting to deal with their petition, and in 1914 they passed an order in council with relation to the matter. The contents of this order in council are important because they indicate what the attitude of the Government of that day was with respect to the legitimate claims of the Indian people. By order in council P.C. 751 of June 20, 1914, the Governor in Council resolved to refer the Indian land claims to the Exchequer Court of Canada. We have not progressed too much, since we are now likely to end up in the hands of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
One of the provisions of the order in council is as follows:
The Indians of British Columbia shall, by their chiefs or representatives, in a binding way, agree, if the court or on appeal the Privy Council, decides that they have a title to the lands of the Province, to surrender such title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for extinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying Indian claims in the unsurrendered territories-
In other words, what they meant was that the Dominion Government in 1914 wanted the Indian people to say before they went to court that if they won they would agree to lose; that if they won their case they would agree to accept the provisions contained in the treaties to which the hon. Member for Peace River referred yesterday, and to which the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories also made reference. In other words, in 1914 the Dominion Government was quite prepared to continue extinguishing the Indians' title to lands in the same niggardly dishonourable way that had been the case prior to that time. Naturally the Indian people rejected this suggestion, because it was unfair and because it was not in any sense of the word justice to them.
Subsequent to that we had the McKenna Royal Commission established between the provincial and federal governments without consultation with the Indian people, without their agreement and, at least on the surface,
June 22, 1965

Indian Claims Commission apparently without any concern for representations from the Indian people. The McKenna Royal Commission sat for some three or four years and went all over British Columbia. They made a report which subsequently found its way into the statute books of Canada and of the Province of British Columbia. These statutes, by their very existence, allegedly settled the British Columbia Indian land question. The Parliament of Canada and the legislature of British Columbia passed laws which in effect extinguished the claim of the Indian people of British Columbia to that land. They did not extinguish anything, because the claim is still there and now we have the Government of the day admitting the claim is still there and indicating its desire to give the people an opportunity to present their claims. This was another way for the Government to deal deceitfully and dishonourably with the legitimate claim of the native people of British Columbia.
In 1926 a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the claims of the allied Indian tribes of British Columbia who had petitioned Parliament in June, 1926 for redress, for justice and fair play. I have read the report of that joint Senate and House of Commons Committee. I have read the questions asked by the members of that Committee, and it is obvious from reading the verbatim report of those proceedings that the members of the committee had made up their collective minds before they even heard the case. They had decided before they heard the claim presented that there was not going to be an acceptance of any claim. They did not recommend that there was no claim, but they stated that the Indians had failed to prove their case.
However, they said, "Even though you have failed to prove your case we will recommend a cash settlement of $100,000 a year in lieu of treaty money." They said in effect, "You have no claim but we recognize you have a claim and we will give you $100,000 per year". This was the origin of the so-called British Columbia special vote in lieu of treaty.
Even though that joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons determined that the Indian people had not proved their claim, they still did not extinguish in the minds of the Indian people the thought that they had a just claim. They presented these ideas to the joint committee in 1946, 1947

and 1948, I believe it was. In 1948, as the Minister stated, that committee reported unanimously that there should be an Indian Claims Commission established. It is interesting to note that there was a Liberal Government in office at that time, and they failed to pay attention to the recommendation of the committee in 1948.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in so far as the British Columbia Indian land question is concerned, the native people of British Columbia do not need an Indian Claims Commission. They do not need an appeal court. They do not need this structure which is now before us. Canada does not need it. All that is required is a simple and honest declaration on the part of the Government that the hereditary or aboriginal title of the native people of British Columbia was never extinguished. This is all that is necessary, the admission of an historical fact. This could be followed by a discussion on a gentleman to gentleman basis, negotiation if you wish, to extinguish the claim of the native people of British Columbia. This is all that is required, a simple, honest acceptance of an historical fact. If the Minister believes implicitly in what he said a few moments ago about fair play and justice, this is precisely what he and his Government will do.
We do not need to put the native people to the trouble, expense, worry and time of preparing and arguing a case before the Commission when the cards are stacked against them by the very construction of the Commission. We do not need to put them to that difficulty. All that is required is the admission of the historical fact that the aboriginal title has never been extinguished, and then follow that up by some gentlemanly negotiations to conclude the matter. This is all that is required so far as the people of British Columbia are concerned.
The Liberal Party prepared a platform in 1962-63 with regard to this Indian Claims Commission. Reference has been made to it before in this chamber, and I should like to take one or two extracts from the pamphlet covering that platform to indicate that there is a vast difference between what the Government is saying now and what was set out in this pamphlet. I quote:
At Prince Rupert in 1910, Sir Wilfrid promised that the Indian land question would be taken to the Privy Council.
It never got there. It has puzzled me to understand why the Liberal Party would admit such a thing about Sir Wilfrid, that he
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
was dishonest in his dealings with the native people. I quote:
With the objective of achieving a fair and just settlement of all outstanding claims, it is Liberal policy that the Commission will include qualified authorities on British constitutional law as it affects aboriginal, hereditary and usufructory rights.
I should like to hear some declaration from the Minister concerning the personnel of this Commission in order to ascertain whether it is going to meet this particular promise.
I continue quoting:
To assure the objectivity which Indians of Canada have the right to expect after years of procrastination-
That is sort of an admission of self guilt by the Liberal Party.
-Commissioners may be appointed from other parts of the Commonwealth such as New Zealand, where achievements in this field are regarded as outstanding. It is Liberal Policy that the Commission will be unbiased and independent.
It is true that this was a qualified promise, since it states they "may be" appointed. None the less, when Liberal Party spokesmen took this pamphlet in their hands to explain it, this became a solemn pledge that when the Commission was established it would include people from other nations whose success in this field is supposed to have been outstanding. It goes on further to say:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It Is Liberal policy to establish the Indian Claims Commission on a continuing basis-
The Minister said a while ago that it is not going to be continuing at all, that it is to have a specified life.
They further promised to refer to that Commission "such contentious questions as the income tax status of Indian fishermen." I would like to know whether the Minister still believes in that promise and intends to carry it out; and will this subject matter be referred to the Commission, because the Indian people themselves will not be able to raise it under the terms of the bill. They are precluded from making a claim of that nature. I would like to ask the Government whether it remembers that solemn pledge to the Indian people, especially those in B.C. This pamphlet goes on and on, and comparing the pamphlet with the bill it is nothing but a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of deceitful promises to the native Indian people.
Yesterday the Minister made a couple of statements which are worth commenting on. As recorded at page 2686 of Hansard he stated:
-some Indians feel such a Commission would be just another device concocted by the whites to
DEBATES	2761
Indian Claims Commission 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.
Unfortunately the Minister defeated his own purposes and his own ideals by not making the necessary changes in Bill C-130. The Minister went on to say:
The Bill.. .includes several suggestions that were made by the Indian bands and others since the Bill of December, 1963 was introduced.
I do not know what the Minister means by "several" but there are only three changes of any substance in the Bill. One is that there will be a native Indian person appointed to the Commission, something which I had spoken about earlier and wondered why it was not contained in the 1963 bill. The other is that the time limit for presentation of claims is extended from two to three years, a rather insignificant change. The third is the new clause 32 which proposes the financial assistance for the presentation of claims.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister also had some interesting comments to make about the bill, and I think they require some examination. As recorded at page 2716 of yesterday's Hansard the Parliamentary Secretary said:
Indian bands or groups will be able to put forward claims-
I made note of that statement when he was speaking last night but wanted to make sure of it, and having checked Hansard I see I heard correctly. That is either misleading or it is merely reflecting the hope and desire of the Parliamentary Secretary, because there is no reference in the bill to people other than bands as groups of people who can present claims. I wish there were. In fact the definition of the word "band" is restrictive in the extreme.
The word "band" is of European extraction. It is a non-Indian word. It is a word developed by the English speaking people to apply to a particular group of Indian people, and it is alien to their thoughts. You cannot arbitrarily establish groups of people and call them bands. Bands, as such, never existed in the Indian social, political or economic structure.
If the Bill had said that bands, or nations, or tribes or other groups, or something broad of that sort, then it would open the door wider and permit the proper groups of native Indian people, by their own designation, to present claims. It is restrictive to limit it to a band. I think the Parliamentary Secretary
June 22. 1965

Indian Claims Commission was just expressing a hopeful desire rather than misleading the House and explaining something that was not the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary further said, and I think this is revealing:
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.
That to me is extremely revealing, especially when coupled with the statement of the Minister earlier today that there is some desire to see finality brought to these claims. There is a desire to end once and for all the possibility that Indians may raise claims against the Government in its dealings with them. I submit this is one of the major reasons for the presentation of this bill in almost identical form to that which was introduced in December, 1963; namely, so they can say the Indian people can have their day in court; not so their claims can be dealt with fairly and justly, but merely that they can be given the opportunity to plead their case; not so that any determination can be made on the basis of justice, but merely so the opportunity will be given for the Indian people to argue their point of view.
The Indian people of Canada have been arguing their claims against this and preceding Governments for donkeys' years, at least as far back as 1910 so far as the B.C. Indians are concerned. They have had their day in the Minister's office time and time again. They have had their day in the Indian Affairs Branch time and time again. They have argued before parliamentary committees time and time again. But nothing happened. All we have now is another agency of Government in order to provide the native Indian people with another opportunity to have their day in court. There is no desire to solve anything. There is no sincere attempt to meet their claims with fair play. There is just the desire to be able to say "We are giving you this so-called day in court." That is not good enough.
Clause 7 of the bill-and I only make reference to it in passing-is the key part of the bill, because it establishes the power of the Commission at hearings and says what the Commission may or may not do. It is true, as the Minister said, that the bill waives the normal rules of evidence so far as courts are concerned. That is an admirable course to take, but even though the Commission in hearing any claim shall not be bound by the legal rules of evidence, even though it can let native Indian people argue and present their history, which many of them only know by

story and which in many cases was never written down or documented so far as the area they owned or used was concerned; even though the Commission will let the Indian people have their day in court, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Commission cannot make an award on the basis of evidence which it receives and which is not covered by the legal rules of evidence. It cannot make an award unless there is evidence in writing that is reasonably contemporaneous with the time when the subject matter of the claim arose. The subject matter of some of these claims arose many decades ago. The subject matter of many of these claims predates Confederation itself by many years, as the Minister has admitted. The subject matter of these claims in many instances arose at a time when there was no written evidence, at a time when the Indian people did not keep records. The Indian people of this nation did not have title to their land in their pockets. They did not measure plots of land 60 x 120 in extent and say "Here is our land and we have pieces of paper to prove it". They held their land in common, and they held it in trust for future generations.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Where would one find written evidence which is reasonably contemporaneous with those times? Even in our archives it would be impossible to find it. As a matter of fact, from what little knowledge I have of the archives it would be virtually impossible to find anything else there, either, because there is such a chaotic mess over there.
If they cannot produce evidence in writing to support their claim there is an alternative. They can give oral evidence which is corroborated in a material particular by evidence other than oral evidence. Presumably this would be written or documentary evidence. I presume there are two kinds of evidence, that which is spoken and that which is presented in writing. Perhaps the Commission will be able to travel north of Terrace along the road to the Nass River valley and study some of the Indian petroglyphs which have been cut into the rocks back in the stone age-we do not know precisely when-by our Indian people. Possibly the Commission will be able to take cognizance of them and conclude that someone was there centuries ago.
The fact is that clause 7, as a result of the restrictions it contains, will preclude the Commission from accepting evidence presented by the Indian people unless the conditions laid down elsewhere are met, namely that it be
June 22, 1965

corroborated by written or documentary evidence. I submit this places too great a restriction on the Indian people, and forces them to submit to rules which they may not be able to observe and which stack the cards against them.
There are other provisions in this bill with which I do not agree. They make similar restrictions and will similarly prevent people from presenting their claims and receiving awards on the basis of their evidence and in accordance with fair play and justice. Regardless of the intentions of this Parliament or of the Government or of the Minister, there will be no Anal and conclusive settlement of Indian claims until the Indian people themselves feel they have been given a fair deal by this Commission. If they do not feel they are getting a square deal they will either boycott the Commission and refuse to present their claims to it, while persisting in their demand for fair play and justice, or they will appear before the Commission without any hope of receiving redress of their grievances, and still persist over the years in trying to get fair play and justice from the Government.
Only if this bill contains the basic elements of equity and justice, and only if the Indian people feel they are being fairly dealt with and can see that these principles are contained in the measure, will a final and conclusive settlement of these claims be achieved.
I for one in this Parliament would not be interested in the least in making a final determination about Indian claims unless I could be satisfied that the Indians themselves would accept it as a final and just settlement. Final settlements of Indian claims are not one sided affairs. We have had too many one sided final settlements of Indian claims. I mention only the British Columbia land question, which as far as the Government is concerned was settled finally and conclusively on five different occasions. Because it was not fair, because it was not just, and because the Indian people did not feel they had any part in the procedures which led to those decisions, there was no final settlement in their minds.
This should be our sole objective; not to make final and conclusive settlements as far as we are concerned; not to carry on the double talk of the past, but to be prepared to make a final and just settlement of Indian claims-final and just in the opinion of the Indian persons themselves. This we must do

Indian Claims Commission if, even in part we are to correct the injustices of other years.
At this stage, bearing in mind the reluctance or refusal of the Minister to declare his intention to receive or accept amendments which the committee might offer, I think we would be opposed to this bill. The hon. gentleman was asked last night by the hon. Member for Peace River whether his Government was prepared to accept amendments to the bill which might be suggested by the joint committee after the Indian people had had an opportunity to present their ideas with regard to it, in order that whatever decisions were finally made would be accepted as fair and equitable. If the Minister would make such a commitment to Parliament when he closes the debate, or at some other time should he so desire, I believe there would not be too much opposition to the passage of this bill as it now stands, although we believe we should try through some other procedure to improve the letter and spirit of certain clauses of it. If the Minister would make this commitment perhaps we could proceed on the basis of qualified acceptance. Otherwise I think we must reject it.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to say a few words at this time it is because in my constituency of Quebec-Montmorency there is a reservation of Hurons who, I am sure, will want to make representations to the new commission, the composition of which Bill No. C-123 seeks to alter.
Furthermore, I should like to pay homage to a tribe which recently elected a new council composed of dynamic and well-intentioned young Indians who really want to help this Huron tribe to participate in the development of their community.
Moreover, I should like to warn the minister against the provisions of section 7 stating that a claim must be supported by evidence in writing or, at least, by oral evidence which would have the same value. I should also like to point to him that recently a distinguished Indian of the province, Mr. Jean-Paul Nolet, an announcer with the CBC, himself an Abenaki of the Odanac region, said, following the presentation by the National Film Board of the film entitled Le Festin des Morts, that there were so little evidence in writing that it would be very easy for those who want to abide by such evidence, relating facts which are absolutely untrue, to ignore Indian claims.
2764	COMMONS
Indian Claims Commission
As a matter of fact, he complained quite seriously that the subject matter of the film Le Festin des Marts was tendencious and based on no written documents, except for a few excerpts from "Relations" published by the Jesuit Fathers.
Consequently and following this evidence, I should like to point out to the minister that he should take for granted that tribes could submit evidence which would not necessarily be evidence in writing, in short, evidence which would not necessarily be taken from a conversation and some evidence in writing, but rather from Indian hereditary background which would really permit them to enjoy the use of a property or properties for which they were responsible many years ago, even more than a century ago.
Mr. Speaker, it should be kept in mind that in certain regions, more particularly in the Lorette reserve, located in my constituency, large tracts of land have been surrendered either by the tribe itself, or by the agent of the department or by others performing duties for both the department and the tribe.
The Lorette Indian reserve is actually confined within a territory which is much too small and which even a financial compensation would add nothing to the land of these Indians who have to live in this reserve which is too small for them. I hope the commission will take those facts into account when it is considering the request of Indian bands and even try to obtain more land for them so that they may continue community living on a reserve if they so desire.
Everybody knows that the way of life, tastes and aspirations of the Indians who live in the various parts of Canada differ from one band or tribe to the other. Consequently, compensation awarded to Indians of British Columbia, for instance, would be totally inadequate as compared compensation given to Indians of a reservation in the province of Quebec or elsewhere, more particularly to the Huron reservation of Lorette.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to provide this information to the minister so that he could give full consideration to the recommendations that will be made not only concerning financial compensation but also with respect to a new allocation of land that would allow Indians to keep their reservation and to increase their numbers.
I am pleased that the minister has announced that this legislation will be referred to a joint committee for the convenience of those who have representations to make to

DEBATES	June 22, 1965
the government. In addition, like the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I hope that the minister and the government will welcome the recommendations made by the various Indian bands of the country, which, as I stated a moment ago, have different aspirations, according to the place where they live.
I am convinced that the minister will be fair as always, that he will allow the Indians who appear before the committee to make recommendations and that he will try to have those recommendations adopted to facilitate the enforcement of the regulations of the Indian claims commission.
Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that this legislation is not meant to protect the government against the Indians but rather to enable the latter to enjoy their vested rights, their natural rights, in short to protect them against the government and the rest of the Canadian people.
I hope that the minister will dictate to the Indian Claims Commission the philosophy it must follow, making it clear that it is created to protect the Indians and give them all they are entitled to, even if some rights do not exactly correspond to the provisions of the law. In fact, the commission should take into account the general interest of the Indians and not only that of the government. I am convinced that justice can be done with regard to all Indians, wherever they live in Canada. Moreover, I am convinced that the various Indian tribes will greatly benefit from this if all the factors I have mentioned are taken into account.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to add a few words to the debate on the second reading of Bill C-123, to provide for the disposition of Indian claims. I, like many other Members of the House, am very fortunate to have an Indian band in my riding, and I have always been very interested in their welfare.
In looking over the bill I support its general provisions, with a few exceptions which have been very adequately pointed out by my colleague the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who preceded me. I think the bill is quite an improvement over the proposals presented to the House in the fall of 1963. At that time our party and most of the Opposition took a pretty strong stand against the proposals, regarding them as
June 22, 1965

inadequate, but I think due to the representations made by our Indian friends themselves and the advice given by the Opposition at that time, the Government has now incorporated in this bill a lot of good, sound propositions.
In general, the main reasons why it is considered necessary to establish an Indian Claims Commission under special legislation I think I can enumerate briefly. There is a legacy of bad faith in the minds of the Indians which still has to be overcome. Some of their claims are not unreasonable but it is difficult to deal with them in the courts because of technicalities. It is desired to bring an end to some of these claims which have persisted for years and years. It is hoped to deal with all past claims by establishing a cut-off date by which claims must be filed. These principles have been incorporated in this bill.
There are a variety of claims which can be made, and I should like to enumerate one or two of them for the enlightenment of the House. The establishment of an Indian Claims Commission has been advocated for many years by Indians and by others to right the wrongs which the Indians claim they have suffered in their dealings with the white man, dating back to the early days of settlement. The claims range all the way from taking land without proper compensation being agreed upon by treaty or otherwise, the failure to discharge fully treaty obligations, and improper use of Indian trust funds, to general claims based not in law but on an alleged failure by Canada to deal honourably, fairly and in good conscience with the Indians.
The advantages of this new legislation over the 1963 bill are summarized roughly as follows. The term for consideration of the claims has been extended from two years to three years. The Indians will be given legal assistance in establishing their claims, which I think is a very important improvement over the original proposals of 1963. They will be given financial assistance in establishing their claims. This, of course, is also of great importance because of the financial incapacity of our Indian friends in many cases. The clause dealing with the Indian claims court is also a very important step.
I also note that in setting out the duties of the Commission staff other employment is prohibited. I think that is an excellent thing. It is good to know that this Commission will dedicate itself to working directly, intimately

Indian Claims Commission and consistently with the problems of the Indians alone. In other words, it will not be dividing its attention between this and other matters, so that the Indians will really feel that we are taking a serious look at the situation.
I do not want to take up the time of this House because I think we have already had a very good discussion. I was a little disturbed by the carping attitude of some of our friends in the N.D.P. about this legislation, because by and large it seems to me to be worthy of support. I feel that the Government is taking a proper stand in placing this resolution before the House and I look forward to its being considered by a joint committee at an early date. I am sure it will expeditiously be transferred into legislative action for the benefit of our first Canadians.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall during the time I have been a Member of this House ever experiencing such a strange mixture of feelings as that which came upon me last night after examining the terms of the bill now before us. My feelings were of sorrow, rage, shame and disappointment. It seems to me quite incomprehensible that a Government of Canada, after having laboured for so long and so mightily in respect of the presentation they intended to make to us, should have produced the mouse they have produced.
The hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made reference to the fact that the bill we are now discussing is almost identical in its important particulars to the one introduced last December, although he did point out certain minor changes that have been proposed.
When the Minister spoke on second reading, he indicated that he had received some 300 letters and briefs containing suggestions of changes to the draft bill that was circulated particularly among the Indian people across Canada. I was reasonably optimistic when I spoke yesterday at the resolution stage that when we had an opportunity of reading the bill we would find that we could accept it and give it our support with reasonably happy hearts. I am saddened and angered because, as far as I am concerned, that is not the case.
I find it difficult to comprehend how in this day and age, in the kind of world in which we as descendents of Europeans live- and I made some reference to this yesterday -it is possible that such an utter lack of imagination could be exercised in this kind
June 22, 1965

Indian Claims Commission whom I have had the opportunity to get to know best. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced in my own mind that the Indian people are now ready and willing under some proper arrangement to let bygones be bygones, but it they are going to feel that bygones are bygones the method of bringing this about has to be based on a much broader concept and a much broader framework than this bill provides. They have to feel that they have been treated as are the people of Africa and Asia who are being given their freedom. It seems to me that the kind of concept that our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was talking about in London in respect of Rhodesia is the kind of concept that should be put into this bill. If it comes to that, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more fitting if the Prime Minister of Canada were in this House concerning himself with promulgating this concept here as it relates to our own aborigines than in London concerning himself with the people of Rhodesia.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose an amendment to the motion for second reading. I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That Bill C-123 be not now read a second time, but that in the opinion of this House consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation that will provide for
(a)	an Indian Claims Commission enabled by its terms of reference and its composition to assist the Indian peoples of Canada to prepare for disposition of all outstanding claims arising out of the occupation by non-Indians of territories now within Canada; to search out and hear evidence in relation thereto and to make such awards, both general and particular, as are just and fair, and
(b)	an Indian Claims Appeal Court, the Presiding Officer of which shall be a jurist, other than a Canadian citizen, of international repute, which shall hear appeals from any decision of the Commission.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The Chair has serious reservations as to whether or not this proposed amendment is in order. I should like to hear comments from hon. Members on the point of order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have very few comments to make. I would point out that the adoption of such a provision as the one relating to the appointment of an appeal court constituted of judges other than those of the Exchequer Court would involve an expenditure of funds which could hardly be proposed by a private Member.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In so far as the point raised by the Minister is concerned, apart from any other considerations that may be involved, it
does not seem to me to be a valid argument.
The form of the amendment is consistent with the form that is normally used to express the opinion of Members that the Government should agree to give consideration to doing something. In other words, it is in the form of the resolutions usually debated from time to time in this House. I submit the Minister has not advanced any ground for the disallowance of the amendment.


Mr. MacNaught:: It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the same purpose could be achieved by voting against the bill as is proposed by the amendment. The amendment says that this bill should not now be read a second time. This purpose could be achieved by voting against the bill. The amendment also refers to consideration being given to the introduction of legislation, but if that legislation were introduced by a private Member it would be out of order. I believe the substantial objection is the fact that the amendment is seeking to achieve something which could be achieved by voting against second reading.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I may draw the attention of the Chair to Citation 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which has been cited in this House on other occasions in substantiation of what we call reasoned amendments to the second reading of a bill.
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principle, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges.
I submit that the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has moved an amendment within the provisions of citation 382 by proposing a resolution which is declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principle, policy or provision of the bill, and also expressing an opinion as to the circumstances connected with its introduction and prosecution. I submit it is a reasoned amendment because it does make that declaration in at least two instances.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The reservation which the Chair had a moment ago had to do with the thought that perhaps this amendment anticipated the committee stage. However, I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and his colleagues who have argued in support of the

June 22, 1965

amendment, that this is a reasoned amendment within the terms of citation 382. There may be a slight difficulty in connection with subparagraph (b) which may perhaps involve an expenditure of money which has not been authorized at this stage. In any event, these difficulties are not too apparent and for these reasons the Chair is disposed to accept the amendment.
Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, 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 Centre-labour conditions-inquiry as to amendment of Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act; the hon. Member for York-Humber-administration of justice-Toronto-production	and C.B.C.
showing of sex exploitation film; the hon. Member for Cumberland-Expo '67-request for consideration of expenditures by House Committee.
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 private bills.

June 22, 1965
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading of Bill No. S-7, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have only one or two words to say on this bill, which came before the House last year. I notice the mover has not taken the opportunity to refer to that bill, but it is worthy of note that the explanatory notes in the bill this year are more in keeping with the intentions of the company. It is a fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult to follow the hon. Member with conversations going on in the House at this time.


William Arnold Peters: It appears that the explanatory note indicates the intentions of the company, but I think the mover should have explained them. It was explained to me that there is an interest to keep the price range of the stock within the reach of those who purchase stock on the market, namely around $20 to $25. The reason for this, as explained to me by the company, is to allow more people to participate in the stockholding of the company. It would also bring the price within the range of Canadians, thus making it easier for more Canadians to participate in the company.
If this explanation is true, and I believe it is, when the bill returns from committee I would be prepared to move a motion to split the stock still further, because I should like to see an additional split. It is worthy of note that it has already been split ten for one, and it is now being split five for one, which in effect means that the original issue has multiplied 50 times. If the argument that bringing the stock within a reasonable range would allow more Canadians to participate in the stockholding of the company does hold water, at the present market value, which is about $88 a share, the present split would bring the price to about $18. But splitting the stock again ten for one would have the advantage of bringing the stock value down to approximately $1.80 to $2 per share, with the result that this would accomplish the end explained by the company and would be in keeping with the suggestions which have been made, that the lower the price of the stock

the more opportunity would be provided Canadians to buy the stock of this company.
About 25 per cent of the total capital of this company is in stock, the remainder being in bonds at very low interest rates. This makes it possible for the company to pay a better than average dividend, better than that which they have regularly been paying for a number of years. I would suggest this explanation is much more honest than the one advanced last year, which was that if we reduced the stock value it would allow workers in the company to buy it. That was a lot of eyewash, as I think everyone who looked at the bill was aware. The company was not issuing half a share of stock every pay day, or anything like that, but was issuing certain stock over periods worked by the employees of the company. It seemed unreasonable to me that an employee would receive one share for $9 or even ten shares for $90, and that this would apply on a monthly or pay day basis. Therefore an agency would buy shares on behalf of the employees, so it really did not make any difference in relation to the cost of the stock. [DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The argument being used is one which would probably be accepted by most companies in this field who feel that when a share reaches a value of $100 it is in a class the average purchaser cannot afford. This means that for 90 shares a purchaser would have to pay $9,000. This is not considered to be a large block in the investment picture. The smaller blocks are difficult to come by, and therefore are not in keeping with opportunities flowing to individual purchasers with a desire to purchase stock of the $10 to $20 class.
I see nothing wrong with the explanation made and I hope the committee will be able to ascertain the advantages of stock splitting in terms of greater participation by individuals wishing to purchase small amounts. I hope some consideration will be given to more extensive stock splitting so that these companies will not have to return to parliament every two or three years, as they have done in the past, to split the stock five to one, but will be allowed to split them 50 to one.
In order to give an opportunity to other Members to participate in the debate on this matter, I am prepared to allow this to be referred to the committee in the hope that it will give some consideration to the discussions which took place last year. The com-
June 22, 1965

mittee of this year should take advantage of the suggestions and discussions of last year's committee so that these companies will not have to return to parliament in a short period of time for a new stock split.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 105 the said bill is now referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bas-ford for the second reading of Bill No. C-95. to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Belanger.
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basfora) with whom I have discussed this bill, I should like to make a few remarks before its passage.
After the many explanations that have been made in respect of this bill, I am sure that no one in the House will want to deny any longer to the people of British Columbia the opportunity of having a banking institution, with its head office located in that province, or the right to do their banking through a commercial banking institution, the privilege enjoyed daily by people in provinces such as Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.
So many have spoken about this bill, in argument both for and against, I am sure hon. Members are now ready to vote on the motion. I hope they will vote in favour ot this motion so that the people involved may go ahead with the incorporation of this institution, allowing the people of British Columbia to enjoy the advantages of the establishment of a banking institution with head offices in that province.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is carried I should just like to say that there are controversial aspects to this bill which have been discussed at some length in the House in recent months. We in this party are perfectly willing to allow this bill to be referred to the committee for discussion, on the understanding that that committee will have the opportunity of hearing from expert witnesses and officials, in
Private Bills
order to find the answers to some of the questions that have been raised.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those in favour say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those opposed say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Belanger) negatived.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second
time.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 105 the said bill is now referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Kon-antz for the second reading of Bill No. C-99, to incorporate Bank of Western Canada, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Laprise.
Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this bill is not in the House, but I am sure the bill has been before the House for a long enough period of time that most hon. Members are familar with it. It is my hope therefore that the House will pass it today.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those in favour will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those against say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived.

June 22, 1S6S
Private Bills


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, again this bill is controversial, and one in respect of which many questions have been asked over a period of two years as to whether the interest of Canada can be well served by the establishment of an additional bank which has wide international financial complications. This matter is a serious one and I hope the committee will have the means of considering the problems associated with it in arriving at certain answers to questions. For that reason we have no objection to allowing this to go to the committee for a detailed study. I am sure that committee will take into consideration the relationship of this bill to bills in respect of other proposed bank establishments. We in this party hope that the committee will be able to decide whether this bill, as well as the bill with which we just dealt, is designed in such a way as to satisfy the arguments which have been advanced. We hope answers will be forthcoming in respect of those questions regarding the establishment of additional banks in various parts of the country, and that the principles herein meet all the conditions proposed by those questions.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that these probably will be the last two banks to come before the House of Commons to seek incorporation by way of private Members' bills because the House has seen fit to pass legislation, recommended by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which from now on will mean that those seeking to incorporate a bank will be able to do so under regulations to be laid down, rather than through a private bill in the House of Commons. In looking at this bill I think the committee will have to keep in mind the regulations that are going to apply with respect to similar incorporations in the future.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 105 the said bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (form and material of notes).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal very briefly with this bill because recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) made a very interesting decision resulting in the inclusion in a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act of a bill which I have introduced in the house for the third time.
When I introduced my bill, I said that in fact our bank notes bear a deceiving reference, which could mislead the public with regard to its true nature. In fact, on our bank notes it is said that they are payable to bearer on demand.
Every member in this house knows that since 1940 our bank notes are not backed by a gold reserve. That is why I introduced this bill; it is useless for our bank notes to bear this reference which is misleading for the public.
I remember very well hearing some people use this as an argument to prove that our currency is still backed by gold. As a matter of fact, that guarantee was removed in 1940, and the Minister of Finance himself stated recently as recorded in Hansard, on page 1282:
A related amendment is proposed in respect of notes of the Bank of Canada to remove the description "payable to bearer on demand". Since these notes are themselves legal tender and have never, in fact, been convertible into gold, the present wording is unnecessary and in some quarters liable to misinterpretation.
Therefore, I was very happy when the Minister of Finance made that statement, because it confirmed the principle of the bill I introduced in the house for the third time. It was on that occasion that I expressed publicly my satisfaction and said that the minister had actually incorporated my bill in his.
In view of the circumstances, I do not think a lengthy discussion of the subject is necessary at this time. In fact, my bill is being incorporated in the minister's bill and will be passed when the government's legislation itself is enacted by the House of Commons.
Anyhow, I avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for having
June 22, 1965

Private Bills
kindly incorporated this bill in his, thus proving that my proposals in that respect were sound and factual, in spite of newspaper reports that may have been published from time to time and which seemingly endeavoured to show to the public that the matter was of no great importance. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it is a very important matter for one has no right to sow the seeds of error.
Finally, I should like to say that it would be proper to replace those words by the expression "legal tender" on our currency, as it is done in several countries. That expression should appear on the Bank of Canada notes because the latter are the legal tender in our country.
That is all I have to say on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and again I commend the government for having accepted my bill by incorporating it in its legislation to amend the Bank of Canada act.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-9 introduced by the hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) is in my humble opinion a very excellent bill. The explanatory note is quite interesting. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill as stated therein is to provide that bank notes shall not be inaccurate and misleading. As for example: at present the notes issued by the Bank of Canada are certainly misleading and inaccurate from the fact they contain the following statement or bear the words: "Will pay to the bearer on demand". These notes being legal tender, it is misleading for such words to be printed on Bank of Canada notes.
I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member's explanatory note in all respects, but in some respects I do. I cannot agree with him when he takes objection to the words "will pay to the bearer on demand" because I would think it is much better to have bills payable to the bearer on demand than to have bills that are payable on a due date possibly five years from now. I do not think a one dollar bill or any other bill would be of very much use to the public, financiers or financial institutions if it were not payable to the bearer on demand.
To go back to the origin of money, it seems to me that the original bills that were circulated really evolved from the promissory notes that people used and bills had to be payable to the bearer on demand to be of any utility in trade and commerce and banking circles.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I think to some degree the criticism advanced by	the hon.	Member for Chicoutimi(Mr. Cote)	is fair.	I	have here	a dollar bill,and I think that all bills issued by the Bank of Canada	can be	criticized to	some degree.As I said,	I have	a	dollar bill	in my hand.
On the back it has an interesting picture, apparently of a fiat section of prairie. There is shown in the picture, a road and a grain elevator, some telephone poles and what looks like tall grass on one side and short grass on the other side. I do not see any snow blowers or Cadillacs travelling the road. I believe this is a summer scene, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: Will the hon. Member
permit a question?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Yes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: In the picture on the dollar bill is there any semblance of a Member of Parliament trying to talk out a bill?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Well, there is a very good looking fellow in one corner. This is a green bill, and possibly he is a little Irish. However, it was not that particular feature of the bill with which I was concerned. I was trying to get over to the other side, actually.
Now, on the other side of this dollar bill there is a good picture of Her Majesty the Queen. On the left side, a gauche, it says one dollar, and on the right, h droite, it says un dollar. This bill was made by the British American Bank Note Company Limited; that is a kind of multi-cultural company, I suspect. It is signed by J. R. Beattie, Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada and by L. Ras-minsky, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Louis' signature is rather hard to make out, Mr. Speaker.
What really disturbs, agitates and excites me about our dollar bill is the fact that it has on it, "will pay to the bearer on demand", or, in French, "paiera au porteur sur de-mande". Then, it simply says, "one dollar". Apparently the Bank of Canada promises to pay to the bearer on demand one dollar. I take it that if you take your dollar to Mr. Rasminsky and say "Here is a dollar bill; I am the bearer. The bank promised to pay me one dollar," he will give you another dollar which looks almost the same as the first one, except perhaps the serial number. So, you end up much better off than you were before. Now, that is the situation in respect of the one dollar bill.
I have in my hand now a ten dollar bill. You are aware that at one time the banks

June 22. 1965
Private Bills
used to be permitted to print their own currency. They used to pay the bearer on demand in gold. I understand that for every dollar they had on deposit they could print their own bank notes and extend credit to the extent of twenty for one. This was a very good way of making money. If you can get interest at 6 per cent on $20, it is better than getting it on one dollar.
However, if I may get back to this very interesting ten dollar bill. It is a particularly pretty purple colour. On the back of the bill there is a very interesting scene. It is sort of half summer and half winter because apparently it is a picture of part of the Rocky Mountain Range in Western Canada. I cannot tell you whether or not it is in Alberta or British Columbia.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I
wonder if the hon. Member's remarks are entirely relevant to the bill before us. I suggest that he bear in mind the fact his remarks at this time should be relevant to the bill proposed by the hon. Member for Chicoutimi.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I will bear your admonition very much in mind and I will try to be relevant to the bill at hand. We will get back to the bill so there will be no problem of relevancy. I quote from clause 1:
Subsection (4) of Section 21 of the Bank of Canada Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(4) the form and material of notes shall be subject to approval by the Minister, but such notes shall not contain any wording which is misleading or which might deceive the public as to the true nature thereof, or of the obligations incurred by the bank in issuing them and all notes shall be printed in both the English and the French language.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this ten dollar bill is certainly printed in both the French language and the English language. It, too, has on it the words, "will pay to the bearer on demand", and the words "paiera au porteur sur demande".


Mr. Patterson:: I wonder if the hon. Member will permit a question?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Certainly.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder if the hon. Member would like us to get extra copies of Hansard for today and send them to his constituents?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I do not believe it would trouble them too much. I would not want to pay for the extra copies, but it would not bother me

very much if they were supplied with them by the hon. Member for Fraser Valley'.
I am sure that by this time there are quite a few other Members who will be anxious to speak on this particular measure. In addition to this ten dollar bill, I have a twenty dollar bill here.


Mr. Gelber:: Table it.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I hope the hon. Member will not insist that I table it. This is all I have left to last me for the week. I see there are one or two others who would like to say a few words on this important subject, so I reluctantly take my seat.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to speak on Bill No. C-9 tonight. I did not anticipate that it would be called tonight but I am pleased with this opportunity of commending the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) who took the fine initiative of introducing this bill.
It is quite seldom that I can congratulate a political opponent or hon. members opposite but tonight, I think the hon. member for Chicoutimi deserves congratulations especially in view of the fact that his bill has been fruitful; indeed if it is not passed tonight, we have good reasons to think that the principle behind it will appear in forthcoming government legislation.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi was right in pointing out the meaningless statement found on our banknotes and which reads:
Will pay to the bearer on demand.
Personally, I have never tried to secure payment of a $1, $10 or $20 note from the governor of the Bank of Canada, but I imagine that if I had called at his office to obtain payment of a banknote, he would have been just as muddled as any of us, because, as others have stated before me, there is no longer any reserve, any gold reserve to back the money in circulation; rather, our money is backed by the country's productive power, and gold is of no more account than any other metal in guaranteeing our money issues.
I do not intend to repeat the words of my colleague who preceded me. He has already spoken about $1, $10 and $20 notes, he failed, however, to speak about $2 bank notes. Now, I do not intend to read what is written on it nor emphasize my admiration for the magnificent scenery on the back of those
June 22, 19G5

notes. Rather I will take this opportunity to point out another improvement that could be made on our bank notes.
Our bank notes are in a way the best means of publicity at our disposal in Canada. I wonder if bank notes could not be used to pay tribute to certain Canadian personalities. I am not against monarchy. I would not want to remove systematically the likeness of Her Gracious Majesty Elizabeth II from our bank notes, but I wonder if, the likeness of one or of several great Canadian personalities could not appear on some bank notes as it was done in the case of postage stamps. As for me, I should like to see, for instance, on the bill I am now holding, the face of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who played such a prominent role in the history of our country and who, after a fashion-


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member's remarks are definitely out of order as they have absolutely no bearing on the topic before the house.


Vincent Drouin: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to the first line of the proposed amendment:
The form and material of notes shall be subject to approval by the Minister.
I feel that the picture to be reproduced on the notes has a bearing on the form of the bank notes, and that I am therefore in order when I speak of the form of the bank note and even when I discuss its details.
The form must not be limited to the physical form of the bank note but extended, in my opinion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford has raised a very interesting point of order. He pointed out to the Chair that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes seemed to have gone beyond the rather restrictive limits of the bill under consideration. The hon. member who has the floor is alluding to the first two lines of clause 4 of the Bank of Canada Act now under consideration. I remind him that when we are considering a bill amending enacted legislation, it is permissible to discuss the amendment but not the act which is being amended.
Under the circumstances, although the remarks he is making now are extremely interesting, I would ask the hon. member to keep as much as possible to the bill under consideration.
Private Bills


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I will read the new clause (4) as proposed, because the amendment deals essentially with the wording of a new clause (4); I quote:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:
Subsection (4) of section 21 of the Bank of Canada Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Now, what is the amendment? This is exactly what is proposed: "That it be substituted at subsection (4)". I read this amendment and not the text of the act, but strictly the amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that a ruling has been made by the Chair and that he must comply with it. He is not allowed at this time to discuss the ruling given by the Chair. He has been permitted by the Chair to go on with the remarks he started to make, provided they deal with the subject matter of the bill now before us.


Vincent Drouin: It is not that I do not want to abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, I respectfully comply with it. But while deferring to this ruling and strictly adhering to the pertinence of the debate, I would like, for my own guidance and that of other members, to read the text of the amendment.
It reads as follows:
The form and material of notes are subject to approval by the Minister, but such notes shall not contain any wording which is misleading or which might deceive the public as to the true nature thereof, or of the obligations incurred by the bank in issuing them and all notes shall be printed in both the English and the French language.
It seems to me that in speaking on this amendment, I am not disregarding the ruling you made a moment ago, because it deals with the form and the material of bank
notes.
I have nothing to say about the material of notes; it is of the highest quality and the paper compares favourably with that used for bank notes in other countries.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the hon. member comments once again on your ruling. You have rendered a ruling enjoining him to keep strictly to the principle of the bill. Now, the hon. member disputes the merits of your decision.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said following your ruling. I abide by your

June 22. 1965
Private Bills
ruling, but I feel that the debate deals essentially with the amendment, as you rightly pointed out earlier.
Therefore, I strictly confine myself to the amendment, to the new wording proposed in paragraph (4) of section 21 of the Bank Act. Since the amendment deals precisely with the material bank notes are made of, I maintain that I am not out of order when referring to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept the hon. member's interpretation and I remind him of what I said a few minutes ago, namely that the amendment to the resolution under consideration reads as follows. I am quoting now the underlined part of the new act:
-but such notes shall not contain any wording which is misleading or which might deceive the public. ..etc.
Those are the terms of the amendment and the essence of the bill itself. I therefore ask the hon. member to restrict his comments to this aspect of the matter.


Vincent Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your last words, I will change my subject matter especially since other members wish to speak, I am told, and it is already 6.50 p.m.
Before concluding my comments, I would like to say once more that I entirely agree with the principle of the bill and sincerely hope that this amendment will come into force as soon as possible.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


David George Hahn: There are a few reasons why I am opposed to this bill. I am not raising a point of order at this time but it would seem to me that if this amendment were made it would be necessary to withdraw our currency. It would have to be re-issued, and the process would be expensive.
If we are to do this at all, we must be perfectly sure of the reasons for doing it. I think the proof of the pudding is that the present system works. You can take these notes into a store and buy anything you like as long as you have enough of them. I suggest that if we make a change of the kind now proposed, we should do a complete job; we should not make one specific change without bringing in a great many other changes which might result in improvements. I will give a brief indication what some of these things might be.
At present, for instance, our bills come in a series of colours. We might improve them by changing the colour system. Lumi-

nous paint of various colours might end the business of groping in the dark to find the particular unit of currency we are looking for. In the second place we might improve the over-all artistic character of our bills. I happen to have a ten-franc note in my pocket; I have been carrying it around for some time. As a piece of art work it is infinitely superior to our own bills. If we are altering our currency or changing the design we ought surely to try to make it more attractive.
Then we might give serious consideration to changing the denominations. Who can go into a store today and buy anything costing $1 or $2 or $5 or $10? I think we should introduce new denominations of $1.98, $3.98, $4.99, and so on. This would be useful and it would avoid having our pockets full of coppers, which we only lose, anyhow.
There is another suggestion which the House might consider at the same time. Perhaps we could leave blank spaces on parts of the new bills. All of us have had the experience of being in a telephone booth at some time or another. We get a message we need urgently to take down; we scramble for a piece of paper on which to write it. We find nothing. But most people generally have a dollar bill in their pockets. If there were a little blank space left on it, it could serve a dual purpose-not only spending money but a space on which to jot down notes until they can be transferred to a more permanent place.
The hon. Member may have valid reasons to advance in favour of the change he wants to bring about. I think I have valid reasons for mine. So let us hold up passage of this bill until we can bring about a real overhaul of our paper currency.


Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


David George Hahn: Yes.


John Cole: I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken if he will vote against Bill No. C-101 submitted to the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and to which we will be asked to give second reading soon. Will he vote against it because he says that it will eliminate the words "will pay to the bearer on demand"?
If he votes against that bill, he will be voting against his own government.
June 22, 1965


David George Hahn: I am not against this bill because of the specific change suggested by the hon. Member. I just say he does not go far enough.


An hon. Member:: Tell Walter that.


Marvin Gelber: 
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Like other people, I am concerned from time to time with money, or the lack of it. I suppose we are all very much in favour of bank notes-the ones issued by the Bank of Canada rather than the ones certain of us have to sign at the bank from time to time for postelection expenses.
Removal of the words "payable to bearer on demand" would, as my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Hahn) has said, necessitate taking them out of circulation and, as I understand it, the party to which the hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) belongs is in favour of putting more money into 22620-1771

Indian Claims Commission circulation rather than of taking money out of circulation.
The suggestion has been made that various portraits could be placed on our currency. I understand that a picture of John A. Macdonald-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to
interrupt the hon. Member but it being seven o'clock the House will now resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill No. C-123, to provide for the disposition of Indian claims.
Colin Cameron: I do not propose to detain the House long on this question of Indian claims. I was struck by the comment of one of the Members of the Official Opposition who expressed surprise at the attacks made on this measure by Members of this party. I would point out that it is no coincidence that those from this party who have attacked this legislation all come from British Columbia. There is a reason for this. We in British Columbia are closer in time to the degrading experiences to which the native population has been subjected. Those of us who have friends among the Indian population know from personal contact with them the sort of treatment they and their fathers have suffered. It is so recent, in British Columbia; memory need go back no further than this.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I am disturbed by the fact that this bill makes no effort whatsoever to deal with what I would call the intangible injuries inflicted on these people-the deep psychological wounds which cannot be measured in the narrow, legalistic terms of the bill before us, now. I have a great many Indian friends. A few years ago when I was in Vancouver I received a message from one of the Indian chiefs off the coast of British Columbia. He was an extremely eminent Indian leader, a man who, I have not the slightest doubt, if fate had placed him in different surroundings, would have been, not chief of the Cape Mudge tribe of the Kwatkiutl Indians, but Prime Minister of this country. He was a man of tremendous capacity, intelligence, shrewdness and perception who, on becoming chief at the age of 18, saw what
June 22, 1985

Indian Claims Commission would happen to his people with the beginnings of the white invasion of his country and forcibly wrenched them out of their primitive surroundings and made them equip themselves to cope with the white man's world.
A few years ago when living in Vancouver I had a message from this old gentleman to ask me if I would take two of his grandsons into my household in Vancouver so that they could go to high school there, because the local high school close to where he lived refused to take Indian children. We took the two boys into our household and one could not find two nicer young men anywhere. Yet this is what they had been subjected to. Those lads knew that they had been sent down there because their white neighbours on that part of Vancouver Island decided that they were not good enough to attend school with their children. Then there have been other specific cases where other intangible injury has been done to them.
I was interested to hear the Minister speak earlier in rather contemptuous terms of all the other "ologies" suggested as the sort of disciplines and vocations members of the Commission should perhaps have been trained in. I would suggest to him that that expression Which he used this afternoon indicates that he knows very little, very little indeed, about what has been done to the Indian population of the province which he represents as a Member of the Cabinet. Possibly he does not even know what a disastrous and dislocating effect the banning of the potlatches to the coast Indians entailed. The authorities decided, in their wisdom, that these were just drunken orgies in which chiefs competed with each other in extravagance in the giving of gifts. No one with any training as an anthropologist would have been satisfied with that explanation. The very slightest investigation would have shown him that the role of the potlatch in the lives of the Indians on the Pacific Coast was an extremely important one because it was at these gatherings that all the marriages were arranged.
Marriage among native Indians of British Columbia is quite a complicated and difficult problem, because there must not be marriage between people of the same clans. The clans are widely distributed among many bands and many tribes. But it was only at these pot-latches that the old men and women who had the genealogies in their minds could O.K. proposed marriage arrangements between the

young men and women. When the potlatches were abandoned it broke one of the vital elements in Kwatkiutl culture, and this was due to the ignorance of the people who conducted the affairs in British Columbia on behalf of the Government of Canada in connection with the Indians.
I would suggest to the Minister that instead of being so contemptuous of the suggestion that-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I let a similar remark go by the first time, but the hon. Member has no right to put words into my mouth. I did not use contemptuous language this afternoon. I referred to the fact that suggestions had been made regarding the use of anthropologists, sociologists and I said a number of other "ologists" had been included. I was not being contemptuous; I was using it as a descriptive phrase, and the hon. Member is now repeating his earlier remark. 1 ask that he withdraw it.


Colin Cameron: Then if I misunderstood the Minister, I will willingly withdraw; but on the other hand it seemed to me that I distinctly heard a somewhat contemptuous inflection in his voice when he said "and I do not know how many other ologies had been suggested". To me this bore the connotation of a certain contempt for the suggestions. However, as the Minister has said he had no such intention, I am ready to apologize to him for having not put words into his mouth but perhaps put inflections into his voice.
Let me come to a more concrete case of injury to the Indian people, inflicted this time by the Indian affairs officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Among my Indian friends there is a young man who went to school with my children, who is a close personal friend of my son's, a young man who is now a chief in his tribe. He is also a teacher and he was teaching at the time at the school in Hazelton, which is an amalgamated school; that is to say, he described it to me as being attended by approximately 50 per cent white children and approximately 50 per cent Indian children.
In 1960 this young man came to visit me in my home on Vancouver Island. He happened to be down visiting his family and he called on us as old friends. He told me of a horrifying experience he had had at Hazelton when he and his fellow teachers were instructed by officials of the Federal Government
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
in the Department of National Health and Welfare that the Indian children were to attend in rotation a dental clinic which had been set up for three days in Hazelton to deal with Indian dental problems.
They despatched the children as instructed, so many at a time, and he said that it was not until well through the first day that they suddenly realized what was happening to these children. When the children came back to school their mouths were streaming with blood. The staff, including my young Indian friend, made inquiries and found that these dentists who had been sent by the Government of Canada to deal with the dental problems of the native population were not even contemplating saving teeth; they were extracting them, and it seems to me extracting them, in view of the condition that Gordon Reid described to me, in a very clumsy and inefficient way.
My colleague the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who then, as now, was a Member of the House-I was not then a Member of the House-asked questions of the then Minister of National Health and Welfare and eventually got the figures regarding these extractions. On the three days on which these teeth were extracted at Hazelton 103 permanent teeth were extracted from those Indian children. I cite this as an example of the sort of treatment our Indian people have had. Many of their wrongs, I would say their most damaging and brutal wrongs, have been of an intangible nature, of the nature that strips human beings of dignity and self-respect because they are looked down on with contempt.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be able to deal with this question, which is the real question, on the basis of strict legality with regard to claims of land and property of various sorts. There is something much more fundamental involved. I should like to see this Commission empowered to take evidence from those who are trained in sociology, anthropology and history, who could tell the Commission of the effects of the white occupation of Canada on the native population, so that the Canadian people-those of us of nonIndian origin-would be aroused and alerted to the appalling crimes which have been committed in our name. I do not see how we can do this if we are not going to allow anybody to appear before that Commission who has not in his hands documentary proof of some material damage inflicted on some Indian or band of Indians. We are not going to be able
DEBATES	2779
Indian Claims Commission to arouse the Canadian population to the responsibilities on their shoulders to do something at this time for these people.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I mentioned earlier that there was evidence to support those of us in British Columbia raising the loudest and sharpest protest about this resolution. In British Columbia the native Indians have not yet been driven to the conditions of those I have seen who lived in other provinces, who are now a pitiful remnant, without hope of rehabilitation, with everything gone. In spite of the treatment they have received in British Columbia and the diseases they have acquired from white conquerors of the country, they have by fighting made a comeback. I am proud to say that in my own constituency two Indians very carefully and skilfully forced a case in respect of some of their rights in British Columbia, as I am sure the Minister is well aware. They deliberately broke the game laws of British Columbia and successfully appealed to the higher courts a conviction of a magistrate. I understand there is a possibility that the Province of British Columbia will further appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This action was taken by these people to underline the high handed manner in which all their claims to land and property in British Columbia have been swept to one side without, as my colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard) this afternoon suggested, even a semblance of legality.
I was disturbed to find in the bill that, while there is provision for action against the Crown in the right of the province before Confederation, there is no provision whatsoever to deal with different agreements and undertakings signed by representatives of the Hudson's Bay Company on Vancouver Island, in respect of various Indian tribes, relating to land on that Island. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but there are in existence three copies of a series of undertakings and agreements drafted and signed by James Douglas who, at that time, was the chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company and who later became the Governor of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island. These copies, in concise detail, set out the area that the Hudson's Bay Company undertook to leave in Indian hands, and set out in detail the portions of the land that the Indian population was prepared to relinquish to the Hudson's Bay Company.
2780	COMMONS
Indian Claims Commission
Since that time these agreements have simply been ignored. I suspect that a lot of people do not even know of their existence.
I happen to know of their existence because one of the copies is in the possession of a family living in my constituency, the members of which are descendants of the Hudson's Bay factor at that time. One copy has been preserved and is now in the Archives at Victoria. The third copy is in the possession of another family.
These copies set out quite plainly the agreements made at that time, and indicate quite clearly that the agreements of the day have not been broken, but swept aside. One of these agreements related to Salt Spring Island, which is an island in my constituency inhabited by some 3,000 people, as well as part of the Cowichan River Valley, an adjoining area of Vancouver Island, now thickly settled and populated. This agreement has been swept aside and the Indians in this area are confined to three small reserves, most of which comprise land of little productive value.
My fear is that if we are going to go through this matter in a legalistic way then the Commission will be faced with conclusive evidence that in this area, for instance, which is now extremely valuable property, the land was stolen from the Indians, that they have some legal claim to it, and that resulting astronomical compensatory sums will have to be paid. I am afraid the tendency will be to dismiss these claims altogether, rather than to reach an agreement which might be construed as an admission of the whole claim.
If the Government is determined to go ahead with this legislation, I hope it will also be prepared to do what the Government of the State of New York did regarding the Seneca Indians of that area, when they faced the same problem. There was a large Indian reserve in that area which was required for a reservoir for the supply of water to the City of New York. Had they been compensated for that land at its fair market value at the time an astronomical figure would have been involved. Special legislation was introduced after consultation and discussion with the Indians, and subsequently compensation was paid in recognition of their claims, to the extent of only a small portion of what they might have pressed for, had they decided to fight it through the courts.
My colleague, the hon. Member for Skeena, or the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) pointed out this afternoon that the Indians in my part of the country are not asking for anything absurd. They know quite

DEBATES	June 22, 1965
well that although they could make out a very good legal claim to a very large part of Vancouver Island, to start with, such a claim would be preposterous and ridiculous in view of the white man's attitude. They know that such a claim would never be met. They are reasonable, adult Canadian citizens who understand enough of the white man's world to know what is possible and what is not possible. This is all the more reason why they should be treated with generosity far beyond the narrow limits set out in the bill now before us. If that is not the case I am sure the Minister will be confronted with irrefutable evidence as to enormous compensation in respect of lands which the Indian population of British Columbia does not expect to receive.
If we have a Commission that can examine these specific claims in conjunction with a scientific presentation of the appalling social effects of the white oppression of Indian people, I think we might arrive at awards to Indian people that are not measurable in material terms, but rather would be in terms of recognition of our responsibilities to these people, enabling the authorities and the Indians themselves to move forward in the development of these natives, enabling them to take their place in our society.
Sometimes there is a regrettable tendency to imagine paternalistically that all Indians are permanent children and that nothing can be done with them. No one who knows the Indians in my part of the country can subscribe to that idea.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Very often before I come to Ottawa I am summoned by the Council of the Cowichan Indian band to attend a council meeting and to hear from them what they require me to do in Ottawa. I am always very glad to attend and I am always impressed by the ability and the competence of these people in handling the white man's world and their place in it. The last time I was on the coast I was particularly pleased to find that the eminent Indian artist, George Clutesi, of the west coast of Vancouver Island had decided to adopt my party as his political party. We were all extremely proud that a man of his eminence should have chosen our party as the one to belong to.
I am just stating these things to show that in dealing with the Indians at least in my part of the world you are not dealing with primitive savages but you are dealing with people who have suffered severe damage at our hands, people who before our ancestors
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
came to do this damage to them had developed a high culture of their own in the artistic field far ahead of anything produced by white Canada at that time. There is not, I suppose, a people on the face of the earth in whom you will find a greater incidence of oratorical ability than among the Indians of the Coast of British Columbia. In their own language and in English they are capable of speeches that I wish we could hear some times in the House of Commons for their clarity and purity of language, for sensitive choice of words and for effective presentation. Such people, Mr. Speaker, are not primitive savages; they are people who have a tremendous contribution to make to the Canadian culture.
That being so, I think it is the duty of the Government, when it is now very tardily dealing with the position of our native population, to make sure that they are enlisting the support and the aid of all the people of Canada in righting this wrong as far as we can do so; and to have that we must not be tied down to narrow, niggling, legalistic compensation for this bit of theft here and that bit of theft there. How do you estimate the compensation that is due for decades, and in some parts of the country centuries, of deep injury to the whole psychology of native people? How do you measure that in dollars? It cannot be measured in dollars. We can perhaps measure our contrition and our remorse in dollars and try now to undo some of the things that we did. As my colleague, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), said this afternoon, perhaps we should be looking at our native Indians more sharply than some of our people are looking at the depressed peoples in other parts of the world. So long as these people are with us we have work to do at home.
I would hope the Minister would consider what we have said from this corner of the House and widen the scope of reference of the Indian Claims Commission to include, not just material claims, but the moral claims that he and I and all the rest of us here really have to admit and really must meet. So I say again that I am sorry if I offended the Minister by putting inflections and words in his mouth. I hope I have been able to appeal to his heart, which I know is very large. I hope I have also been able to appeal to his intelligence, which I know is very high, and perhaps make him realize that he has not merely a responsibility here but a tremendous opportunity to do something that will bring lustre to the name of Canada that
DEBATES	2781
Joint Committee on Indian Affairs no other action could, by demonstrating that we are a people who for once decided that we were going to do something toward the equality of humanity within our own borders. Nothing less than that should be the goal of this legislation. Otherwise these Indian cases will not be disposed of as the legislation suggests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is right to speak of being able to dispose of injuries. You can perhaps compensate to some degree for injuries, but you will not dispose of them, because after the Indians may have forgotten the injuries we did them, any of us who have any sensitivity at all are bound to remember them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Let the record show it was on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



REFERENCE OF BILL TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks earlier today and also on the resolution stage yesterday, I intimated that I would move to have this bill referred to a joint committee rather than to the Committee of the Whole House. I now move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson):
That a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider Bill C-123, an act to provide for the disposition of Indian claims, with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon, send for persons, papers and records, sit during sittings of the House, and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; that 14 Members of the House, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said Committee, 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 deem advisable, some of their members to act on the proposed Joint Committee.
I understand I must have unanimous consent of the House to move such a motion at this time and I would ask for that consent.
June 22, 1365

Joint Committee on Indian Affairs


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two brief comments. Yesterday the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) very ably suggested that the committee might have authority to adjourn from place to place or meet from place to place or, in other words, have the authority to travel, the idea being that by the committee travelling the native Indian people all across the country would be afforded a better opportunity of access to the committee to present their views.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Peace River and as anyone who was a member of the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs in 1959, 1960 and 1961 knows very well, the committee experienced difficulty in trying to schedule particular dates for meetings with particular bands or other groups of Indian people. Members of that committee also know from experience the difficulty that the Indian people had in arranging their affairs in order to travel to Ottawa from wherever their home was to present their views and ideas and then travel back home again.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
When the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs met a few years ago there were certain costs involved- I do not know what they were-in paying the transportation cost of the native people from their home to Ottawa, their living expenses while they were here, and their transportation cost back home. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that we would not expend any greater amount of money if the Committee had the authority to travel. This would afford the native people in different parts of the country a better opportunity to appear before the Committee because they would have to spend less time away from their work, their family and their own activities. I do not see this authority in the provisions relating to the committee.
I should like to make a sort of last ditch appeal to the Minister to ascertain whether or not this suggestion might be given favourable consideration, with the primary concern 
being to make available to the native Indian people, in so far as we can, a full opportunity to appear before the committee and insure that no matter what we do with the bill the native people have every opportunity to present their views.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sorry, but earlier today I certainly should have informed the House that, pursuant to the assurance I gave the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) last night, I have given serious thought to his proposal. In fact, I have discussed it with some of my colleagues in the Government. We do not consider it is necessary, in this case, to give the committee the right to travel in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I want to assure the House, however, that, subject to what the committee itself may decide, there is certainly no intention on the part of the Government to rush the committee into bringing in an early report. The committee will have as much time as it considers necessary. The setting up of this joint committee is merely a sincere attempt on the part of the Government to make sure that the bill is in a form that will accomplish the objectives we have in mind. I can assure you that constructive suggestions that may come either from Members of the Committee or from outside will be most carefully considered by the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. J. Benson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-124, to authorize construction of a spur line to Canadian Industries Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Maximum expenditure.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One brief question on clause 3, Mr. Chairman. How much is the Federal Parliament going to be asked to contribute toward the construction of this railway?


Edgar John Benson: The Federal Parliament will be asked to make no contribution toward the construction of this line. It is to be built out of the capital funds of the Canadian National and is being financed from the operating fund.
June 22, 1965


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In other words, there will not be a contribution in the usual way toward the construction of a new railway?


Edgar John Benson: No.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) ACT AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE MONTHLY ALLOWANCES

Roger-Joseph Teillet: that the House go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
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.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any lengthy explanation. The resolution speaks for itself and in effect covers the bill. This is intended to bring the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act into line with the adjustments in pensions passed by Parliament earlier this year and to provide that in future, whenever there is an adjustment in the Pension Act, there will be an automatic adjustment to bring this Act into line with it.


Mr. Canlelon:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all welcome the announcement of the Minister and the short statement he has made on this worth-while change in the terms of the Act. However, I am sure that justice and mercy strongly indicate that more generous treatment should be given.

Children of War Dead Act
I am certain that those who have served this country in war, as well as those who did not, would wish that our veterans might have their pensions kept abreast of the times by increases which, in this period of rising costs, would enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. They have earned it; we should see that they get it.
But what does the Minister give us? In this resolution dealing with the Children of War Dead, and in the following one increasing the interest paid on moneys in the Army Benevolent Fund, we have sops to the real need, a swallow when a long drink is needed. Of course there is nothing wrong with increasing the amounts to be paid for the education of each child of the war dead. The economic conditions existing today make it imperative that there should be more money for these children. Consequently we heartily approve of this measure. We wholeheartedly approve of an increase of $9 over the present $25, which is an increase of 36 per cent.
If this percentage is conceded as necessary so that the children of the war dead may be properly treated, why was there a small 10 per cent increase for the general pension of veterans last November? Where is the general increase that should be made? Is the Minister satisfied with the 10 per cent increase he announced on November 10, 1964? If he is, he is the only one who is.
The veterans organizations have made it very clear in their submissions to the Government that they are not pleased. Members of the House are not pleased either. Does not the Minister know that the earnings index in this country is rising rapidly and that pensioners are falling further and further behind the wage earnings of those they matched 45 years ago? If he does not know, then he is too ignorant to be a Minister. If he does know and does nothing, he lacks the sensibilities required for this job.
At that time it was conceded that the pensioner should have a rate equivalent to that of certain civil servants. These same civil servants today are being paid $3,500 while the basic pension rate is only $2,400. I know the Minister argues that the 100 per cent pensioner who is married with two children is the basis on which comparison should be made. However, even if this is done the pension rate has lost its former equality with wages for unskilled labour.
It is difficult to feel that the 10 per cent increase was adequate even when a pensioner, who is at the 100 per cent pension level and has children, draws the whole increase. It
June 22, 1965

Children of War Dead Act was certainly very inadequate for the 60 per cent of the war veterans who are in the 20 per cent or less disabled bracket and only receive an increase of $3.60 a month. Some 500 veterans only get 90 cents per month through the increase.
The Minister now grants a 36 per cent increase for children. To my mind by doing this he admits that 36 per cent should be a proper increase for basic pensions. Surely he does not feel that the pensioner is to be compensated in a two-fold way, once for having served his country and suffered in that service and, second, by raising children as a second obligation to his country. Everyone is not so fortunate as to have children, and those who do not should not in effect be penalized for lack of children. Many may have hesitated to have children because they realized that their disabilities condemned them to a low standard of living. Perhaps many feared that their children had too high a prospect of being fatherless in early childhood.
This great 10 per cent pension increase was the lowest ever allotted to war victims. In the four previous increases since 1920 there was a 33J per cent rise in 1951 and a 20 per cent rise in 1961. Since the wage index has been rising faster in this last period than ever before, it is apparent why we feel that the 10 per cent increase was niggardly and why we hope that the Government will consider another increase this year to bring war pensions more in line with the cost of living.
I wonder what kind of advice the Minister has had from the committee of Ministers which the Prime Minister set up to consider veterans pensions. Are they as insulated from humanitarian instincts as the Minister, and as blind to the obligations which this country owes to the men who served her in battle? It would seem so, unless the two new resolutions he mentioned today are on a different basis.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member but may I point out that we are not discussing the Pension Act, but rather the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the point of order raised by the Minister is well taken. It might be well if we were to remain within the confines of this particular resolution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, since I am a Member of a group that tries so far as pos-
[Mr. Cantelon.l
sible to live within the rules, I am going to obey your instructions, even though I have a lot of sympathy for what the previous speaker said.
We in this group support the purpose of the resolution wholeheartedly because we feel the increase is necessary, owing to rising costs. This Act has been of great value to the children it was designed to serve, since it was enacted some 11 years ago. Anyone who reads the reports of the department must realize that a good number of children have received university education and other instruction as a result of this legislation.
How was this legislation placed on our statute books? It was placed there as a result of co-operation between the veterans, their organizations and the government of the day, whichever stripe it was, and with the cooperation of the officials of the department. The department in dealing with legislation hears the representations of veterans organizations before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, considers the arguments presented in the House by Members of all parties who are particularly interested in veterans, and then co-operates with the Government in preparing legislation. In passing I may say there are 4 million people in Canada at present who are veterans or the dependants of veterans, but the point I want to make is that wherever you get co-operation of this type you find democracy functioning at its best.
The department has established precedents in several fields with respect to veterans legislation. It has dealt with hospitals, the Veterans Land Act and measures of that type. I cannot go further in this direction without being out of order.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I do wish to stress that the veterans charter of this country, of which most Canadians are proud, was the result of co-operation between veterans organizations, the Government of the day and the officials of the department. Certain procedures have been established which might well be followed by other departments of government, as far as dealing with human beings on a successful basis is concerned.
The resolution before us is concrete in its terms. Personally, I do not see any reason for sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The measure is designed to do a particular job-to increase the amount of the allowance in respect of these children. Before concluding I want to say how much the veterans organizations appreciate the fact
June 22, 1965

that the Government is continuing the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been a Member of this Committee for 20 years and I must say it has approached the problems of the times in a non-partisan spirit. All its Members, generally speaking, have tried to do their best, regardless of party, for the veterans and their dependants they were seeking to serve.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish only to say on behalf of our party that we agree with the purpose of the resolution before us and that we intend to support both the resolution and the bill which follows.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one or two questions to put to the Minister. Perhaps he can give us an estimate of the number of children now covered by this legislation, together with a forecast for the future on the assumption, of course, that there will be no war in which Canadian servicemen will be killed.
I am assuming this measure covers the children of Canadians who served in the first and second world wars. There would not be any children of World War I combatants involved. There would be, from the Korean conflict.
Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether this legislation is applicable to children of Canadian servicemen who take part in peace keeping activities? Is there any elasticity in the terms of the Act? The title says in general terms: "Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act". Well, the campaign in the Congo was not a war. There are other areas in which Canadian servicemen are involved and I am wondering how strict an interpretation of this Act would be.
The Minister and I have discussed the position under the legislation covering those who served in both the first and the second world wars, of others, who were not involved in any actual war, have found themselves without coverage in terms of our veterans legislation. What steps are now being taken to include the particular category to which I have referred, bearing in mind that they are entitled to equal consideration? The case of a man killed in a training accident during the second world war is not different from that of a man killed in a similar accident on a peace keeping mission, as far as his service to the country and the needs of his family are concerned.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I wish to thank hon. Members for their comments. May I reply to the questions posed by my predecessor in this port-

Army Benevolent Fund Act folio. His first question concerned the number of cases dealt with. These cases built up to a peak in 1961-62 when there was a total of 448 cases. I would be glad to send a copy of this list to the hon. Member. In 1962-63 there were 374; in 1963-64 there were 354. For subsequent years our estimates are: 1964-65, 275; 1965-66, 240; 1966-67, 180; 196768, 130.
I do not know to what extent recent adjustments in university fees will affect these figures. Our estimates probably do not allow for this factor.
The hon. Member's second question is more difficult to answer. I would have to check the application of the insurance principle as it applies to the Cyprus operation, for instance, and the Congo. If the hon. Member would allow me, I would try to give him a more specific answer to this question when we come to second reading. Later, perhaps, I will be glad to discuss in more general terms the application to this question of principle which he and I discussed on an earlier occasion. I can only say that at the moment no final conclusion has been reached.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Teillet thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-125, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Next sitting.



ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT


Roger-Joseph Teillet: that the House go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
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.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
June 22, 1965

Army Benevolent Fund Act


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This again is a case where the resolution covers the entire bill. The purpose is to increase the interest rate available to the fund from 3 per cent to 4f per cent and also to provide for a periodic adjustment of this interest rate as prescribed by the Governor in Council on the basis of the interest rate on long term Government of Canada bonds. This interest rate can be adjusted periodically every five years in accordance with the interest rates available for Government borrowing on bonds. This is the entire purpose of the bill.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is the practice at the present time?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The practice at the present time, as I understand it, is that the fund is paid 3 per cent interest up to $5 million. I do not know how often this has been amended but I presume that these amendments are made periodically by parliament in order to adjust the interest rate. At the moment it is 3 per cent up to an amount of $5 million; it is now proposed to set the rate at 4f per cent on the total fund.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is the total amount of the fund?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Approximately $5 million, but I can get the figure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In that neighbourhood?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Members of this group support the principle of this resolution, which we presume is really to adjust the interest rate in accordance with changing circumstances, and in so doing increase the revenue-producing value of the fund. We see no reason why we cannot support the resolution and the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to bringing the interest rate paid to the army benevolent fund up to the prevailing rate of interest, but we should like to know how much it is going to cost. If I understood the Minister correctly, although I did not hear all of the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Edmonton West, he said, I believe, that they were authorized now to pay 3 per cent up to a maximum of $5 million. If this percentage is going to be changed to 4.1 per cent on the whole amount of the fund, we should like to know what is going to be the increased cost to the Government of Canada?
[Mr. Teillet.l


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Just to make sure we understand each other here, let me say that at the moment the fund is being paid 3 per cent. It is proposed in this resolution, and in the bill to follow, that this figure be increased to 4f per cent. This will mean an increase of If per cent. The fund is approximately $5 million. Therefore If per cent on $5 million would be the increased cost.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Teillel thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-126, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX ACT

Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of Bill No. C-118, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Eric Alfred Winkler: What date will the election be,
Sir?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On October 31, 1968. I indicated on the orders of the day that I would say something about clause 4 of the bill, and with the permission of the House I would like to do so now. The proposals relating to periodicals and newspapers have been criticized on a number of counts. I shall not attempt to deal with all the criticisms, some of which tend to cancel each other out, but I should like to say something about the main objections that have been expressed.
Let me begin with the periodicals. Here the main criticism, one that some hon. Members feel very keenly about, is that Time and Reader's Digest are here given resident status. Those who oppose this look upon it as a surrender to the power and influence of Mr. Henry Luce. I expect that this is the view of at least some of the hon. Members in all parts of the House.
However, other hon. Members feel equally strongly that nothing should be done to interfere with these two magazines whose Canadian editions commenced over 20 years ago. It is pointed out that both this Government and the previous Conservative Government gave clear notice in resolutions previously placed on the order paper that Time and Reader's Digest would be allowed to continue their operations in Canada. It is
June 22, 1965

argued that nothing new has happened to justify a reversal of these previous decisions.
When opinion is divided in this way there is a great temptation to defer taking action of any kind. If we were to do that, it is safe to say that the competitive position of Time and Reader's Digest in Canada would become even stronger. It is also quite probable that other foreign periodicals, including a number of trade papers, would establish themselves in Canada. If this were to happen we could kiss goodby to the chances of a Canadian magazine industry.
I do not believe there is any solution to this problem which will please everybody. However, to do nothing-to defer any action- would be the worst course of all. Accordingly the Government has accepted its responsibility and has placed a definite proposal before the House.
In doing this I would remind hon. Members of the reference in the budget speech to the subsidized postal rates now enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest. I said that these were being studied as part of a general review of all postal rates that is now in progress, but which will not be completed until some time next fall. The legislation that will be proposed following completion of this review will eliminate the discriminatory subsidy now being given to Time and Reader's Digest.
Now let me say something about newspapers. The Government believes that control of Canadian newspapers should remain in the hands of Canadians. Parliament has provided that this must be the case with radio and television. I believe the same principle should apply to all media of communication. The Canadian Daily Newspapers Publishers Association does not take issue with this objective of the Government. However, they do oppose the method chosen to achieve it. The Government is not wedded to the particular method it has proposed for retaining control of Canadian newspapers in Canadian hands, but after 18 months of study we have not found any other method that would work satisfactorily within the powers granted the federal Government under the British North America Act. Perhaps there is another method which we have not been able to find. If so, we would be quite ready to consider it. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association has asked for time in which to come up with a method of achieving the objective which would be more acceptable to them. They have requested that the present proposal be deferred for a
Income Tax Act
period of months in order to give them greater opportunity to study the whole matter and, hopefully, to come up with another method that would be effective and would be acceptable to the Government.
[DOT]	(8:10 p.m.)
The Government has given most careful consideration to this request, but has concluded that it should not withdraw the present proposal pending the proposed study by the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association. If it were to do so, some foreign interest might succeed in acquiring a Canadian newspaper before any effective method of preventing this was enacted into law. However, if the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association finds an alternative method which would be effective and acceptable, the Government would be prepared to recommend its substitution for the present proposal at the appropriate time in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I will be only too pleased to deal with the other matters which are contained in this bill when we are in committee. I think it would probably waste the time of the House if I did so now because we would just be repeating ourselves. I think I have dealt with the matter which has attracted the most attention in recent days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps first say that we trust the Minister will soon recover his health and his voice. We can see that he is suffering, and working with some difficulty. I can sympathize with a man in his position in so far as his personal health is concerned, but I do not envy his position because I think it is one of weakness. In any event, we extend to him the wish of hon. Members of this House that he recover soon.
In regard to this bill, the principle of which is to amend the Income Tax Act, there are a number of complicated provisions which we will consider in the Committee of the Whole. The bill itself is much longer and much more complicated than could be anticipated at the resolution stage. Even though it appeared complicated at that time, the resolution did not in all matters indicate the extensive amendments to certain sections of the Act that are contemplated. These are apparently the result of a seemingly simple resolution.
When we discussed these amendments at the resolution stage I made some remarks about the income tax cut of 10 per cent in respect of personal incomes, indicating that I felt this was discriminatory. Nothing has

June 22, 1965
Income Tax Act
been said since that has swayed me from that opinion. In view of the fact that the Minister has indicated that in the fiscal year 1964-65 there will be an expected growth factor of about $250 million to $275 million, it is apparent that this proposal has been politically motivated. When one assesses the comments that have been made in respect of this tax cut he can only conclude that the responsible politicians had an eye cocked toward an election, having in mind that the budget was prepared some time in March or April. Last night the Minister indicated that he would like to see an election, and I am not sure that he did not strain his voice at that time when he addressed some potential disciples in Toronto, who needed some ministerial assurance.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to some comments in respect of the budget which appeared in the column of Ronald Anderson, who states:
The personal tax cut, in the view of most analysts, will have relatively little impact on the economy: Canada's 10 per cent cut in personal taxes compared with a 20 per cent cut in U.S. personal income taxes.
This makes the point I was referring to the other night in regard to corporation taxes. I will develop this point a little later. The article then states:
Moreover, while the Canadian corporation tax remains at 21 per cent on the first $35,000 of income and 50 per cent on the remainder, the U.S. corporate tax has been reduced from the 1963 level of 30 per cent on the first $25,000 and 52 per cent on the remainder, to the 1965 level of 22 per cent on the first $25,000 and 48 per cent on income over that amount.
There is an expectation in the United States that the excise tax will be cut by 15 per cent by July 1, but that question has not been resolved.
One could read other editorial comments which have appeared in newspapers including the Montreal Gazette, the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Telegram and the Star, and and many others, and come to the same conclusion that the budget was based on the expectation of an election.
The Montreal Gazette of April 27 states:
The cut in personal income taxes, fulfilling forecasts, suggests either a planned election, or insurance against the possibility of an election, or a deterrent to an election by raising the government's popularity. The economy could have been stimulated as much, or more, by reducing corporation taxes. Mr. Gordon explained great changes would be premature before the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation (K. LeM. Carter) but that report will be as concerned with personal as with corporation taxes. One cut is as premature as the

other and both were regarded as premature by Mr. Gordon last year.
This year we have been told that it is premature to consider corporation income tax cuts, but this year that is not so with regard to personal income tax cuts. Both were in a premature bracket last year.
The Globe and Mail of April 27 states:
And Now What Day For The Election?...
Stimulating the economy would have required a cut in corporation tax as well. Mr. Gordon is setting the stage for a fall election. He has remembered the unions, the professional men, the farmers, uncles and aunts, even trademarks, and preserved a mass teaser for future stimulation in proposed removal of sales tax on drugs.
Then we can go west to the Edmonton Journal of April 27 which states:
These are the concessions traditionally used to sweeten up voters. If the Minister thinks he did all he could be expected to do for business, many businessmen facing keen foreign competition will not agree with him.. .Canadian finance ministers in recent years have been notoriously bad deficit guessers and Mr. Gordon is no exception. .. .The income tax cut will cushion the pension plan and there will be a time lag between incoming contributions and the borrowing and spending of the money
by the provinces____In the New Economics the
erosion of 2 or 3 per cent in the value of money is not inflationary. Be that as it may, the danger of inflation, balance of payment problems and other evils must be constantly guarded against.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an article by Fraser Robertson which appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 28:
Budget has little to do with economic reality. It ended with a fine challenge to us all to share in Canada's great future. So how do we share? The government intends to dig $7.35 billion out of our pockets in the coming year, $214 million more than last year, and it intends to spend $431 million more than last year.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The point is often missed that there is an increase of $431 million in expenditures.
He claims citizens can spend $170 million more than last year but what about those extra sales taxes earlier this year? And next year, when he says we shall have $265 million more in take home pay, who will be paying those extra payroll deductions for the pension plan? His tax cut is pure hocus-pocus. If it is true that the $170 million adds to purchasing power, then the extra government spending, which certainly comes out of our pockets, detracts from purchasing power by $431 million. Experience in other countries shows, and the Economic Council recommended, that capital investment does speed economic expansion, as the Canadian housing program has shown. But Mr. Gordon expects industry to hand out more jobs, better machinery for the workers, new plants and extra selling efforts with nary a penny from him.
I have spoken about the problems of the balance of payments deficit and other items which concern us from the point of view of
June 22, 1965

the maintenance of the advancing rhythm of the economy. The tax cut proposed by the Minister was designed to meet this problem. That was his stated purpose, in addition to which, of course, it would be a cushion for the payments under the Canada Pension Plan starting next January. I should like to draw to the attention of the House an article written by John Allan May who is European economic correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor. It is datelined from London under date of June 18, 1965 and reads as follows:
Now is the time when the wisdom of the world's economists is most strongly challenged-and most urgently needed. The question is: Can they tell how to halt a slide toward recession and how to restart the motors of expansion?
Too many indicators now point downward. Too few point upward. It is possibly true that only in the United States and West Germany are there any forceful signs of any expansion at all.
Even in the United States we have had men in responsible positions raise a hand of warning and make very cold and calculated speeches with regard to possible danger signs. Some people may object to this and some people may object to the tenor of my remarks tonight, but I must say that at all times we must be careful to see just what is ahead of us. It is toward the value of an income tax cut in regard to the maintenance and stimulation of the economy that I am directing my remarks.
We know that the figures for the first quarter with regard to the balance of international payments show a rather alarming increase. We also see a flattening out of the increase in our commodity export figures. If this year continues as the pace of the earlier months has indicated, we are going to finish up with a deficit on international account of rather monumental proportions, all of which is much to the concern of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It should be to the great concern of the Minister of Finance, because we know what has happened to this country in the past when there has been an overly large deficit on international account. We saw what happened in Britain last year, and at the moment they are facing the very same problem. I refer again to Mr. May's article:
In Britain the indicators now point to the introduction of direct controls over imports.
This would affect Canada.
It is thought that further controls on capital outflows also may have to be introduced. This is because the British balance of payments must be
Income Tax Act
brought back into balance, whatever way it is done. Britain cannot take on any further debts.
In so far as Canada is concerned, I suggest that we too face the problems involved in taking on an increased load of debt on international account.
The effect, however, must be to reduce world trade a little further. It seems likely that the trade of western Europe could be most severely affected...
Here is something that is very troubling.
The economic background to the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers also shows storm flags flying. Every country represented, including Canada, is today in deficit on its international payments. Two of the most important in a monetary sense, Australia and India, have decided they must, like Britain, cut their spending severely. The commodity prices on which most of the Commonwealth largely depends are tending downward. Outside the Commonwealth, it is noted that Japan also is in some financial difficulties.
I trust the House will forgive me what may seem to some hon. Members to be an undue emphasis on the problems of a deficit in the balance of international payments, but to me this is a key factor with regard to the stimulation and maintenance of our economy. The Minister proposes to deal with the matter by his 10 per cent cut in income tax and there are also some capital cost allowances to industry. I put it to the Minister that the 10 per cent cut in income tax is insignificant in so far as stimulation of the economy is concerned. I think he could have done a lot better by giving an equivalent cut on the corporation tax side, or perhaps even a greater cut than he did in the personal income tax field but, of course, on the corporation side he was not dealing with votes.
My colleague from Okanagan Boundary suggests, as many analysts have also done, that something should have been done about the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and certainly on production machinery. I think this is one area where the Government will really have to re-examine its position.
In so far as much of the bill is concerned we are dealing with the closing of loopholes and there are a number of technical points involved. One has to do with the exploration for gas and oil. In order to understand the amendment a person needs to be very well versed in the corporate set-up of development and production companies with their syndicate or joint venture exploration groups, the purchase of drilling rights and reassignment back to the parent so they can be used for write-off purposes. There was a loophole as a result of an amendment made to the Income Tax Act in 1962, and as these

June 22. 1965
Income Tax Act
companies in the oil industry are astute operators in the field of corporation finance and taxation they were able to find this loophole. I am not too sure they were doing anything wrong but the Income Tax Department certainly thought it was wrong. I am not too sure that is so. I like to see as much incentive as possible given to the oil and gas industry to go out and develop the resources of the country. We can put too close a bridle on them at times.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There is another amendment with regard to the residence rule for corporations. I think the Minister is fully aware of the implications of this change. Certainly some companies are going to be caught and there is going to be quite a scream from some corporations which have a foreign residence but which will now be deemed to be Canadian resident companies whose world income will now become subject to Canadian tax. This is the opinion of the Canadian Tax Foundation. I hope the Minister, in this particular instance, may give the House an estimate of the effect this may have, by deeming Canadian foreign resident Canadian corporations because of their operations in Canada and attracting to those companies the Canadian tax rate on their world income. I should like the Minister, perhaps, to address his attention to this particular feature and let us know just what he expects will be the effect of plugging this loophole. Perhaps he thought he was plugging a loophole and he may be doing more harm than the situation he was correcting.
We have heard the Minister's proposal with regard to periodicals and newspapers. Dealing with periodicals he says that the previous administration had the same problem. Yes, we had the same problem; but the solution was somewhat different. It was to impose a tax disallowance of 50 per cent on advertising in dealing with Time and Reader's Digest. I am not satisfied, myself, that this was necessarily the best solution. This was a proposal which had not been discussed. The Minister has had the benefit of two years' experience and re-examination of the problem. Now we are enshrining into statute law the privileges enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest. It was against these two periodicals that the Canadian periodicals complained. They felt they could not survive in the face of the unfair competition put forward by these two periodicals. There have been changes in the past two years. There

have been changes since the O'Leary Commission reported in regard to the number of publications which have continued to exist.
Surely, however, there would have been some better solution than enshrining Time and Reader's Digest and giving them that absolute statutory protection against competition from the United States, Britain and France. This is what you are doing. You may say that Canadian periodicals are being protected from some bold, bad wolves from either the United States or abroad, but you are also protecting Time and Reader's Digest from the competition of periodicals from their own country. They have the best of all possible worlds as a result of the Government's proposals. I do not believe this is an adequate solution for our Canadian periodicals. Certainly, I do not believe the two publications that are singled out merit this rather favourable treatment they are receiving.
Now, with regard to newspapers, I need not repeat the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) or the other spokesmen from this side of the House concerning the tax on advertising in newspapers, should they become owned more than 25 per cent by foreign interests. Ever since the budget speech was delivered on April 26, we have seen a spate of editorial criticism from one end of the country to the other, from Victoria to St. John's Newfoundland. There has been the odd exception. Representatives of the Newspapers Publishers Association have seen the Minister, not once but twice. I noticed that their representative was meeting the Government last Friday. Before the Minister spoke tonight, we saw speculative news articles indicating that there might be a pause in the Government's move to impose this penalty. It is not a tax, it is a penalty.
In this regard, I have always wondered why it was deemed to affect ways and means, when there was an amendment proposed the other night. It would not affect ways and means whatever. This is merely a penalty, and something would have to be done to attract the tax. In other words, one had to transgress the rules in order to attract the tax. The Minister, therefore, could not expect, in the normal course of events, one penny of revenue. How this could affect ways and means, I fail to see. In any event, this penalty in the Income Tax Act is to be used to achieve what some people say is a laudable objective. Certainly, we would like to maintain, in so far as possible, control of Canadian newspapers in the hands of Canadians,
June 22, 1965

in the same way as we would like to maintain control of many types of operations in the hands of Canadians. I noticed one editorial comment to the effect that there was as much justification for imposing this penalty on newspapers as there would be in preventing any foreign interest from coming in and buying Clarkson, Gordon & Company and entering into the chartered accountancy field. After all, these companies have many corporate secrets. They know many things about the Canadian economy, and therefore foreign control of these companies could influence the situation in Canada. The thesis is arguable.
Well, we do not see anything of this nature in the bill. 1 do not know just what motivated the Minister in imposing this penalty to try to maintain the Canadianization of newspaper ownership. Is it that they were in particular danger? I noticed in a column written by Basil Dean, publisher of the Edmonton Journal, that there was a current rumour that certain French interests were going to try to buy into La Presse of Montreal in order to project the point of view of the French Government. Well, of course, one can build speculation upon speculation. I believe one must classify this amongst those really wild rumours, but it is still a rumour. I do not know how much it influenced the Minister or if he heard it. Were there any other newspapers that were under imminent attack by foreign owners? I am sure that foreign owners would take on Canadian newspapers or attempt to buy Canadian newspapers under the following circumstances: First, if a newspaper were in temporary difficulty and could be bought cheap, then built up into something really profitable. Frankly, the motive is economic. It is certainly not to influence thought. The second circumstance would be a successful newspaper that was a going proposition and was very attractive. It would attract a takeover bid.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If the Minister, the Government and Canadian newspapers are so jealous of Canadian ownership there is always one solution, that they shall not sell. As a matter of fact some newspapers have voluntarily adopted measures whereby foreign takeover cannot take place. Therefore I think the Minister would have been far wiser to accede to the request of the Newspaper Publishers Association to defer this tax penalty until some more reasonable solution had been worked out to the satisfaction of the press.
Income Tax Act
Some people have suggested that the press is crying wolf, that this is an old bugaboo, that this is not really an attempt to introduce censorship. I put it to hon. Members that this is the cornerstone from which other moves could be made with regard to newspapers.


Mr. Moreau:: What about magazines?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am concerned about daily newspapers.


Maurice John Moreau: What's the difference?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a great deal of difference. The hon. Member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Moreau) can engage in a discussion of that when we reach clause by clause examination of the bill.
One can read all sorts of editorials on this subject in chain newspapers from Victoria to St. John's, in privately owned newspapers, in small, medium and metropolitan newspapers, and generally in newspapers that support the Government.
Reference was made during orders of the day today to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 17, headed, "Press Control has a long History", pointing out that it started with King George III who first taxed advertising, Adolph Hitler who jailed editors, Benito Mussolini who built a subservient press, Joseph Stalin who made the press a government mouthpiece, Juan Peron who closed down newspapers, Fidel Castro who exiled editors, and winding up with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who would tax advertising.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) quoted from editorial comment in the same newspaper of June 16, but I will not refer to that again. The Evening Reporter in Galt has some harsh things to say about this proposal, and I think the Minister should read that editorial.
The Guelph Mercury of June 17 said:
If there is any requirement whatever to limit ownership of Canadian newspapers to Canadians, it is quite possible to effect this control without government interference and through the voluntary action of the owners. In Britain and some other European countries, the line of succession of ownership and the editorial policies of certain newspapers are effected by agreement within the proprietor companies. The governments follow a hands-off policy.
Apart from this principle, which is readily applicable within Canada, the hard fact is that the profit margin of Canadian newspapers is not so lush as to be attractive to foreign investors. They can secure larger returns on their capital with less risk, by investing in Canadian natural resource corporations.
There is, indeed, no more urgency for the prohibition fathered by Mr. Gordon than there is for

June 22, 1965
Income Tax Act
a law forbidding Americans or other outsiders from acquiring control of firms of external chartered accountants, such as Clarkson, Gordon and Company, in which the Finance Minister inherited a considerable interest and in which he was active until joining the cabinet. Accountancy firms of high repute are necessarily privy to the secrets of Canada's major corporations whom they serve, and on occasion must have access to confidential phases of government. Surely the acquisition of such firms by foreigners would raise problems of much delicacy.
The Sarnia Observer of June 18 has this to say:
The free press of Canada is threatened by legislation now making its slow progress through the House of Commons.
It isn't threatened today, or perhaps tomorrow. But some time in the future, the machinery now proposed by the Government can be used to effectively muzzle any newspaper-or all newspapers.
This is a matter of argument but I put it to the Minister and to the hon. Members that he is trying to accomplish something the Wrong way. I would have appreciated it if the Minister had not stood up in this House the other day and, in a moment of bravado, said the Government would stand or fall by this measure. Are we again under a threat? Is this some chest thumping on the part of the Minister? I do not know, but I think he in reasonableness would have agreed to the newspaper publishers' request to defer this matter, had he hot made that rather unwise and brash statement the other night. He put himself in a box and now we are told we are going to have this proposal on the statute books.
I would not say that the House is being bribed, but it is being asked, "Pass this little bit of legislation and if we find something better in the future, then we will substitute that for it." Is this a proper way to do things? If this measure is bad it should not be put on the statute books, and the Government should recognize that this is not the most satisfactory way to deal with the problem.
Is there any particular rush? What is the rush, that newspaper owners must be protected? Is the Montreal Gazette about to be taken over, or the Toronto Star, or the Vancouver Sun? Is this something that is over the horizon, or is there something in this that involves Lord Thomson? I do not know what the reaction of my hon. friend from Port Arthur is going to be when I mention that eminent gentleman's name. Is he considered by the Canadian government to be a foreigner, now that he has a title, or just what is the situation with regard to him?
Not only has this proposal been criticized in Canada but it has also been criticized in the foreign press. The Canadian Press under dateline of May 29 reports that the London Daily Mail calls it a subtle encroachment on press freedom, not very different from withholding government advertising, a favourite device for bringing newspapers to heel in countries where press revenue is scanty.
The Vancouver Province of May 21 said:
An aura of underhandedness does not sit well with many Canadians.. .dangerous to freedom of the press.. .conflicts with the interest of the public and of the newspapers themselves. If there is validity in Ottawa's worry over foreign control it should be made plain to the industry and to the public before steps are taken...then let it be done openly, not through misuse of legislation.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I suggest that the use of a tax penalty is really a misuse of the legislation.
As far as the other end of the country is concerned, this is what the Daily Gleaner of Fredericton said on May 22:
The bill is one the Government should withdraw. ..It is the beginning of Government control of the press. It establishes the false principle that the decision of a Government department can be allowed to damage some periodicals and benefit others (and determine) what should be published and who should publish it. Democracy and a free press-one cannot exist without the other.
I find that the tax proposal with regard to personal income tax is acceptable, even though it is but crumbs to a small number of people. It is generous to those who, frankly, would not miss it too much, and it penalizes those who are particularly industrious and energetic. It does not do one whit of good to the many scores of thousands who do not pay income tax.
With regard to a number of the proposals which close loopholes, we in the Opposition express our agreement with them. But we are against this punitive provision with regard to newspapers, and we shall oppose it. I wish to be clear on that. As I indicated the other night, I accept many of the changes which the Minister has in mind. But this is a package deal in which we find a combination of two divergent principles. We are dealing here with an attempt to control the press through income tax and we are also dealing with capital cost allowances, incentives to industry, and so on. Nevertheless, the Government is asking the Opposition, and those who would oppose one feature, to approve or disapprove of the whole package. I will make my position very clear, as did the hon. Member for Queens.

June 22, 1S65

What I have to say, now, is not based on anything contained in the bill. It is a request to the Government in connection with the regulations governing the capital cost allowance referred to in the budget speech as reported in Hansard on page 436:
I am also proposing some changes in capital cost allowances to help farmers who are facing difficulty in marketing com and other grain crops in areas where there is a shortage of grain storage facilities. I am thinking of many areas, including the area comprised by the constituency of Essex East, a great corn belt. Under this plan, which will be incorporated in a regulation, the cost of all new grain storage facilities constructed in the period May 1, 1965, to December 31, 1966, may be written off for tax purposes over a four-year period.
This matter is now crucial for a large number of farmers and the sooner we can have these regulations the better off we will be. In order to assist hon. Members in advising their farmers I would suggest that instead of having the regulatioas appear in a regular bulletin from the Minister of National Revenue where it is read by tax authorities and few other people, the Minister should table them. Notice would then appear in Votes and Proceedings and Members would be aware of them. This is a simple request, and compliance with it would assist Members on both sides in advising farmers in their constituencies as to the way in which they may be affected. I know this concerns many of the farmers in Western Canada and I am sure the same applies to Eastern Canada.
I think I have made the position of this party clear as far as the second reading of this bill is concerned.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to address my remarks to that part of the bill which is concerned with the ownership of the press in Canada. I speak as a newspaperman and I support the Government's proposals.
It is estimated that more than 60 per cent of Canada's manufacturing and resource industries is already in foreign hands. Our motion picture screens, our television screens, our magazine stands carry the products and influences of another country. If our press is to be allowed to fall into foreign hands I think we can have very little left to claim as Canadian.
I wish to quote briefly from the O'Leary Commission's report on publications of four years ago:
The communications of a nation are as vital to its life as its defences and should receive at least as great a measure of national protection. Every nation must provide within itself the means of maintaining stability. In North America today this
Income Tax Act
function is largely directed and exercised through communications media.
The Government, rightly, I think, intends to bar foreign ownership of Canadian chartered banks and of the newspapers of Canada. As the Minister has stated, at the present time there is no law to prevent the purchase by non-residents of any of our newspapers. Some sections of the press, or perhaps I should say some publishers, have been opposing the Government proposal on the ground that it represents an interference with press liberty. This opposition is very much confined to a section of the publishers or owners of the press of Canada. I have yet to hear a member of the working press of Canada, or of the press gallery, or of the other newspaper workers, or of the advertisers in Canada oppose the government's plan to keep ownership of the Canadian press in Canadian hands.
Much as I disagree with that part of the Government's proposals which allow Time and Reader's Digest to continue to undermine and destroy the magazine industry in Canada, I support the proposals which have been put forward with the object of keeping at least Canada's press under Canadian ownership. Heaven knows, in Canada at the present time there is a high ingredient of United States editorial material. Again, it is well known that the press of Canada is biased in its handling of news; the press of Canada is naturally very much prejudiced in favour of big business. I say "naturally" because the press of Canada is big business itself. In recent months it has cost $3 million in Eastern Canada to fail to start a new daily newspaper. In even more recent times it cost a million dollars in Vancouver to almost fail to start a new paper. It has not yet been established. So the press itself is big business and it naturally sympathizes with this section of our community. That is understandable.
However, the legislation before us does nothing to interfere in any way with the freedom of the press in Canada-even the freedom to remain biased. It has nothing to do with editorial content. It simply proposes to keep press ownership in Canadian hands. It is ridiculous for publishers in Canada to say that this in any way impinges upon the freedom of the press. Actually, the press has no special freedom at all. It has only the freedom to report the news quickly, accurately and truthfully to the Canadian people. If we had real freedom of the press in Canada we would not have this continual amalgamation of the

June 22, 1965
Income Tax Act
newspapers and a concentration in fewer and still fewer hands of the news media of the country.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I have been a newspaperman for about 30 years, and as such I felt it was reasonable for me to say a few words in support of this present legislation. I think in doing so I am speaking out in favour of freedom of the press and against something which is quite different-freedom for the press. Freedom of the press, as I have tried to explain, is the freedom and ability of the press to function on behalf of the people of the country. Freedom for the press descends into some sort of commercial advantage to the owners and publishers of newspapers. I am very much in support of the legislation which the Government has put forward on this point of Canadian control and ownership of Canadian newspapers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) say that an inquiry is now under way to attempt to do something about the favourable postal rates and subsidies now being granted to Time and Reader's Digest. We in this party do not believe that these two magazines should enjoy any special privilege, particularly when this involves subsidies of public money through the Post Office Department.
I was also interested to hear the Minister of Finance suggest that the method outlined in this bill is the only way the Government could find to impose conditions which would have the objective of keeping Canadian newspapers and periodicals Canadian owned and controlled. He even went so far as to say that if anyone, be it the Publishers Association, Members of the Opposition, or anybody else, came forward with some other method of achieving this objective, the Government would be receptive to it.
I think there is a case to be made for a little more time to consider other methods of achieving this objective. The Minister of Finance suggested that to do nothing would perhaps be a disservice to Canada, because in the meantime there could be some publications purchased by foreign companies and it would be difficult to do anything about it on a retroactive basis. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that he did not hesitate when bringing in legislation respecting the ownership of banks in Canada to make a press announcement months ahead disclosing that the Gov-

ernment intended to impose restrictions on the ownership of the chartered banks of this country. Furthermore, if any province bought any shares before that legislation became fully effective, the Government was prepared to remove the voting rights from those common shares.
I think there is probably some disagreement about whether the federal Government now has the constitutional right under the British North America Act to say who shall own shares in any kind of property or company, be it banks or anything else. The Minister of Finance attempted to contend that because banking and the control of currency and coinage, and so on, comes under the umbrella of the federal Government and its statutes, it gave the Government the authority to say who could own these shares. I think there is a very important legal argument to be made here namely that this kind of parallel is not very appropriate because it is difficult to equate monetary control in the country with the ownership of any property, be it banks or otherwise.
If the Government needs more time, or if it is so receptive to other suggestions about how we can control and own Canadian publications, why does not the Minister pursue the same course he pursued with respect to banks? He could announce that it is the Government's stated objective to say that Canadian publications shall remain owned and controlled by Canadians and that it was not particularly satisfied with the ways and means which have been evolved so far to achieve this objective. However, it could stress that when a satisfactory way of doing this is found, any transfers of ownership in the intervening period will be subject to the law. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is equally as possible in this field as in the field of shares of banks.
As far as we in this party are concerned, I think it is fair to say that we believe an instrument as important as the press, and publications, which is one of the most important means of mass communication in the country, should be owned and controlled by Canadians. We do not particularly like the proposal that this shall be achieved through discriminatory tax measures, yet we do agree with the objective. Therefore I think the proper and responsible thing to do at this time is for the Government to make this sort of statement, indicating this is the objective, and perhaps allow some additional time for working out ways and means to achieve it, without interfering with the freedom of the
June 22, 1965

press, or what is claimed to be interference with the freedom of the press.
I do not see anything in the bill which provides for imposing discriminatory tax laws on advertising in those publications which remain Canadian owned. Therefore the contention that there is going to be severe interference with the operations of newspapers is not just quite as valid as some spokesmen would try to make out. Yet I am not satisfied that discriminatory tax laws are the way to see that these newspapers and publications remain under the control of Canadians. That is why I think that a little more time would be useful so as to seek other methods more generally acceptable.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to concentrate most of my remarks on the magazine and newspaper legislation. However, before I get to that I want to make a few comments in line with the personal observations that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) made regarding myself. I am not going to take umbrage when a so-called economist refers to a so-called columnist, but I do not like the word "intemperate" being used, partly because of its connotation of drink. I want to assure the Minister of Finance that if he is going to label me as a boozer he is on the wrong track; this is something I do not get involved in.
He also accused me of making scurrilous comments about the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I should like to read the definition of scurrilous which is found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is as follows:
Grossly or obscenely abusive (of person or language), given to or expressed with low buffoonery.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That is almost exactly the mood I should like to be in to express my feeling, not about the Prime Minister but about the Minister of Finance and this particularly oddity-oddity from this point of view-that he has brought forward. During the last few weeks, in looking at the Imperial Oil billboards all across the country, we have seen reference to a "tiger in your tank", and there are tiger tails all over the place. The bill now before us is the Canadian tiger tail, and that tiger tail is certainly in the gas tanks of this Government, snarling all over Canada. The Minister is a tiger in respect of Canadianism, and he is going to protect Canadian newspapers from these foreign encroachers. He is going to see that by this indirect taxation on advertising Canadian newspapers will be maintained as Canadian.
Income Tax Act
I suppose the Minister's argument really runs like this. This is an indirect measure of taxation on advertising which will keep Canadian newspapers Canadian, because it will inhibit any increase in the equity value of Canadian newspapers and, therefore, it is unlikely that any bidding will develop between the United States and British capital for Canadian newspaper possession, because they are aware that this indirect Government advertising tax is in existence. That is not a bad way of doing it, but it is terribly direct.
The Minister says that no one has come up with any alternative. Surely he should have set out some of the other possible alternatives that were considered. This matter of newspapers shows the Minister, as I am sure many Canadians and some of my colleagues feel, at his best-a real red-blooded Canadian tiger who is going to keep the Americans off our backs. However, at the very same time, what does he do with these two most pervasive of all Canadian cultural items, Time and Reader's Digest? He naturalizes them. That is the irony of this situation.
I thought the Minister was a bit of a desiccated pharisee a few years ago in this House when there was a motion put forward by our friends from the Social Credit, who argue for debt-free money, at which time he got up with a most embarrassed look on his face-he had the fairness to wince a little bit-and gave an indication that the Liberal Party was going to vote for debt-free money. Ever since then he has been twigged about this, and that is an indication that he was influential at that time, as I am sure we are all willing to believe, in getting the Liberal caucus of that day to vote in favour of it. He really did not believe in debt-free money, but he saw this as a device which would fit in with the pattern of harassment to get the Cabinet to vote for it. In other words, he and his colleagues were not consistent in principle with what they were voting for.
Here we have a much greater inconsistency. This is a Minister who last year would not put this bit of legislation regarding Time and Reader's Digest in his name on the order paper, or at least he has not given us any explanation as to why it was in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) rather than in his own name.
What possibly could have happened to the Minister's Canadianism-a tiger in one case and a mouse in another? What happened to

This is another example of the inconsistencies. I do not suppose it will hang on the conscience of the Minister of Finance too long, although it seemed to me when I read that rather plaintive quotation from him in the Toronto newspapers in which he talked about how he would love an election soon, let us have an election soon, fight it on the old boundaries-


An hon. Member:: Tiger Gordon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Tiger Gordon-that it might also be an easy way for him to get out of here and forget about the compromise he has had to make with most of his Canadianism principles in this piece of legislation he has brought forward.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He was seduced by Henry Luce.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think that too, both figuratively and literally, but it is pretty hard. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in respect of Time and Reader's Digest where we are given another excuse and another crutch in connection with the whole question of mail subsidies. The Minister knows and so does the Government that there has been a tremendous loss on second class mailing matter for a number of years. Five years ago Hon. Bill Hamilton told us that the loss was running around $20 million and only a couple of years ago it had risen to approximately $26 million. The O'Leary Commission really knew the details and we have been told that Time and Reader's Digest bear a considerable responsibility. As a matter of fact, the subsidy figures have been worked out. I know they have been on the Minister's desk, as they have been on mine, but the Minister's are much more official.
What excuse are we given? Well, they are still running a survey. They still do not know. They are certainly going to see that Time and Reader's Digest are Canadianized but they are not going to let them get away with murder in the postal rates. Once they are good Canadians it seems rather mean to come along and catch up with them later, except from the point of view of a bit of salve for this tiger's conscience.
I should like to ask the Minister a question in connection with Time and Reader's Digest and this naturalization process. What happens if either of these organizations launches some kind of subsidiary publication? I should also like to ask him why he did not consider going a bit further than talking about mailing
Income Tax Act
privileges and placing some kind of embargo on plates coming into Canada from the United States in connection with Time and Reader's Digest? Why protect only publishers? Why not go further and protect Canadian printers? This is one aspect of this whole business that has not been touched on at all. You not only want to protect Canadian publishers, who I suppose include Time and Reader's Digest now, but you need to protect Canadian printers.
I have here an advertisement by Admiral that appeared in the Vancouver Sun, a Canadian newspaper. The full advertisement ran in all the big national papers a week or so ago and I understand that the total budget for this advertisement would be roughly $100,000. The interesting thing is that the advertisement was prepared and set up in the United States. It was printed in the United States and then brought to Canada and run here. The Vancouver Sun, like most of the other papers, used the back page of the paper. I suppose it might have been buckshee to them.
This is an example of the kind of thing that should worry this Canadian tiger. I am sure that the Vancouver Times has the kind of plant with colour processes that could produce this type of advertisement. I would assume that a great many of the advertisements we see in this country, particularly in Time and Reader's Digest, are produced from plates shipped into Canada from the United States for that part of Time and Reader's Digest not printed in the United States. Why could we not have had some protection for the printers in this regard?
The fact that the newspaper part of the situation is included in this legislation has unhappily led a great many people to miss the Time and Reader's Digest aspect of the matter and to miss the strength of the recommendations made by the O'Leary Commission. So far as the newspaper part of the matter is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me and to my colleagues that it will really not have the bad effects that the publishers are talking about, except upon the value of their equity. In this sense I believe there may be a discrimination against them but, as hon. Members have pointed out, it is no different from the discrimination that the Minister has talked about in a lot of his other legislation in the business field.
Even though the Minister insists that the legislation in connection with newspapers go through, he has given an indication that if the newspaper publishers will come up with

June 22, 1965
Income Tax Act
some kind of solution he will be prepared to listen to them. I have never heard anything that sort of begged the question more than that kind of answer. Why did he not just tell the newspaper publishers that this was it? If the newspaper publishers have not been able to come up with an answer by this time and if the Minister has rejected the only suggestion put forward by them that seemed to me to have any sense, namely that a general resolution be adopted by the whole House, then why diddle and fool around with the possibility of representations on and on and on?
There is a two volume study entitled "A History of Canadian Journalism" written by W. A. Craick. The second volume, which appeared a few years ago really is not a history of Canadian journalism. It is a continuing record of the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association and, even less than that, it is really a record of the kind of representations they have made as a lobby group to protect their special privileges with regard to mail, postage and other such matters. In other words, there may be a tendency among many Members, particularly in the Conservative party, to feel that the Canadian daily newspaper publishers have been knit together in a kind of band of brothers with a tremendous concern about the quality or value of journalism.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Well, basically, that is not what the association has been for over the years. You do not have to take my word for it. You can judge by reading these two volumes. I make this particular point, not to support our Canadian tiger over here, but to suggest to the Members of the Conservative Party who are worried about the newspaper part of it, that this particular association all the way through its record-this is not criminal and I am not suggesting there is anything bad-has been a commercial association. It has been designed, in the main, to protect financial interests. These publishers, and their association, have not been fanatically concerned about the freedom of the press, with the odd exception. They have not been concerned about the whole question of human liberty or the advancement of this nation. This association has been strictly, throughout the years, a down to earth lobby organization that gets together once a year and looks at all the fronts, including taxation, advertising and any legislation that may affect it, good or bad. Of course, its main concern over the 
years has been to keep mailing costs as low as they possibly can.
Now, in this particular case, I think that the Minister may have already given this publishers association more attention than it deserves. Again, I want to say we are embarrassed about the fact that the two matters are bound together. I know that I have to vote against this particular part of the legislation because of the Time and Reader's Digest aspect of it. I know it is too late. The Minister is sitting there with that sort of granite face. We are not going to get the two of them split. It is funny, you know, that a party which could devise that doublebarrelled flag resolution last year cannot come up with something a little bit doublebarrelled on this issue.


Mr. Addison:: It was the Speaker that split them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, the Speaker might be willing to do so again, if he were given a little prompting. I want it to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that we are against Time and Reader's Digest becoming naturalized Canadian citizens. We are for the legislation with regard to Canadian newspapers, and we are rather embarrassed at the Minister and the Liberal Party for the kind of promise they put forward over the years. It is corny to make appeals, Mr. Speaker, when you have this tiger calling for an election and standing or falling on something. I should like to forget him and make a request to some of those bold backbenchers who have a feeling of Canadian nationalism. Let us hear from more than the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) about how you feel about Time and Reader's Digest. Let us hear from the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), and the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis). I want to ask the hon. Member for Carleton to switch his worries from redistribution and tell us where he stands on Time and Reader's Digest, and why he is going down the line with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). There is the hon. Member for York North (Mr. Addison), who is prepared to stand up and fight the move of the forestry lab from his constituency to Sault Ste. Marie. Is he not prepared to stand up and fight to keep Time and Reader's Digest from becoming Canadian citizens? I see that all the requests and pleas in the world are not really going to strike many spots. They are tigers, all right; they are in the tank and the lid is on.
June 22, 1965


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion
carried.


Mr. Mackasey:: I was paired with the hon. Member for Bow River. Had I not been, I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired; had I voted, I
would have voted for the motion.


David Walter Groos: I was paired; had I voted, I
would have voted for the motion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mrs. Wadds:: I was paired with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South. If I had voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. A remark was made on the other side to the effect that I did not announce my pair. If I do not choose to do that it is my own business, and I would ask the hon. Member who made the remark to withdraw it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Mcllrailh: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose submitting the Income Tax legisla-
2800	COMMONS DEBATES	June 22- 1965
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tion for completion, the Judges Act, the veterans legislation, the motion to appoint the Committee on Consumer Credit, and then proceed to interim supply.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, I would like to ask the Government House Leader since when has this resolution on consumer credit been injected into the program, because the Prime Minister made no mention of it whatever?


Mr. Walker:: It has been debated already.


George James McIlraith: I understand it was debated yesterday.


Mr. Churchill:: By accident.


George James McIlraith: I take it from the hon. Member's remarks that he is raising some objection. I will look into the matter in the morning.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code, even though we had to wait a long time to get it, is a good piece of legislation. It provides a minimum wage, a maximum work week, two weeks holiday with pay after one year and eight statutory holidays for all the employees who are covered by this legislation.
However, there are certain employees ostensibly in the federal field who are not covered by the code. These are in two categories- direct employees of the Federal Government and persons working on Federal Government contracts. Actually the first person to mention the fact that the Canada Labour Code would not cover these other categories of workers was the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) himself. When he moved the second reading of the Canada Labour Code on October 13, 1964, he pointed this out, as will be seen from a reading on pages 8999 and 9000 of Hansard for that date.
In doing so the Minister made clear the Government's intention later in that same session to cover these other groups of people by bringing forward amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. The next day, October 14, 1964, in response to a question of mine as reported at page 9062 of Han-

sard, the Minister of Labour confirmed that it was the Government's intention to bring in the amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act that session, which was the second session of this Parliament, the one which ended on April 3, 1965.
While that session was still in progress, in particular on February 26, 1965, as reported at page 11770 of Hansard, I asked the Minister whether it was the Government's intention to make sure that the protection afforded by the Canada Labour Code would be extended to these other people and whether this coverage would apply by the same effective date, namely July 1, 1965. The Minister's reply was clear. He said: "That is the intention, Mr. Speaker."
A month or so later, in the present session, I asked the Minister on May 10, 1965, as reported at pages 1100 and 1101, when this would be done. His reply was: "As quickly as possible". I asked about the previous commitment with respect to July 1. On May 11 I reminded him again of this previous commitment and in reply to my questions on that date he again said the Act would be amended by July 1. This is in keeping with the commitment made throughout that these four minimum standards to which I have referred would be made applicable not only to those who come under the Canada Labour Code but to these other two groups, direct Federal Government Employees and those working on Federal Government contracts.
Time has a way of slipping by. The legislation did not appear on the order paper, so on June 3, 1965, I asked the Minister again when this legislation would be brought in, having in mind the commitment that it would be passed before July 1. The Minister's response to that question, to be found at pages 1932 and 1933, was that the parliamentary timetable was getting in the way. I asked him whether the delay was caused by representations against the legislation. His reply was that the only delay was that which had arisen because of difficulties connected with the parliamentary timetable.
On June 16, as reported at pages 2501 and 2502, I asked the hon. gentleman when this legislation was to be brought forward and again he confirmed it would be done by July 1. Yesterday, however, June 21, when I again asked the Minister about this Fair Wages and Hours of Labour legislation he fell back on the explanation that the parliamentary timetable did not permit this to be done by July 1. When I asked him what had
June 22, 1965	COMMONS
happened to the Government's promise to bring it in by July 1, his answer was that nothing had happened to the promise, that it was still the Government's intention, but that it depended on the parliamentary timetable.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
There is no argument about the substance of this matter. The Minister and I are agreed that these minimum standards should be made applicable to all the people whom the federal Government can cover. The whole question is whether or not it will be done by the date the Minister promised, namely the same date the Canada Labour Code comes into effect; and that has been established as July 1, just a week or so away.
The argument about the parliamentary timetable being the problem is now ridiculous. We are running out of Government business these days. Before we know it we shall be adjourning for a summer recess. I suggest that in view of that the Minister ought to keep his promise and bring this legislation in before the House rises for any summer recess. I say to him that if he tries to use the argument that the Prime Minister did not include it in the list of business which he announced on June 9 as the business for this part of the session, the answer is that whenever the Government comes along with something that was not in that list and somebody from the Tory front bench complains about it, some Minister in the Government gets up and says: "Read the second sentence of what the Prime Minister said"-namely that there might be emergencies. I suggest that keeping the Minister's promise is the kind of emergency which is covered in that sentence and that this legislation ought to be brought in before July 1.
There can hardly be an argument about the substance of this legislation. We fought the battle when we had debate on the Canada Labour Code. The point is to extend it to all the employees that federal law can cover. The Minister mentioned the other day that one feature only, namely the minimum wage, will apply to one part of the group, but this is not good enough in view of the fact that it is the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act itself that needs to be amended by July 1.
I would ask the Minister to do himself proud, to keep his promise, and to bring in this legislation before July 1.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there are three categories of employees involved in this situation. They are 22620-1781
DEBATES	2801
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion employees in federal industry covered by the Canada Labour Code, which comes into effect on July 1, 1965. The second category is direct employees of the Government of Canada. If I had more time I would deal with the four items covered in the Canada Labour Code respecting direct Government employees. I have searched Hansard very carefully for all the references the hon. Member was good enough to make available to me, as well as other references since we began discussing this matter, and all of the references to July 1, 1965 were directed exclusively to direct employees of the Government of Canada, to federal employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were directed to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was never at any particular time-and an examination will bear this out-a commitment to have this legislation enacted by July 1, 1965. I have always talked in this context about federal employees. Employees working for contractors doing federal jobs are not federal employees by any stretch of the imagination.
We shall have covered employees in federal industries and direct employees of the Government of Canada by July 1, 1965. We will complete this three-fold effort to improve basic working conditions by making the appropriate amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Last session in October I expressed the hope that these amendments would be completed, but we know what kind of session it was. There were times when I did not think we would get the Canada Labour Code through or the pension plan, let alone the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour amendments. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour amendments were forecast in the speech from the throne for this session and they will be completed at this session. I suggest to my hon. friend that if he carefully examines the Hansard record he will conclude, as I have done, that the only commitment with respect to July 1, 1965 was in connection with federal employees. At no time was there a commitment that the amendments would be completed by July 1, 1965, although I am as eager as my hon. friend to have them completed and would have had them completed last year had we had a different kind of session. However, that is now-part of history, and these amendments will be completed this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope this promise will be kept.
June 22, 1965
2802	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-TORONTO- PRODUCTION AND C.B.C. SHOWING OF SEX EXPLOITATION FILM

Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning I thought it advisable to ask this question of the Department of Justice:
Will the Department of Justice be taking any action against C.B.C. employees Ted Leversuch, John Cavall, Phil Styles, Peter Douett and John Ashley, who have recently aided Independent Film Artists Limited of Toronto in producing the sex orgy film "Room for a Stranger", at Lakeshore Studios in Toronto? Is not this sex exploitation film, which features Jean Christopher, currently appearing on the C.B.C. program "Nightcap" in violation of Section 150 of the Criminal Code?
When I asked that question I was invited to place it on the order paper. No reply was vouchsafed by the Department of Justice.
This film, which is known as a "stag film" in the trade, is described in a little publication "CINE World"-I suppose the emphasis is on "CIN"-but the name is "CINE World". This booklet describes the film "Room for a Stranger" as being distributed in the United States by a chap by the name of Sam Lake, "one of the foremost distributors of sex-exploitation pictures in the world". When I saw the pictures in this little magazine, which states that it is "devoted to the art of films and filming", I immediately thought of the Criminal Code and particularly section 150 which states in part:
Everyone commits an offence who
(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatsoever,-
The Code provides for a maximum sentence of two years in jail for anyone who is convicted under this section 150.
I knew there was no use asking a question in this House as to whether or not the C.B.C. had knowledge that it employed people who make these sex films after hours, because the answer would come back in 18 months, from the unsearchable depths in which the C.B.C. hides, that the C.B.C. has no knowledge of the picture in question and is, therefore, unable to give an answer. I thought, however, if it asked the Department of Justice I would get a straight, forthright answer, because that department is willing to express itself and does not shed its authority by stating it cannot answer for the actions of the R.C.M.P., or that it cannot answer for this organization or that organization. That department always gives answers; but no answer is ever forthcoming from the C.B.C.


I asked this question about this film because I could not believe it possible that the C.B.C., which produces these high quality films it is everlastingly advertising and talking about, which are much more high quality than any which can be produced by private T.V. stations, would employ such characters as produced this super picture. It is interesting to find that the characters that appear in this picture are of the very superior C.B.C. type.
After I asked the question on Friday morning, some newspapermen came around wanting to know whether I could tell them where to buy this little booklet. I told them I bought mine at the Book Cellar, located at the corner of Bay and Bloor Streets in Toronto. Someone asked: Are you accusing the C.B.C. of making this film? I said: I am not accusing the C.B.C. or anybody else of anything. I simply asked whether these people who made this sex exploitation film were going to be prosecuted under section 150 of the Criminal Code. I never mentioned the C.B.C. at all. All I did was to give the police, the Department of Justice and any other justice authorities interested in the problem, the addresses at which these people could be picked up if action should be taken. It was no concern of mine whether they were employed by the C.B.C. I just thought I might help the police officials by giving them the addresses at which these people could be found.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
The C.B.C. then rushed into the act and started to give answers in reply to questions I have never asked. I am not interested in their replies. In fact, they have even gone to the point of stating that they will issue a formal statement in reply to Mr. Cowan. Since Mr. Cowan did not ask them anything he is not interested in any formal reply.
But it is interesting that when I stated that the film was made by C.B.C. employees who were moonlighting, the C.B.C. issued a statement to the Toronto Globe and Mail denying that this picture was made on moonlighting time but saying that it was made on spare time of its employees. Somebody should take the C.B.C. aside some day and ask them what the difference is between moonlighting and a spare time occupation. The rest of us do not understand, but the C.B.C. draws some kind of distinction. I am not asking the C.B.C. any questions tonight. My question is whether the Department of Justice is going to take any action against these people.
June 22, 1965

Mr. Phil Styles, a C.B.C. employee, is listed as production manager of this sex exploitation film, "Room for a Stranger". The C.B.C. might answer this question. Does he have authority to declare C.B.C. sets surplus so they can be bought by the producers of private television films at knock-down prices? If he has authority to declare sets surplus and they are bought cheaply by other people, why are they not publicly advertised for sale so that we can get the highest possible price for C.B.C. sets?
But this is not the point on which I am seeking an answer tonight. I know this film is one of sex exploitation from the description in the little paper and the pictures I have seen. Miss Christopher has told the Globe and Mail that there is a definite plot in the picture. If hon. Members could see the pictures I have seen in CINE World and could see the eyes of the actor they would know there is a definite plot all right, but Miss Christopher does not give too much detail in that regard in her newspaper comment.
I simply ask the Department of Justice: Is any action being contemplated against these C.B.C. employees who in their spare time- the C.B.C. says they are not moonlighting- are making films which are described in CINE World as sex exploitation?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has brought before the House a matter of some considerable interest. Just to show the interest of all Members and others, may I say it is not very often that at this late hour we are blessed with the presence of very many members of the Press Gallery and I noticed that as the hon. Member was speaking a member of the press was standing up to look very closely at the material the hon. Member had in his hand.
I think the hon. Member probably realizes, as I am sure all other hon. Members of the House do, that the jurisdiction over these matters is divided between the federal and provincial governments. While it is this Parliament which has enacted the Criminal Code and the section with regard to obscene literature to which the hon. Member has referred, it is the function and jurisdiction of the provincial authorities and more particularly the local police authorities to take the action that may be indicated by any particular occurrence.
In direct answer to the hon. Member's question I must therefore say that the federal Department of Justice will not be taking
DEBATES	2803
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion action, except perhaps to pass on a copy of this very interesting debate to the police authorities of the City of Toronto so that they may carry on an investigation and decide whether or not a charge should be laid under section 150.



EXPO '67-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the Acting Prime Minister with regard to the financial participation of the federal Government in Expo '67. The Canadian people were informed by the Progressive Conservative Government that they would be committed to a grant of $20 million. We are now informed that this figure has spiralled to $64 million as at the end of this fiscal year and there appears to be every indication that the federal involvement will go well beyond $100 million before it is completed.
Furthermore, there is an estimated deficit of $60 million to be faced after the fair has run its course of which the federal Government's share will be 50 per cent or $30 million. If the deficit is to balloon out of all proportion, as the estimate of the cost of building the plant has, by some 70 per cent, surely the taxpayers of this nation have the right to know that the money which has already been committed and will continue to be committed by this Government is being spent in a proper manner. I believe the Canadian people also have a right to know how many of their tax dollars will be spent on this extravaganza before another day passes. There is only one way for the Government to provide the kind of assurance the Canadian people have a right to expect in this matter, and that is through an all party committee of the House of Commons which can act as a watchdog over the expenditures and make certain the nation does not end up with the biggest unexplained white elephant in our 100 year history.
It is my understanding the C.B.C. has involved itself in a multi-million dollar expenditure without the calling of tenders to determine the best price, or the luxury of even considering alternative bids from companies other than the one they chose to do their work. Surely this cannot be allowed to continue if we are to accept our responsibilities to the taxpayers of this nation. At the same time, this Government accomplishes nothing, in my view, by trying to give the
June 22, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion impression that questions should not be asked about this financial colossus, because it is associated with our 100th anniversary and is located in the Province of Quebec. We can look forward to being too poor to attend the World Fair in 1967 if this Las Vegas spirit of the present administration is allowed to continue unchecked. A parliamentary committee is the only protection the Canadian taxpayer has to the multi-million dollar blank cheque we apparently have written.


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: am glad to hear, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) is satisfied with the answer he got to his question No. 397. I understand, however, he is not pleased with the amounts mentioned in that answer. His annoyance may be due in part to his belief that a fixed amount of money had been assigned to Expo by the previous Government. He mentioned that. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. The Minister in charge of Expo at the time said that the necessary
amounts of money would be voted by parliament. At the time of the Conservative administration, it was not possible to tell how much Expo would cost.
The first administration of Expo '67 had no idea how much it was going to cost because the necessary inquiries had not been made. It is quite wrong, in my view, to say that a fixed sum of $20 million had been assigned as the cost of Expo '67. The hon. Member for Cumberland asked, I understand, that a special committee be appointed to examine into this question. There is the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and my Minister is eager to present his estimates to that committee. The officers of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition are very eager to come and answer all questions. When will that be done? I have a feeling that the Members of the House would not be willing to start on this job now, but I am quite sure they will be quite eager to do so in the fall.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Wednesday, June 23, 1965