1967-12-01

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for Ihe Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to clarify certain powers of the board; to provide for the appointment of two vice chairmen in lieu of one; to provide for an appeal division of the board; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting divorce, the grounds therefor, the jurisdiction of the courts, and for the appointment of certain persons qualified to sit and act as judges and for their remuneration while so acting and for certain other provisions in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On November 15, as recorded at page 4305 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Can the minister advise the house when he expects to announce the reduction in the spending estimates for 1967-68 which he has said he intends to make?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement both about the spending in this fiscal year and our plans for next year when I make the statement I promised to make in the house when I bring down my supplementary financial measures.
Since the minister did not make such a statement or give this information when he made his financial statement last night, I would ask whether he would make it available to members of parliament before Monday so that when the budget debate begins we can proceed in a useful manner having this very important information before us.
Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Finance)
Mr. Speaker, in my financial statement yesterday I made this statement, as reported at page 4903 of Hansard:
My colleague the President of the Treasury Board, who is in charge of this expenditure control program, will speak in the budget debate next week and give the house some of the detailed decisions on these cuts.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the budget debate is not particularly useful unless all the information that hon. members require to deal with it in a sensible fashion is available to them, and as the Minister of National Revenue may not speak until well on in the debate, would the minister consider my request to make this vitally important information available before the debate starts on Monday?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, this is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board, and I think he should make the statement.



RECOMMENDATIONS BY TAXATION COMMISSION RESPECTING DEPLETION ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['This will certainly be an aspect of the approach that we will be taking. I should point out to my hon. friend that the establishment of a United Nations force is something that depends not only on the action taken by the security council but on agreement made pursuant to the decision of the security council with the country on whose territory the force operates. I can assure my hon. friend that this question is very much in our minds.']
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On November 23, as recorded at page 4603 of Hansard, I put a question to him as follows:
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A few days ago the minister indicated that he intended to make an interim statement with reference to the extractive industries, petroleum and mining, in connection with the Carter commission report.

December 1, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Will he be making that statement now? He said he would be making it on his budget. I listened very attentively last night, like other hon. members, and I ask will he now be making that statement since he tailed to make it in his budget report last night.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all I intend to say at the present time about tax reform I said in my budget message yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary question, is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to make any statement in the near future in reference to depletion allowances and special concessions under the Income Tax Act in connection with those industries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker. When the government presents its proposals dealing with tax reform our intentions will then be revealed, but I have nothing to add to what I said in my statement last night.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the government house leader. Would he consider adjourning the house this afternoon so we can all attend the funeral of the late Carter report?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. ForrestalD.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I won't be able to attend.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the situation in Cyprus. I would ask the minister whether he can acquaint the house with the terms and conditions under which a settlement is being sought in that area and what response has been received from the three governments most intimately affected, namely the governments of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day, until final agreement has been reached I do not think it is possible to discuss the terms of the settlement. But it must

be evident that these include the position of forces on the island other than the forces supplied by the United Nations. The tension on the island has very considerably decreased. I continue to be hopeful for an early agreement in principle which will solve the immediate issue. This has to do with the withdrawal of forces other than those of the United Nations. However, there are at this moment certain problems which are still to be overcome at the United Nations and elsewhere to which the Secretary General a few moments ago advised me he is addressing himself in consultation with the countries concerned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that some time this month the United Nations will be discussing the renewal of the mandate in Cyprus, is the Canadian government insisting that in such a renewed mandate the commander of the United Nations forces will have sufficient forces to police the situation and prevent the build-up of military forces in contravention of the terms of the Zurich agreement?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This will certainly be an aspect of the approach that we will be taking. I should point out to my hon. friend that the establishment of a United Nations force is something that depends not only on the action taken by the security council but on agreement made pursuant to the decision of the security council with the country on whose territory the force operates. I can assure my hon. friend that this question is very much in our minds.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a follow up to questions asked yesterday which the minister said he would take under advisement, concerning the decision of the government to abolish the foreign service of the C.B.C. I sense a real concern on the part of many people who feel the C.B.C. has done a commendable job in this regard, and I wonder whether the minister has a statement he can make to the house today.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
December 1, 1967


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in dealing with this matter the government would not consider it appropriate in the interests of economy to prune on top the branches rather than cut down the whole tree?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No one ever disagrees with a generality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is argumentative.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he advise the house of the extent of the further lay-offs during the last day or two in the investigative and security sections of the C.N.R.?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: I will be very glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can inform the house what is the position of the two Canadians, to whom reference has been made previously, who were imprisoned and held incommunicado for some months in Rangoon. I understand they are coming up for sentence today. What is the actual position, and what is the hon. gentleman's department doing to protect their interests?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Sfale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my information is that they have had their trial and that they were sentenced yesterday. I may be wrong, but I think they were sentenced to something like eight or nine months. I have sent instructions to our ambassador for a full report. He has seen the prisoners and will be reporting to me later today, and if I have the
Inquiries of the Ministry information before the end of the day I will advise my hon. friend. We have already been in touch with the parents.


Mr. Fullon:: Will the hon. minister consider using his undoubted good offices with the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, with whom the hon. gentleman is on very good terms, to see whether he can exert some influence in respect of the protection of these Canadians.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure my hon. friend, who has had considerable experience in the administration of justice, will recognize that there is a limitation in respect of the right of a country to interfere in the administration of justice in another country unless there are some special circumstances. We are now examining those special circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Were the parties in question properly represented by counsel, so their rights were put properly before the court in question?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Whether they were properly represented I cannot say, but they were represented by counsel. The Canadian government is interested in this aspect of the case. If my hon. friend had been in Burma I would have utilized his services.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there is not a rule that you do not serve a sentence in a mixed jail.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I will have to give that question consideration.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I have a supplementary
request, Mr. Speaker. Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the same subject. Where is our Canadian ambassador stationed who has been in touch with the two Canadians who have been imprisoned, and why were we dependent upon the British high commissioner in Malaysia for information with

December 1, 19G7
Inquiries of the Ministry
regard to these two gentlemen? Have we not Mr. Nicholson: I will have to take the extracted ourselves from our colonial period? question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I do not know of any country that has moved away as quickly and as solidly from colonial status as has Canada. I am surprised that so distinguished a parliamentarian and historian of our affairs would put that kind of a question. Our high commissioner in Malaysia is accredited as ambassador in Burma. He is not normally resident in Burma but, as I said in the house three days ago when my hon. friend was absorbed elsewhere, he went to Burma to deal with this matter.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I regret that I did not have time to give him notice. Has the minister received a protest from approximately 4,400 shop men employed at the Canadian Pacific Railway's Angus, Weston and Ogden shops regarding a notification from the C.P.R. that they will be temporarily laid off for the period December 22 to January 2? If the minister has received such a protest, does he intend to intervene?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been drawn to my personal attention. I might say that I have been tied up continuously since early this morning on another matter, but I will inquire.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I wish to ask him whether he has received a request from the national association of machinists urging that the minister appoint an industrial inquiry commission to investigate the dispute with Air Canada in Montreal. If so, will the minister be appointing such a commission?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman inquiring about an industrial inquiry commission or a conciliation board?


David Orlikow: My question referred to an industrial inquiry commission.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that he has stated several times that he would introduce a comprehensive bill to amend the Criminal Code, particularly as far as divorce and possibly abortion are concerned, could he inform the house whether he intends to introduce separate bills on divorce and on abortion so as to enable each member to express his opinions freely on these important questions.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Jusiice: Mr. Speaker, the bill on divorce will be a separate bill. In fact, if the member refers to the current orders of the day, he will find that the notice of motion is being published.
As for the other questions concerning the Criminal Code, they will be included in a comprehensive bill, an omnibus bill which I think will be introduced very shortly.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO ACTION BY CABINET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, while I realize that this period is generally for the opposition, when I asked a question of a member of the cabinet in private he answered by suggesting that I ask it in the House of Commons. I thought you might like to know that. I have a question for the Minister of Justice, who is not the member to whom I referred. I should like to ask him whether the cabinet has taken any action whatsoever with regard to the Leo Landreville matter, which is of some concern to many people in this country.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has not taken action to grant a pension to Judge Landreville.
December 1, 1967



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question, particularly this week, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the man in charge of the Atlantic Development Board. In view of meetings of this board held in Ottawa early this week, and the slight degree of optimism on the part of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech last night about future expenditures there, can the minister say whether there will be any new plans or legislation announced in the near future? If so, what will they be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to announce any new legislation at the present time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister hopeful that we can do something to straighten out our problems there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
ask the minister whether the report is correct that there will be no cut-back in the funds available to the Atlantic Development Board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Development Board has had considerable resources at its disposal. We expect that in the next year it will have considerable resources to assist the economy of the Atlantic provinces.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the United States-Canada auto agreement must be reviewed by the two governments concerned before the end of this month, has the review begun and, if not, what is the reason for the delay?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the review is to commence very shortly in Washington.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry. Do I take it that the United States authorities have now agreed to meet with their Canadian counterparts and conduct this review, and that this is something that had not happened two weeks ago?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It did not happen two weeks ago because I think the difficulty was in arranging a suitable date rather than any other reason.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister when it is anticipated that this review will be completed; and will the results of the review be made public?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We hope to complete the review some time early in the new year. The results will of course be made public.



COPPER-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week when Noranda Mines announced an increase of 4 cents a pound in the price of copper the minister answered a question on this matter and promised to look into the increase. The other day International Nickel announced a similar increase. I wonder whether the minister has looked into this matter and has anything to report to the house.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and said the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I were both looking into all these increases.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday when referring to various cut-backs proposed by the government the minister let it be known that the expenditures of municipalities had not slowed down in the past ten years. Is it the intention of the minister to apply this austerity program to the extent of also slowing

December 1, 1967
Inquiries of Ministry
down winter works projects in the municipalities ior the coming year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, any announcements about the winter works program will be made by the appropriate minister.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. In view of the critical situation in our shipyards on the west coast, particularly in the Victoria area where employment has dropped from 2,700 to 700 in the last five years, is the minister considering any measures to assist this industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. gentleman is aware, a scheme of transitional arrangements in respect of the west coast shipyards was agreed upon some two years ago between the federal government and the ship construction industry. This program is continuing.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister pursuing every angle with regard to the costsharing program with the United States to have some United States ships built in the shipyards of British Columbia?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, we are pursuing this actively. I think the hon. gentleman will be aware that there is some reluctance on the part of the government of the United States to have contracts carried out in Canadian shipyards for the construction of ships to be owned by the United States government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on November 10, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he could inform the house how successful the Canada savings bond campaign had been in comparison with former years, and particularly how much new money he estimated would come in from this source. He stated he would give that information when he presented his supplementary budget. As he did not do so last night I wonder whether he will do so now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I overlooked this request when I was preparing my budget statement. A public statement has been made about this, though perhaps it does not answer all the questions asked by my hon. friend. I will look into the matter to see whether I can give him a full statement.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In his search for income I wonder whether he would consider minting next year, for collectors' purposes, a silver dollar?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is very urgent. It should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would he consider striking a wooden nickel to commemorate his centennial budget?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: If it would give us any additional revenue, I think I would.



INQUIRY AS TO IMPOSITION OF TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether in his search for additional federal revenue serious consideration is being given to the institution of a capital gains tax, as this unearned increment is not yet taxable in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the capital gains tax, like all other proposed taxes, is under consideration in connection with tax reforms. I should just like to add, because there may be some misunderstanding about it, that even if a capital gains tax were to be introduced it would not produce appreciable revenues for some time to come.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour in charge of housing. In view of the refusal of the government to allow members
December 1, 1967

of parliament to be delegates or observers at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on housing and urban development, and in view of the tabling of the working papers by the minister last Friday, would the minister consider referring those working papers to the standing committee on housing and urban development for study and report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the statement by the hon. member. There has been no indication by the government that members of parliament would not be permitted to attend this conference as observers. No such decision has yet been made. The Acting Prime Minister has asked the provincial governments whether they would be prepared to open at least part of this conference so that members of parliament could attend as observers and we are awaiting their replies.
With regard to the second part of the question, the answer is that we are not disposed to refer the matter to a committee of the house at least until after the meeting on December 11, which after all is only a little over a week away.



REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF BILL RESPECTING QUORUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In view of what happens sometimes when there are not many members in the house, would the minister consider asking the house to refer to the special committee on procedure, perhaps at five o'clock today, the subject matter of my bill calling for a larger quorum?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then be it on your own head.



NATIONAL MUSEUMS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill
Administration of all National Museums No. S-2, to establish a corporation for the administration of the national museums of Canada.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, last evening I mentioned there was a totem pole restoration program in existence in British Columbia, and I thought it might be an appropriate opportunity for the federal government, through the corporation or through one of the museums under federal government authority, to participate in that restoration program and in effect establish a sort of museum on site, the site being the location of the original totems of various tribes on the west coast.
The contribution made to art by the west coast tribes has been tremendous and prolific. Unfortunately a great many of the works of art of the people of the west coast have found their way into collections and museums in other parts of the world. In fact I heard that a few years ago the national museum spent some $40,000, though I am not quite certain this is the exact figure, to purchase a collection of masks and other carvings which were the property of Lord Blossom.
This year the Vancouver Art Gallery exhibited a collection of works of art of the west coast tribes as a centennial project. It is as beautiful a collection as I have ever seen assembled in Canada. However, in order to assemble the works for this particular showing it was necessary for those who contributed to it, and particularly for Bill Reid who is an artist of high quality especially in gold and silver carvings, to travel quite extensively to museums in the United States in order to ask permission to get back for the purpose of that particular showing some of the works that these museums had lent. As I said, I think it was one of the finest collections that has ever been seen in Canada.
The works of a very prolific and highly gifted artist of the Haida people, Charles Edenshaw, were also there. They were indescribably beautiful carvings in black and red on silver, bone and wood. I was there the day the late Charles Edenshaw's daughter, Mrs. Emily White-a grand, elderly lady now-came down from Grimshaw to see the works of her father assembled and on display. Everyone who went through the art gallery in Vancouver this year was amazed at the beauty of the totem collection there.
The point I have been trying to make is that on many occasions in the past not too
4932	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums great an interest has been shown in preserving or retaining the works of art of the west coast Indian tribes, and as a consequence they have found their way into other hands and into other collections and museums all over the world. Perhaps there will be no further opportunity to collect the materials and the works of art of the past because most of them have either been placed in museums, have been allowed to rot on the site, or have been lost.
However, in the last couple of years a group of anthropologists and archaeologists working under the national museum have visited certain areas on the west coast together with some officials of the provincial government, to search through and dig amongst the sites of the villages which existed in those areas in the past in an attempt to discover in greater detail some of the history of our native tribes. I think this might be a function of the museums which could be expanded.
There are a few provisions in the bill before us on which I would like some clarification. First of all I should like to know whether it will be permissible under the act for the museums to loan their works of art to local community museums or to provincial museums. I should also like to ask whether provision would be made under the bill for travelling exhibits. Both these measures would meet with approval because, particularly in this centennial year, increased interest has been shown in the establishment of museums as centennial projects.
A number of these have been opened in my area, and a couple of them which were previously in existence have concentrated to a large degree upon the collection and display of native Indian art objects. I think it would be of tremendous value if in addition to any of the collections and exhibits they now have, they could borrow from time to time some particularly fine works of art to display to the people who visit these areas and who may not have an opportunity to visit any of the national museums or see any of the travelling exhibits.
There is a provision in the bill which states that the Surplus Crown Assets Act shall not apply to the corporation. I assume this means it will not be possible for the museums to declare as surplus any of the exhibits they have, and thus they will not be able to dispose of them through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. If my impression is correct I think this is a commendable feature of the bill.

DEBATES	December 1, 1967
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
However, there is a provision in the bill which permits the disposal of objects in collections by sale, exchange or gift. I think the opportunity provided for this body to give away objects that a museum may have in its possession, even though there is a the saving feature that this should only be done when in opinion of the directors of the museum the objects have no further use or value, needs some clarification. Unless there is some balancing provision this might be an awkward feature to include in a bill of this nature, or an awkward authority to give the directors of the museum.
*With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will close and look forward to the minister dealing with these items in her closing remarks or perhaps at some stage in the committee consideration of the bill.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words in support of the plea of the hon. member for Carleton that this bill go to committee. I know the minister has already declined this request, but I feel it would have been useful to hear from the directors presently involved in the administration of the several museums this bill seeks to incorporate, and to have their very learned reaction to the principle of the bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are not able to call upon this expertise when we are dealing with a measure in the house. It was the late John F. Kennedy who said that of those to whom much is given, much is required. In our time, not only in our centennial year but within our time in history, a great deal has been given to our people. There has been an accumulation of a great deal of history in the arts and sciences that is well worth preserving.
Though in our centennial year we have not been able to achieve the establishment of a national museum building, which I am sure all members deplore along with the minister, I am confident that in the not too distant future there will be a fine museum which will be a credit to our country. I am worried, however, that when the high court of history sits in judgment on us with regard to the way in which during our brief span of history we have fulfilled our responsibilities to the nation, this measure may not be regarded as fulfilling those responsibilities for building and housing in a museum those things that need to be preserved.
After all, in our short span of existence as a country we have seen the change from the
December 1, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4933
horse and buggy to the automobile, and then to travel in the space age. We have seen the disappearance of steam power, the development of electrical energy and now nuclear energy. We have witnessed wave after wave of immigration which has added to the multicultural basis of our nation about which we like to boast. We have seen the slow flowering of the arts and sciences, and witnessed the halting advance of democracy in social concerns.
Somewhere these developments should be adequately recorded so that future generations may come to see them. I am just wondering whether the manner in which we are dealing with this very important question, namely by incorporating these museums under one crown corporation, will achieve those things we desire to achieve through this bill. My question simply is, would the minister reconsider the request to send this measure to a committee?


Edward Nasserden: 
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speakers I shall try to be brief in my remarks on this bill. I support the plea the hon. member for Carleton made last night. I thought his point was well taken. I support it, not because the other place may not have reviewed this matter in sufficient depth but because there are areas of concern in the broad concept of this bill that ought to be properly aired. We ought to do something to make our great paintings, sculptures and other works of art more readily available to all our people. For that reason I join with the hon. member for Carleton and others who have urged the minister to refer this bill to a committee of this house, or to a joint committee, for further consideration.
December 1, 1967
4934	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums
Mainly I want to say this. I shall propose an amendment to the bill. Though it is a slight amendment it will, if adopted, enable our youth to benefit more than they now benefit from the art objects we have collected and that we shall collect as the years go by. Our universities at the present time are embarked on the greatest expansion in our country's history. That expansion has not yet ended. Our universities are erecting wonderful, fireproof, air conditioned and sprinkler protected buildings, and perhaps we are missing a good bet by not using these buildings for art shows.
That has been proposed but not spelled out in detail. The clause that gives the corporation authority to sponsor and assist travelling shows is good, but vague. I should like the bill to say specifically that the major universities of our country may be regarded as museums of Canada. Perhaps that provision might be narrowed to refer to the libraries that are being built on our campuses.
Hon. members may have noticed that in the last three or four years wonderful new libraries have been built on our campuses, and these libraries have ample space at their entrances to accommodate art shows. The buildings are fireproof, and almost always security guards are present. If we want our young people to be exposed to art I suggest that by using the libraries on campuses for art shows we could bring about that result.
A major obstacle in the past to such art shows has been cost. Most universities from time to time hold an art show, usually somebody's collection, but most universities have not had the money to keep changing their art shows. As I say, most of them have neither the finances nor an adequate security staff for this. Perhaps if there were precise authority for this in the bill our major universities might have revolving art shows; the shows might be changed every six months, say, or once a year, and our undergraduates passing through university would have an opportunity to be exposed once or twice a year, throughout their university careers, to many art treasures. Throughout a university career an undergraduate might see 200 or 300 art treasures. The universities have the space for these shows, and that space is not being used except occasionally.
Unless our young people go out of their way in places like Ottawa to see art treasures, or unless they see the odd travelling art show, they have little opportunity to be exposed to our culture. They do not see what Canadian talent has produced in the past or


what the talented artists of this world have produced over the last 1,000 years. That is wrong. Understandably in the past, because libraries in universities were not fireproof or as well protected as they are today, the authorities in Ottawa felt reluctant about letting art treasures leave the vaults of Ottawa. Now, with more modern buildings on our campuses, buildings that are well protected against fire and other risks, perhaps consideration might be given to releasing art treasures to be shown in them. I commend that course of action to the minister. I should like to see in this country the best art museums in the world. I hope the minister will give consideration to my suggestion and incorporate the appropriate wording in the bill.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister last evening, and I agree with many of her remarks. She said we were experiencing a renaissance in the field of museums and art galleries in Canada. I agree with that. I am sure that all across this country federal participation in centennial projects, especially projects under which art galleries and museums have been erected, has been appreciated. That participation has been a factor in the renaissance. I congratulate the national gallery and its director, through the minister, for the two outstanding centennial exhibitions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: The 300 years of Canadian art exhibition in itself was an education for any Canadians seeing it. Equally good is the present exhibition, which blends Canadian history and artistic development. I commend it to any member who has not been to the gallery to see it.
[DOT] (12 noon)
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand the provision in the bill that places all the museums and the national gallery in the charge of one over-all organization. The minister stated last night that this move would save money. I doubt that very much. If any change is to be made in relation to art or the national gallery or the museum, then saving money should be the last consideration. If we wanted to save money at the expense of a very important area of our national development then we would not have a gallery, and we would likely not have some of the museums either. The gallery will cost money, and I anticipate that if we want to continue our development
December I, 1S67

it will cost us even more money. The problem is really one of education and enthusiastic salesmanship to justify a most important expenditure in the development of the country.
I was wandering whether the minister was not overly impressed by the United States pavilion at Expo, which managed to combine in a very light-hearted fashion the most recent developments in science along with some of the most recent, if startling, developments in art. The problem is that we are moving into an era of austerity, the end of which is not yet in sight. It is an era of austerity of which we were fully reminded last night when we listened to the Minister of Finance presenting his budget to the house.
I suggest that if the visitors from the United States to the U.S. pavilion at Expo had been polled on their view as to which exhibits in time of austerity should be cut out, as between the scientific displays and the displays of modern art, there would be no doubt in anybody's mind what the answer would be and which exhibits in the pavilion would first fall victim to any austerity drive.
The hon. member for Rosthern raised a most important point, but I would not for a moment agree with what he said. I would not accept the hon. member for Rosthern as an art critic for a single minute. However, he did point out that when it comes to art there is a great divergence of opinion. We do accept the possibility of there being bad art. However, we do not accept the possibility of bad science; there is no such thing at the moment. All scientific endeavour as such is sacred and good and we can justify almost any expense if it is based on scientific advance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when one reads the bill and finds that the credit balances in the national gallery purchase account are going to be moved over to the national museum's purchase account, one wonders how the division is going to be made between the conflicting demands of art through the gallery and those of science through the science museum or the museum of natural history or any of the projected museums of the future. Certainly great expenditure will be required over the next few years to construct several new national museums. However, as I say, how do you arbitrate the conflicting claims of the national gallery and the national museum? It may be that the minister would like the budget of the national gallery to be buried in the budget for science and for
Administration of all National Museums museums so the public could no longer distinguish between the funds allocated to one or the other.
I hope this is not going to be the case, Mr. Speaker, and that such a step would be considered a sort of doctrine of despair. Surely we in Canada can develop an appreciation of art and its place in society. I hope the national gallery will be allowed to exist as a separate entity and to have a separate budget. I hope its value will be fully appreciated, and in the long run I feel this would be the better course.
I do not think the minister gave us sufficient explanation last evening of the thinking that prompts the change proposed by this bill. Other hon. members have pointed out the dangers that are there, and I hope that before the bill is passed the minister will give a further explanation, or that the bill will be referred to a committee. In the latter case we could hear from the director of the national gallery and learn whether she is fully satisfied that this measure will not constrict the developement of that most important part of our culture.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing I should say is that it should be suggested to the hon. member for Rosthern that he grow a beard so he can join that category of art critic just mentioned by the previous speaker.
My purpose in rising is to support the suggestion made by my colleague from Halifax in relation to transporting some of our national treasures to other parts of the country so they can command as wide an audience as possible. We all realize that not everyone has the opportunity to come to Ottawa.
At this point I should like to give the minister full credit for the many activities of our centennial celebrations. I think she truly deserves many times over the applause and thanks of those of us in this house for her efforts. One of the brightest features of our centennial year was the centennial train and the centennial caravans, which attracted audiences of tens of thousands everywhere they went. My colleague suggested making certain exhibits available to the universities of Canada, and this method would be one way of doing this. I think this is a worthwhile idea that should be followed up by the minister and the administrators of the corporation that we are going to establish.
4936	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums [DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Another possibility that might be considered if funds ever again become available from the government is to use the centennial train and centennial caravan approach so that at selected periods specific segments of artifacts and other exhibits gathered by these museums could be displayed to as many people as possible. If we cannot bring the people to Ottawa to see these treasures, let us take some of them to the people of Canada from time to time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is the type of bill which I think should not go through the house in iust five or ten minutes but on the other hand it should not be very much delayed. The only reason I am speaking on it is a certain experience I had 20 years ago when, as a new and rather brash member of the Manitoba legislature, I drew to the attention of that august assembly the importance of the museum which is situated in the city of Winnipeg. This had satisfactory results. It stirred up interest on the part of the provincial legislators and encouraged those people who were dedicating their efforts to the advancement of the museum.
Similarly now, I do not think it is a bad thing for parliament to indicate that its members have a real interest in the museums of our country and in our national art gallery. We can hastily pass legislation without comment, but if we do that with this legislation those who work in the museums and art gallery cannot be certain whether it is due to a careless indifference on the part of members or whether parliament has an active interest which it has not expressed. By speaking today I would like to display my active interest in our art gallery and museums, as the minister displayed her interest last night. Parliament as a whole, representing the people of this country, will show that interest by our recording in Hansard our appreciation of the work of those who have been operating and maintaining our museums and of those who have supported this effort. Over the last 20 years I have seen a great upsurge of interest in the history and records of this country as portrayed in our museums. This is all to the good. It is one of the means by which we establish our Canadian identity.
I was quite impressed with the minister's remarks last night. Her interest in these fields is intense. I was also impressed with

DEBATES	December 1, 1967
the remarks of my very learned and distinguished colleague from Carleton, who drew attention to the exciting history of Canada, a history which I fully agree is exciting. The more we bring it to the attention of our young people the better it will be for Canada as a whole. This has happened during the last few years, and particularly during centennial year. One of the finest things to emerge from centennial year is the interest across Canada, in small places and in large, in Canada's wonderful history.
I recall my own keen interest as a student and young man in museums. I recall my first visit to the great city of Toronto many years ago. The first place I visited there was the museum. I was more than impressed and my knowledge of the world was enlarged by the exhibitions there. I have always had an interest in these matters and I express that interest today.
With regard to the bill I entertain some doubts that this is the best method of going about the work of the art gallery and the museums. As members have said, there is a sharp difference between an art gallery and a museum. A museum shows things from the past and the record of past events. It displays scientific and archaeological records. An art gallery has a different approach and a different appeal.
I am one of those who can appreciate a painting by Constable, but for the life of me I cannot understand some of the modem art which is placed before my eyes. So I cannot be a judge. I do not feel I am capable of making a judgment with regard to art other than that I like something and dislike something else.
I think that bringing the art gallery and the museums under the terms of one bill may be a mistake. If it is being done just for financial reasons then I think members were justified in asking for the bill to be referred to a committee prior to passage in order to determine whether or not this is wise. However, 1 understand the minister prefers not to do that. Consequently we will have to get on with the bill and hope for the best in the future. In any event these reservations have now been placed before the house.
I think that the general attention to our art galleries and museums is good. As I say, it is right that parliament should pay some attention to them. It is right that we should vote money for these purposes. All we can hope for is that their administration will be effective so that the people of Canada at large
December 1, 1987

will benefit from these marks of an advanced civilization. It is only the higher civilizations that maintain such records of their histories and traditions. I conclude by saying that I support the bill, with the reservations that have been expressed so clearly by my colleague from Carleton.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few brief words on the bill. First of all, I congratulate the minister for introducing it. I think that over all it is good legislation. However, there are one or two points about it which disturb me to some extent. The first concerns clause 13(b) which calls for the establishment of advisory committees consisting of members of the board or persons other than members or both. If permission is to be granted for the establishing of advisory committees, I would prefer that the appointees be separate from the board. I do not like the idea of mixing the two functions.
I recommend to the minister that the appropriate form should be as enacted in section 14 of the act to provide for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation, passed by this house in February, 1967. That section reads as follows:
The minister may, on the recommendation of the corporation, appoint an advisory group broadly representative of the professional associations, exhibitors, distributors and unions in the Canadian film industry and including other qualified persons, to advise the corporation on matters which the minister or the corporation may refer to it.
I would suggest that this is a better example of how to go about forming advisory committees.
The other point I wish to bring to the attention of the house is that this bill was the cause of the resignation of the director of the human history section of the national museum, Dr. Richard Glover. I wish to quote briefly from Dr. Glover's statement, published in the Ottawa Journal of April 24, 1967. This is part of what he said:
-the act does not give directors complete charge of the professional business of their museums. Instead, it leaves a new and as yet unappointed board of trustees to make by-laws prescribing what each museum director's authority shall be: and the directors will be able to do only those things which the trustees may see fit to assign to them. All business not so assigned is given to a new officer called a secretary-general. Here the act falls sadly short of the government's professed purpose.
Worse follows. Another clause empowers the board of trustees to appoint consultative committees, which are to be composed "of professional people to advise it," as the Senate was told. I acknowledge that committees may from time to
Administration of all National Museums time make useful recommendations on broad general policy; and that directors themselves may sometime welcome the help of advisory committees of their own. But these consultative committees of professional people reporting to the board on professional matters are quite another tiling.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The meaning of this clause, as explained by the government's spokesman in the Senate, is that the trustees may expect professional advice on the museums' programs from two different sources- their consultative committees on the one hand and the museum's own experienced and highly professional staff on the other. But advice from two different sources often differs and the prospects of conflict, friction and unrest which this clause opens up are as obvious as they are deplorable.
When a person of the stature of Dr. Glover resigns on grounds of principle involving what I just read and in addition the fact that the government has cut back on the construction of new museum buildings, I think the matter should be gone into a little more carefully. I do not believe his protestations should be dismissed without some consideration having been given to them. I recognize that there are problems in this regard but I should like to suggest to the minister that this bill be referred to a committee after second reading in order that we may go into some of these aspects.


Mr. Deputy  Sepaker@: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Does the minister intend to make any comment?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, on second reading some very serious matters were discussed by a number of members of the house. Surely the committee is entitled now to the courtesy of having from the minister some comment on the matters which have been raised.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to comment on the various matters when we reach the clauses in question. If the hon. member wishes me to comment on the matter of the bill being referred to a committee, I can only say that I have full faith in the members in this chamber being able to give it full study following the study it was given in the other place. The committee which normally would be asked to study it, if it were referred, would be the committee on
4938	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. At the moment that committee is dealing with the broadcasting bill which it is hoped will be reported back to the house before the end of the month. It also has to deal with the matter of e.t.v. which has just been referred to it. It certainly appears that that committee will have plenty of work at least until the end of this session. That was one of the considerations in having this bill go before the banking committee in the other place for study in the first instance.
I should like to thank hon. members in a general way for the remarks they have made with regard to the personnel of the museums.
I forgot to say that all are now Canadian citizens.


Mr, Herridge:: Good.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: All the directors have recently been appointed. Dr. Boggs is the director of the National Gallery. I believe she has brought a really new spirit of excitement to the gallery and to its work. She was appointed within the past two years. Dr. Ban-field was appointed in February, 1964. Dr. Taylor was appointed this year and Dr. Baird was appointed in October, 1966. All these people are young, vigorous and interested in their work. They are highly qualified specialists. The interesting thing is that these people are civil servants. They are appointed under that act and are not at the moment in the capacity of some of our appointees as public servants. That has been one of the criticisms often made of the situation in the past. Of course, it leads to a problem when one is looking for the very best persons to appoint to the various directorships.
I believe Canada can rejoice in the fact that, as it so happened, within a year or so before centennial year these exciting and vigorous young personalities were taken on as directors of our national museums. Indeed they are national museums. If hon. members will look at the terms of the bill and think for a moment of museums as they know them, such as the museum of natural history, the museum of natural science and a museum which now is included along with the others, the new air museum, and then look at them from the point of view of what we understand as a classical art gallery, they will find that the words apply in each case and that while many people think of the galleries as being separate they are in fact not. As a matter of fact the association of directors of galleries is known as the association of museum directors. As you know, some

DEBATES	December 1, 1987
of the great museums of the world, including the one in Montreal, are known as museums of art and not galleries of art. This is because they are in fact collections of treasures.
It may cost the better part of $1 million to collect a treasure for the art museum and perhaps only $10,000 to collect an old railway car for the science museum. Yet some of the exhibits in the science museum are unique, irreplaceable and without any limit to their value. I think the concern of people who are particularly interested in one or the other of the museums, including the galleries, is that if you put them all together and have one general account either the science people, the art gallery people or somebody else will get more money. This has been very prominent concern of the directors as well. However, in each case the directors will run their institution and will prepare their budgets every year. These will be put together as a whole budget and the money parliament votes will be distributed in the amounts budgeted for. While this is something which should be watched it has not been contemplated, nor should members be concerned, that the directors will not be very alert to the fact that their portion of the money in the non-lapsing fund is there for their expenditure.
I should like particularly to thank the hon. member for Skeena for telling the chamber about the reconstruction of the west coast Haida totems and for his very interesting suggestion of making an on site museum. I had not appreciated that this was taking place in some parts of British Columbia. Indeed, I had thought that perhaps the only permanent record we would have of totems in their place would be the paintings of Emily Carr. Certainly this is a most interesting thought which I will be happy to pass on to the appropriate officials and even the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is responsible for historic sites. I had never heard of any other place in North America where there still are totems in their original position which can be restored and viewed. I think that this is a national heritage which we should have for a long time in the future.
I should like also to comment on the "Arts of the Raven" show which was mentioned. My own personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that this is one of the most superb shows I have ever seen. Anyone who missed it in Vancouver this year in its four or five month run really missed a Canadian show
December 1, 1967

which cannot ever be replaced. As hon. members will realize, when we talk about travelling exhibits and sending out national treasures more and more, whether they relate to libraries or new cultural centres, it should be remembered that there is always a toll on the treasures as a result of the travelling. We were told in respect of the "Arts of the Raven" show that this is the last time any of these treasures will ever be lent for exhibition because of the fact that, unavoidably, the treasures become damaged in travelling. I think the national gallery and the museums have long been devotees of travelling exhibits and assistance to other museums. As you will see in the bill, there is provision for that to continue.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Rosthern suggested that there has been a decline in values and that we should only purchase things of value. No one could agree with him more in that regard than I, but that does not mean that we cannot buy contemporary works for both the museum and the gallery. It is all right for me to propose a $6 million purchase of a Leonardo da Vinci. I can propose it even though I do not get the money because obviously such a painting has stood the test of time and nobody could question its value, particularly since someone turned around and paid the same price for it when we would not. Surely we do not have to wait until someone has been dead 300 or 700 years to say that the value of his work is something we should accept. If that were the case we would never be able to purchase anything because we cannot seem to get the initial $6 million purchase under way.
Certainly with the current financial situation there is not going to be as much money as I should like to see added to the cultural field to carry on and expand, but I should like to undertake to the house that there is going to be no greater cut on the cultural side of life than there will be elsewhere. This is not going to be the first place where all the meat is picked from the bones, and I will defend this as a mother cat defends her kittens.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear that, Richard?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The gallery has put on two superb shows this year, and I commend the current one, the pageant of Canada, to hon. members if they have not yet had the opportunity of seeing it. It is a rich reminder of
Administration of all National Museums our heritage on both sides of the two founding races. It is a particularly beautiful show. The gallery should also be commended for the fact that it was responsible for the superlative show put together at Expo. I think the world has never seen anything just like that particular collection which, unfortunately, is no longer with us.
Each of the people who are now responsible for our national museums has new ideas. Some of these ideas developed from Expo and the centennial celebrations. Nowadays things are not exhibited in a static way but in such a way that things move, make sounds, breathe, smell and involve in some way the person who comes to watch and listen. If members have not seen the new science exhibits in the new science museum opened for Dr. Baird two or three weeks ago may I commend that to them as well. After tomorrow's festivities visitors may find that they are in need of a more restful place and I suggest to hon. members that they take those visitors and friends to the science museum for an hour or two where they can at least recover from their sentiments regarding the game.
I hope I have answered most of hon. members questions. There was one other as to why the gallery is included. I have tried to explain the situation. The directors will rim the gallery. They are the experts and they are there because of their learning and erudition in their particular fields. They are not there because they are good administrators. It is not necessarily true that the best person in a creative field makes the best administrator. We want the best administrator to take all the paper work off their hands, and he will be appointed as the person to do that. The directors will run their own affairs.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggested that a director resigned after examining this bill. That may be the case but I do not know. I read the same clippings but I was never asked for an interview by the gentleman in question, and I am not sure I ever met him before he resigned. I was certainly under the impression that his resignation was due to a number of internal matters in the museum and, most importantly, because of his very sharp, and I think warranted, disappointment that it was necessary once again to postpone the construction of a new museum building. We have lots of priorities in the national capital and I agree that there are many which may be higher on the list than a national museum. I think all hon. members will realize the loss of morale
December 1, 1967
4940	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums and sharp disappointment which occurred as a result of the postponement in replacing the building that once housed this chamber during the emergency created by a fire in the parliament buildings. It is still being used as the museum building, but many of us who walk into it are afraid it may be a firetrap and of danger to the children and people who visit it. Imagine how much worse the disappointment has been for the people who are working in that building and who keep hearing promises of a new building to work in with better working conditions. After all, it is not just for those who work there but for the people of Canada. They are disappointed that once again the construction of a new museum has been postponed.
There is no one more unhappy about the postponement of the construction of a new museum than the museum people themselves, and I should like to pledge to the house and to them that as fast as we can get a new museum we will get one. We will also have display places downtown so people who come to the national capital will have the opportunity to see some of the national treasures there at their convenience.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sympathetic to the minister's disappointment in this regard. While the Minister of National Defence is in the house, will the minister indicate the position of priorities in respect of the museum and that great stone monument, the national defence building?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not answer for the Department of National Defence or my colleague. Both of us have to fight our own battles with the Minister of Public Works and so far my colleague has been doing better than I.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: As a matter of record, I should say in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the monumental project for national defence, as he called it, has also been postponed.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Secretary of State has really come to grips with the chief reservation in relation to this bill which some members of the house have. I refer to whether the national gallery ought to be part of this whole corporation or should be separate. The minister so far as I am concerned has been less than her usual persuasive self in dealing with this issue. Virtually all she has said is that repositories of art in every part of the world as well as in Canada are frequently known as museums.


Some of the great galleries in the world carry the name "museum", such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York.
The concern here is that the gallery will become subdued and take a secondary position without its own board of directors. I do not believe it will be possible with a board of 12 members to have a genuinely representative group of Canadians who are interested in the field of art. It may be possible to have three directors of the new corporation especially interested in art but I doubt very much that we will get more. I doubt very much that such persons who have made a great contribution to the gallery, like Mrs. H. A. Dyde, Mrs. Hugh Mackay and others, would accept an appointment to directorship of an organization which was going to be dealing with a broad field including the national aviation museum and the national war museum as well as scientific, natural and human history. I doubt also that the present chairman of the national gallery would accept an appointment to such a board, and I doubt that such distinguished Canadians as John MacAulay and Colonel Sidney Oland, both of whom have made a fine contribution and brought representative character to the gallery, would accept such an appointment.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
We may lose in this situation, and if we do the gallery will take in the long haul a less significant role in this field and will become subdued in relation to the science and other museums. That is my concern. I have expressed it and the minister appears to be adamant. Time alone will tell whether the minister is right or whether those of us who have reservations are justified in having such reservations.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind remarks of the minister in regard to some of the matters I raised. Just so there is no misdirection with respect to the totem pole restoration program to which I referred, I should like to say a word or two on this subject. I understood the minister to say that I referred to Haida poles. This is not so. The totem pole restoration program is in existence now, under the auspices of a committee operating locally and assisted financially by the provincial government, in the upper Skeena river area, which is one of the few remaining areas where there are standing totems on their original site in a fairly well preserved condition.
To my knowledge there is only one totem pole of the Haida people standing on the
December 1, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4941
Queen Charlottes; all the others have either been removed and deposited in the provincial museum in Victoria or at U.B.C., or have decayed almost beyond recognition. Just so the officials to whom the minister refers this matter do not head in the direction of looking for Haida poles and the like, may I say that the area involved is the upper Skeena river.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, last evening on second reading I spoke briefly on this bill, mainly with the purpose in mind of supporting the suggestion that the bill be referred to a committee so we might have an opportunity to explore in some depth the important problem of establishing a national museum that would be worthy of Canada in our centennial year.
The minister has indicated that this is not her intention. Therefore I should like to elaborate the thoughts I had in mind when I spoke briefly last evening. The minister has indicated that she feels the committee of the whole is able to come to grips adequately with the ramifications of this problem. Unfortunately that is not true because we know that the committee of the whole is a rather unwieldy organization and suffers in particular from the handicap of not being able to deal directly with the officials of the department, particularly those concerned with museum problems, in obtaining information and putting forward ideas.
The minister dealt briefly with one subject that concerns me, namely, the fate of the proposed new building. I agree with her completely that the present facilities are entirely inadequate. I refer to the old Victoria building known as the Victoria museum. The building was condemned in 1961. Prior to that the geological survey had vacated the building in 1959, as I recall, and the national gallery followed suit in 1960 and moved into its new headquarters.
While I am mentioning the national gallery I should like to support what my colleague the hon. member for Carleton has said with respect to the inclusion of the gallery under the umbrella of the corporation proposed in this legislation. I know the national gallery breathed a sigh of relief when it was finally able to vacate the old Victoria museum premises in 1960. I do not believe this was entirely due to the fact that it was occupying quite inadequate and cramped quarters. It was also because the gallery felt it had new freedom to expand and do those things that are required of a national gallery which are
Administration of all National Museums not necessarily connected with museum programs.
When the old Victoria building was condemned by the Department of Public Works in 1961 it was the intention of the government to have a new building ready for opening in 1967 as a major centennial project. Plans were set in motion immediately to have sufficient Canadiana available so that it would be possible to have a complete display of human history in the new building that would present the onward march of Canada from the early days of settlement and civilization and also, of course, pre-dating the arrival of the white man. Special sums of money were set aside to gather this Canadiana material. Dr. L. S. Russell, who was at that time the director of the museum, was highly enthusiastic and I recall his stating prior to his departure from the museum in late 1963 that they had succeeded in gathering from various parts of Canada representative Canadiana which would make it possible to have a comprehensive display.
The museum as a centennial project was not realized. I should like to know from the minister what are the present plans and proposals and what progress has been made in this respect. We have seen evidence of activity on the site. The old La Touraine restaurant building was torn down and all the facilities that were part of La Touraine. We had great hopes that the program was proceeding on schedule, but all during centennial year that particularly strategic site in the national capital has been a parking lot rather than a national museum. It is passing strange that we should have destroyed good accommodation which was badly needed in centennial year merely to convert it into a parking lot. There must be some plans and proposals afoot because, as the minister herself indicated, the present building is entirely inadequate and has been resolutely condemned by the Department of Public Works. In addition, as the minister hinted there may be some safety factor involved. While we are dealing with this matter in committee of the whole I wonder whether the minister could indicate the possible target date for the erection of a building which would suitably house Canada's national museum.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is a classic answer to this question, namely, that it will be done as fast as funds become available. Some people have been studying this matter. Land has
December 1, 1967
4942	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums become very expensive in downtown Ottawa. We asked this group of people to take an unfettered look at this matter to see whether or not sites might be available outside the immediate downtown area for labs, for research work, for storage space and for some of the display area. As hon. members know, the new museum of science is located outside the heart of the downtown area. At present it is in rented space which, however, gives us much more room than we would have had otherwise. We have also acquired another new building for the extension of the war museum which has been refurbished and reopened within the last months. This building is in the downtown area. I cannot say at this moment whether the Department of Public Works will decide to house the national museum in a number of buildings and whether they will be downtown or on the outskirts of the city. This will depend upon how soon money and land are available. It seems to me that without any question a major display space must be made available in the downtown area for the walking traffic, but it may be that in such a case exhibits, such as the huge locomotives which are in the new science museum or the huge planes in the aviation museum will never be displayed downtown where space is so valuable.
I am sorry I cannot give a more specific answer at the moment but the whole matter is now being re-examined because of the delay in implementing the plans which had been made previously.
The hon. member should not forget that the national gallery is also in the plans. The Lome building in which the gallery is now housed is only temporary accommodation and was originally designed for use as an office building. I hope that one of these days Canada will take sufficient pride in her achievements to build something like the Philadelphia museum which is a magnificent setting for a magnificent collection.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the minister is correct in that respect. I realize that the present accommodation of the gallery was originally designed to house the old department of citizenship and immigration. It is understood that it is being used temporarily to accommodate the national gallery. Am I to conclude from the hon. lady's remarks that the site which was originally designated for the national museum is no longer available for that purpose and that the plans which were made in that connection have been scrapped entirely? That site was originally


chosen because of the possibility which it offered of expanding into the area occupied by the temporary buildings which house the Department of National Defence.
I know that various museums have been located on the outskirts of the city. For instance, the old archives building now houses the war museum. The aviation museum which was established in 1959 as the nucleus of the museum of technology is now located at Rockcliffe Airport, and the rented buildings in the east end of the city now house the museum of science. I conclude that these plans are temporary and that the minister and her department still have their eyes on the valuable site which is now serving as a parking lot.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is my recollection that the last time I discussed this matter with the under secretary of state I noticed that on the map this area is still marked "museum", but at the time when I discussed this matter I understood that this space might be confined to a display area and not used to accommodate all the other supplementary exhibits which are such a vital part of the museum but which do not necessarily need to use such expensive space. I have asked my colleague who has seen the map lately and he says the space on the map is still marked "museum".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No doubt some of the
material which was gathered for display purposes in 1967 was used in the centennial caravans and in the centennial train which travelled across the country, but I presume most of it is still in storage awaiting the day when we will have the display facilities to which the minister has referred.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Most of the material in the train has been borrowed from one place or another and it has to go back. The promise was made that it would be returned at the end of 1967. It is not owned by Canada or by the national museum. If my hon. friend is referring to some other collection for 1967, I am afraid I do not know to what he refers, unless he means the display of Canadiana in the gallery itself which was opened a month or two ago and which has been collected or borrowed. It will be on display at least until the end of the year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The material I am referring to is that which was gathered during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963, particularly under the direction of Dr. Russell who was with the museum at that time and to whom special
December 1, 1967

funds were made available to gather this material in preparation for the centennial year. Unfortunately we lost Dr. Russell to the Royal Ontario Museum as a result of his disappointment when the government after 1963 decided not to proceed with this centennial project. I presume that this material is owned by the national museum and it is designed to present a complete picture of the development of Canadian social life and Canadiana from the earliest years of settlement.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I will have to look into the matter.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I remember my early days as a boy when the Smithsonian Institute and other United States institutions made studies of the Kootenays and the lakes Indian tribes in the interior of British Columbia. At that time a large number of artifacts were carted off in cases. I understand that not too much was done to organize this sort of undertaking at that time. When the Columbia river treaty was being considered I asked the minister concerned whether our national museum could co-operate with the provincial authorities to preserve those artifacts and other things in connection with the lakes Indian tribes which can be found and which will be destroyed owing to the flooding of the Columbia River. What has our museum done in that respect? The only thing I have heard about is the trip made by Dr. Leishman down the Arrow lakes, who then made a report on the Arrow lakes Indian band, but I have heard nothing more.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will have to investigate this matter further. I remember that my hon. friend was particularly interested in the Arrow lakes and he told me there was a rather notable Indian burial ground in that area which was to be flooded. I will see if during the lunch hour I can ascertain that for my hon. friend.


The Chairman:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at 2.30 p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
4943
Administration of all National Museums
On clause 3-Establishment of corporation.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 3 carry?


Richard Albert Bell: On division. Perhaps I should explain that I say "on division" simply because I disagree with the idea of bringing the National Gallery and the other museums together under one corporation. I earnestly hope the minister is right and I am wrong. Perhaps we will analyse the situation ten years hence.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Purposes of the corporation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the discussion I spoke to the minister about provision for close co-ordination and co-operation with the provincial museums which are now operating in almost all of the provinces across the country. Manitoba will have a very fine museum as a part of its major centennial project. Saskatchewan, Ontario and other provinces also have creditable museums. I believe it would help in achieving what obviously this bill is endeavouring to achieve, the establishment of a body of public opinion nationally for the preservation of our history and our culture which has been so sadly neglected until recent years, if we were able to ensure in a formal way continuous consultation and co-ordination between the national museum and the corresponding provincial museums. I agree also with the hon. member for Halifax who emphasized the developments that are taking place in the universities of Canada in making contributions toward the commemoration of our past.
So that this idea may be formalized as part of the legislation before us I move:
That subparagraphs (f) and (g) of clause 5(2) be relettered as (g) and (h) respectively and that a new subparagraph (f) be added as follows:
(f) establish adequate liaison with provincial museums and universities with a view to securing maximum collaboration of all activities in this field, and for such purposes to establish a committee or committees pursuant to section 13.


Richard Albert Bell: Surely the minister can accept that amendment without advice from the gallery.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to see a copy of the amendment in writing first. I am afraid this is a lawyer's vice, but I should like to look at it. I do not see any objection to (f) as it is. I understand that is the only
4944	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums paragraph to be inserted. I believe that perhaps the current (f) takes care of the situation, but if the committee feels they would like to be more specific about it I have no objection to the insertion of such an amendment.


Frank Howard: I wish the minister would not move with such speed on that item. While it may well be covered by an extremely generous interpretation of some other subclause, we had in mind putting forward the suggestion that an arrangement might be made for the lending of materials and objects by the national museum to other museums in Canada. When I say that I do not mean to include only provincial museums and university museums. There are in existence other museums. I take it the wording of the amendment applies to museums under the aegis of provincial governments as distinct from local or community museums. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris nods his head, so I take it my interpretation is correct. Museums in my area and in the area represented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni from time to time borrow objects from the national museum on a temporary basis to supplement their own exhibits. That, I think, is a commendable approach.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Since the minister has said that she is willing to accept an amendment, would she be willing to consider broadening the concept proposed by my hon. friend on my right? Instead of including only provincial university museums, could not the amendment encompass all museums of Canada with respect to materials being lent to them on a temporary basis? I know it is difficult to draft an amendment to a bill by standing up and chatting about it, and I am not attempting to move a subamendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I am merely putting forward my idea as a talking point. I hope it is possible to incorporate my idea into an amendment that will be drafted to conform to accepted legal and parliamentary practice.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the mover of the amendment, and I am prepared to accept it-might like to say in his amendment "establish adequate liaison with museums and universities". That might secure maximum collaboration with respect to all activities in this field.


An hon. Member:: Doing it that way would be very difficult.

DEBATES	December 1, 1967


Frank Howard: That might be acceptable if it were not, for the fact that museums are defined as meaning "a museum described in section 6 or established pursuant to that section". All that that wording would do would be to establish liaison among the museums set forth in clause 6. The words that we had in mind in respect of any such amendment would cover museums in Canada other than those described in section 6.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps both hon. members who have spoken might get together behind the curtain for a few minutes, and we can stand the clause until we get an amendment that satisfies them. I shall look at it. That way we shall not take up the time of the committee.


Frank Howard: Shall we go behind the curtain?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Before we disappear behind the curtain I might make a suggestion that might satisfy the minister and the hon. member for Skeena. I have not got a copy of my amendment but the word "provincial"-


Thomas Miller Bell: Just say "other
museums".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Wait until I get a copy of my amendment. The wording is, "establish adequate liaison with"-


Richard Albert Bell: Other museums.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -"provincial museums and universities". I have mentioned provincial museums because they are formal and well established organizations and come under the aegis of provincial governments. Those governments in turn have some responsibility for municipal museums, or whatever one likes to call them. Municipal museums would make their contacts and arrange liaison through the provincial museum organization. I wonder whether that wording would satisfy the hon. member for Skeena. The wording would be "establish adequate liaison with provincial"-


Richard Albert Bell: With other museums.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: "With other museums and universities with a view to securing maximum collaboration", etc.


Frank Howard: I hear the hon. member for Carleton giving the hon. member for Brandon-Souris advice. I do not know whether 1 should accept that wording because of that. 1 will take the word of the hon. member for
December 1, 1967

Brandon-Souris that that wording will do what we want it to, and as such it is perfectly agreeable to me. Nevertheless, I know that this is a most unwise way to draft legislation. We are constructing an amendment in bits and pieces by chatting back and forth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not unwise when the work has been done by the hon. member for Carleton.


Frank Howard: I do not know about that. I had some experience with the hon. member for Carleton and yourself, sir, when both hon. gentlemen sat on the government side of the house. I would not place too much reliance on what either of those two hon. members propose.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This seems such a cozy Friday afternoon and everybody is in such a good mood that we will hope it continues this way. This seems a most effective way to draft an amendment. Could I see the amendment again, please?


Richard Albert Bell: The minister had the appropriate nod from the gallery. She might accept the amendment and substitute "other" for "provincial".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not sure I could draft this amendment in French. Perhaps someone here might wish to translate it into French.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. member for Kingston is especially skilled in that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: His specialty is Dutch.


An hon. Member:: Double Dutch.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall we delete the word "provincial" and replace it with "other"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Barnett:: Before the amendment is put to the committee I wish to say a few words on the idea expressed by the hon. member for Skeena. He and I have discussed it previously. When this amendment is properly drafted he hopes, as I do, that taken with the words in the present paragraph (f), "provide professional and technical services", the implication will be that materials such as those now in the national museum may from time to time be placed in smaller museums across the country.
4945
Administration of all National Museums
Some years ago I discussed this matter with a former director of the human history museum. We talked about having some articles in the possession of the national museum relating to our west coast culture placed in appropriate locations in the areas from which the articles came. I believe I am correct in saying that some time after 1958, when I was temporarily absent from the house, something like that was done with respect to a small, local museum in my area. As I recall, the condition was laid down that the museum must have suitable display space and that the articles displayed must be reasonably protected, from damage or fire.
I feel that such activities should be an important part of the work performed by our national museum. While it is all very well to have central buildings housing collections in the capital, I point out that in a country the size of Canada only a small percentage of the population will have the opportunity, even over a period of years, to see the treasures that are displayed here. I hope that if this amendment is carried the corporation and the directors of the various museums will seriously consider the idea of expanding opportunities for Canadians in other parts of the country to view in their own localities some of the works of different kinds now held by the national museum.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 5 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the clause in relation to subclause 2(f) which reads:
-arrange for or provide professional and technical services to other organizations whose purposes are similar to any of those of the corporation, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the minister;
And so on. Over the years we have established a large number of local museums and our centennial year has created a demand to establish more of these museums, which we are glad to see.
I wonder whether this clause would make it possible for the national museum to provide advice to smaller museums or even courses for the directors and staff who operate them. Since the great part of the work in such museums is performed on a voluntary basis, if these people were given the opportunity to attend a course in administration of museums, arranging collections and so on it
4946	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums would be of great value to these people who undertake this work across Canada. Could the minister tell the committee whether this clause makes this possible?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think this would more properly fall under paragraph
(e)	which deals with undertaking or sponsoring programs for the training of persons in the professions and skills involved in the operation of museums. I am not certain that the draftsman contemplated bringing in part time volunteers, but there is no question that the language is wide enough to do this provided there was a demand and the museums had sufficient funds.
I do know that there are relatively few people who are trained to administer museums and operate them, and certainly any assistance which can be given them would be very much appreciated. I have already had some conversations with officials of the national museum about this. For example, the small centennial museum in the Northwest Territories was able to obtain a number of beautiful furs and pieces of Eskimo clothing, but it had to construct papier-mache figures in order to display the exhibits. We have been searching for some mannequins but these were beyond the financial capability to provide. This would have enabled them properly to display the figures in the small museum that has been built.
As I say, the language is wide enough even though it does not order this necessarily to be done. I think that the officials would want to explore the possibilities of such a program before being committed to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for her answer, but to illustrate what I have in mind may I talk for a moment about the museum at Nelson. A lot of voluntary work is done there, but if that museum had the funds to send one or two persons to Ottawa to attend a course in the administration of museums and other related matters, would the minister think this clause would be wide enough, the matter having been considered, to permit this to be done?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think the language is even wider, Mr. Chairman, in that if the museum had sufficient funds it could undertake or sponsor programs within a university. This might be done as a summer course or something of that kind and might be a better way to handle these volunteers.

DEBATES	December 1, 1967


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased indeed that the minister indicated earlier to the committee that she had personally been able to view the "Arts of the Raven" display in Vancouver during the past year and I join with her in praising it. I was also interested to see that she displayed an interest in the preservation of totem poles, a subject raised earlier by the hon. member for Skeena. In light of the interest she displays in the native culture of that part of British Columbia from which the hon. member for Skeena and I come, I am emboldened to pursue one aspect of the matter a little further.
For purposes of so doing I should like to make particular reference to paragraph (a) of subclause 2 in which power is granted to the corporation to collect, classify, preserve and display objects relevant to its purposes. I want to relate that authority with that which has been exercised under the aegis of the government of Canada and the museum system we have had heretofore, with particular reference to many of the items produced by the native peoples. I have specific reference to the members of the Kwakiutl nation who for the most part, except in the northern portion, live in an area that is now in the constituency of Comox-Alberni. These items were used by them in former times for the purpose of their potlatch celebrations.
The minister is probably aware that at one time the parliament of Canada took action to outlaw these festivals so far as the Indian people on the west coast were concerned. As part of the business of enforcing the law the government of Canada took into its possession a very large number of the beautiful items which had been part of the regalia of the potlatch festivals. I understand that these items are still in the possession of the government of Canada and in the custody of the national museum in particular.
At a considerably later point in time parliament saw fit to remove from the Indian Act that section of the law which forbade potlatching. In other words, it is quite legal now for the Indian peoples on the west coast to hold these festivals should they so desire. I think I should say at once that it is most unlikely they would be revived fully in the manner and to the extent they once existed; nevertheless there is that tradition of festivals.
This is not really what I want to deal with, Mr. Chairman. What I do want to deal with is the fact that while I know it has been said
December 1, 1967

that the Indians received some reimbursement at the time for these articles-I have never been able to find out just how much they did receive but in effect they were purchased-nevertheless for all practical purposes there was a forced seizure from them of some of the most cherished possessions in their tradition.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
So far as the Indian people are concerned, the Kwakiutl in particular, and especially since the Indian Act which forbade potlatches was amended they regard this as virtually an illegal seizure of their cherished, traditional articles by the government of Canada. There has been a long-standing grievance in this connection. Now that there is a revival of interest in their own culture these people in my area are becoming more and more desirous that these hereditary articles be returned to them. One may say that possession is nine tenths of the law, but the fact that parliament changed the Indian Act does not change the status of these articles.
If I am correct in my assumption that the articles now in museums will come under the jurisdiction of the proposed new corporation, I urge the minister not to regard passage of this bill as establishing any further barrier to an act of simple justice in recognizing the right, title and interest of these people in these articles. In the minds of many of the people that I represent in the house, the government of Canada is perpetuating a long-standing injustice by continuing to claim it has a right, title and interest in these things.
As a result of the revival of interest in their culture the Kwakiutl now have an awakening realization of the value of these articles and of their intrinsic worth and beauty. They recognize that many changes in their own mode of living have taken place since the potlatches were banned and that these things will probably never be used again in the way they were previously. These people know there was a period when they themselves were willing to let other people take these things away from them for a song. It was during that time that many of the items on exhibit in the "Arts of the Raven" display were allowed to leave Canada and be placed in museums in the United States and Europe. It is possible that they will never be regained. But in conversation with me the leaders of these Indian people tell me they would like to have recognition of their right to the potlatch seizures. They also tell me that if their rights were recognized they would
Administration of all National Museums be willing to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that these items would be taken care of and preserved and in effect see that they are placed in museums so that they could be enjoyed not only by themselves and their grandchildren but by the rest of Canada as well.
I feel it very important that the Secretary of State should understand the importance and significance of the situation. I hope she will do all within her power to rectify what I am convinced was one of the worst things to take place in our past and for which we should have regret. Some of the people from whom these things were taken are probably no longer represented by the families involved, but others are. It is to avoid any sort of conflict among themselves as to which articles belong to whom that they would be prepared to take appropriate steps to ensure that all the articles will be preserved for their own enjoyment and for ours, provided parliament recognizes that in effect an injustice was done to their people.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised something which leads me to another matter generally involving the removal of artifacts and artistic objects not only from the people to whom they belong but from the country entirely. I think that the oldest known item of native Indian creativity is in the British museum in London. It is a relatively small mould which I believe has a beaver design carved on it. There may be some argument whether it is in fact the earliest item still preserved, but certain journals have made that claim.
This item is in London. It is not in Canada. The American Museum of National History in New York has a tremendously large collection of items from the west coast, including a Haida war canoe, examples of which are few and far between now. It is displayed so as to make one believe it is still in use, with human figures dressed in Indian regalia! A great many of the items which were displayed in the Vancouver art gallery presentation of the "Arts of the Raven" had to be obtained on loan from other parts of the world-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But some from the national museum.


Frank Howard: I said a great many of them had to be obtained from other parts of the world, some from the provincial museum in British Columbia, and some from private collections in that province. I was not trying to
4948	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums say there were no contributions from within Canada or from the national museum. In fact the national museum has a very complete collection of items from the west coast, most of which is stored in an attic some place out of sight of visitors.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not now.
Mr, Hov/ard: I have not been there for some time but on one occasion I had an opportunity to go into one of the back rooms on an upper floor through the courtesy of Dr. Barbeau who was in the museum that day.
The fact remains that there are a great many items of highly artistic quality, items which are Canadian, that have been removed from our country in years past and deposited in private and public collections in other parts of the world. It may be too late to do something about them now. Many of these items, certainly those made of wood, decay quickly if exposed and through the passage of time disappear in a natural way.
* (3:10 p.m.)
I understand that some nations in the world prohibit the removal from their countries of archaeological items relating to the history and culture of the area itself and to the people indigenous to the area. To my knowledge nothing of this nature exists in Canada today. There has been a great influx of tourists into the country in the last few years especially since the opening of the Alaska marine highway or ferry system which runs from Prince Rupert to Panhandle, Alaska, and the institution by the province of British Columbia of service by the Queen of the North from Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert. Incidentally, this ship will be out of service until some time next year owing to a decision by the premier of the province-regretfully so, I say-but that is another matter. In any event, this factor plus our promotion of tourism has resulted in an extremely large number of tourists moving through an area where there are still a great number of these items in the possession of individuals and in some of the homes and buildings which no longer are in use or are semi-deserted because people do not live there any longer. There is almost a scouring of the area to find anything that was produced by the native people, especially the older items.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have done that myself.

DEBATES	December 1, 1967


Frank Howard: The minister says that she herself has done this. I hope that whatever she found she did not remove from Canada.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I could not afford it.


Frank Howard: Then you were not looking in the right places. I do not like to single out United States tourists in this regard. However, they do come up in very large numbers simply because they have an easy means of access by road and can make use of trailer camps and because the North American continent has interconnecting roads between the two nations. This is easy for the United States tourists to do just as it is easier for us to travel to the United States by road.
Every summer searches are still going on in many areas, particularly in villages which are not too heavily populated in the summer because the people, mainly from the upper river villages, go down to the coast to Prince Rupert to fish and work. Many of the homes are boarded up when the people leave and it is not uncommon to find they have been ransacked or to find totems standing from which pieces have been hacked or pulled off if that was possible. In fact this occurred not too long ago in the village of Skeena Crossing. I notice that the minister expresses some shock. Three people were involved in this incident. It is true they were Canadians, but that does not lessen the crime. They stopped at the Indian community of Gitsegeulla and took one of the figures from the pole.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You had better spell that name.


Frank Howard: It is just as hard to spell as it is to pronounce. The woman who was in the house came out and protested but most of the men were away and she could not do very much. Fortunately they were able to contact the R.C.M.P. The R.C.M.P. stopped the car with these three people in it 30 miles up the road. They took the piece of the totem from them but did not lay any charges. The minister expresses shock again. I communicated with the officials about this matter but so far as I know nothing was done. This is the type of activity which goes on.
The point I started to make and which I should like to make is the necessity to retain as much of this material as we possibly can within the country. It is too late to have returned to this nation and to the people many of the beautiful old items which were removed from our country many years ago. However, I do not think it is too late to take
December 1, 19G7
similar action to that taken by Mexico and Egypt whereby artifacts or materials representative of the earlier culture of these nations cannot be taken out of the country. By this means we could at least preserve what is left of these older and beautiful objects.
This may not be the bill in which we should incorporate such a prohibition or sanction. It may be that some other piece of legislation is required or it may be a matter which should be dealt with in the Criminal Code. I do not presume to know how the government draftsmen would think this should be done. However, I do think it should be done and I put forward the suggestion to the minister that if it can be incorporated within the bill before us we should consider doing it. If it requires some other type of legislative approach, through another act or another department, then let us consider doing that. I do not think we should continue to allow items which are truly the possessions of the native people of this nation and by adoption are really a part of our cultural inheritance to be removed from the nation. I should like to see a sanction placed against the removal of these items from the country.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This is a very interesting proposal. It raises a problem which I do not think can be dealt with in this bill. It is a problem which perhaps has been with us for quite a long time. Many countries, particularly those with very ancient civilizations such as China and Greece, for a long time have prohibited the export from their countries of ancient treasures. So far as I am aware the only legislative enactment which exists in Canada is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It will be appreciated that this matter involves the question of property and civil rights which constitutionally come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Some of them do have "treasure trove" legislation.
You will recall the case of the gentleman who recently found gold bullion off the coast of Nova Scotia. He had to deal with the government of Nova Scotia. Whether then offshore rights under the water come under federal or provincial jurisdiction, it would seem that property which is found on the shores, until this time at least, has been under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and they have enacted legislation.
In my constituency about three years ago an Indian burial ground some 400 years old was accidentally found in the backyard of a commercial establishment. It is one of the
Administration of all National Museums oldest burial grounds to be found in Ontario. A United States anthropologist came to the rescue. She came from Buffalo and brought with her some of the students from the university who began to dig. It was the municipal authorities who contacted me in this regard. While the national museum paid out a matter of a few hundred dollars in order to forestall the construction of a blacktop surface in this area so that this burial ground could be examined, it was the provincial government which came into the picture. They contributed no money but they were the only ones who had a right to authorize digging to go ahead.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
There seems to be a real shortcoming in the co-operative structure across this country when something which could be a national treasure turns up. Unless there is a national emergency the federal government cannot step in. It is only the provincial governments that can do anything in this regard; yet it may be a national treasure, not a provincial one. I see no way in which this can be incorporated in this legislation because of the very great constitutional difficulty. Certainly the time has come, and this must be more in the minds of people now in centennial year, when we should make different arrangements, particularly when you consider that when we want to exhibit Champlain's astrolabe we have to borrow it from the United States. This also was the case in respect of the geographic clock that was used by the first surveyors of Quebec city, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. When we try to purchase articles of this kind we find they are in the United States. It was only as a result of the generosity of American Airlines to the people of Canada that this clock -I have forgotten the exact name-was returned here.
These things are a few hundred years old; yet we have treated them as though there are many more and we need not concern ourselves about them. It seems to me, as mentioned by a number of members, that there is not only new interest in what we have to display but in digging up new things which might be usefully displayed. Incumbent upon this will be a new interest in preserving those things which are already here in this country. I would be very happy to take up the suggestion that we should have a tighter policy in respect of national treasures which may still be within our borders, perhaps

4950	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums under the jurisdiction of provincial authorities, with a view to coming up with better legislation.


Frank Howard: The sympathy and understanding of the minister in this regard are very good and should be commended. If there is an exclusively constitutional difference involved, perhaps all we can hope for is that someone will be hired who has an equal interest and sympathy, as well as understanding, in these matters. I am afraid that the various provincial governments are not as interested in these things as the minister.
Perhaps I might suggest that the minister look at the constitutional aspect of this matter from a different point of view. Indian lands and reserves fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Perhaps this can be extended to those lands vacated by the Indians, some of whom have left behind historic possessions. One must also consider customs and excise laws, as well as international relationships, all falling within federal jurisdiction. We now have the Export and Imports Permits Act which requires permits to export certain things. Perhaps this could be taken into account in relation to federal authority regarding the removal of these Canadian treasures from Canada. I realize that as long as money is not counterfeit the property rights lie with the individual who possesses it. On the other hand, the amount, color and value fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. At various times in the past we have prohibited Canadians from taking more than a certain amount out of the country. Perhaps in this regard there is some constitutional framework within which we could prohibit the removal of items of this kind from the country.
These suggestions are only put forward as possible ways of preserving articles of historic value in this country. I do not disagree with the minister but simply suggest that if she is going to look into this matter she might well look into it with these points in mind. They may provide an avenue of approach for action on the part of the federal government to protect and preserve those items to which we have referred.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Museum directors.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions in relation to
[Miss LaMarsh.I
DEBATES	December 1, 1967
clause 7. I hope she will be able to tell us what happened as a result of Dr. Leishman's tour on the Minto and his report in respect of the history of the Arrow lake Indians. What has been done by the museum in this respect? How many of the directors and the staff of the museum are members of the Anthropological Association of Canada?
I have in my hand a journal published by the Anthropological Association of Canada, of which I happen to be a member. I have recommended the Anthropological Journal of Canada to practically every museum in Canada and more of them are subscribing to it each year. I have been willing to send out hundreds of letters in this regard to the smaller museums across Canada, and I have received a number of letters commending the formation of this organization as well as the articles by the editor and other persons. I am wondering how many members of the staff belong to this group. I should also like to know whether the national museum subscribes to this journal, the editor of which is a professor of archaeology at the University of Montreal.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I understand that Dr. Taylor of the national museum is a member and that the other three directors are not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the museum subscribe to this publication as one of its official periodicals?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that it does.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very happy to hear that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am not aware of how much commission goes to the hon. member or how much credit he gets, but the museum does subscribe.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, why does the minister not bring her officials down to the floor? Previous governments have always brought their officials to the floor so that members could get immediate answers. This present type of affectation follows the line of thinking that legislation can be put through without the help of officials. This is really nothing more than plain nonsense.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A few moments ago the hon. member was complaining that I was looking up to the gallery for guidance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
December 1, 1967	COMMONS
On clause 12-Remuneration and expenses of members.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clause 12 reads as follows:
Each member of the hoard-
That is, other than those who receive a regular salary.
-shall be paid by the corporation. .. such remuneration as is fixed by bylaw of the board, and each member of the board or of a consultative committee of the board is entitled to be paid by the corporation such travelling and living expenses incurred by him in connection with the performance of his duties as are fixed by bylaw of the board.
Clause 13 (d) reads as follows:
13. The board, with the approval of the minister, may make bylaws-
(d) fixing the remuneration and travelling and living expenses to be paid to members of the board as provided in this act and to members of consultative committees other than members of the board;


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, clause 12 authorizes people to be paid remuneration and expenses but there is no provision in clause 12 for the payment of remuneration to members of consultative committees. If there is no such authorization there is no possibility of a bylaw under clause 13 granting such remuneration. You can have it one way or the other.
DEBATES	4951
Administration of all National Museums


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is not intended to pay remuneration to members of consultative committees; it is to be paid only to members of the board. Subclause (d) of clause 13 deals with this question. If you do not have authority under clause 12 you cannot pay them under the provisions of clause 13.


Mr. Lamberl:: Then fix the remuneration, travelling and living expenses to be paid to members of the board. As the bill is drafted, this provision applies to members of consultative committees other than members of the board. There is no limitation in the bill as drafted.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Remuneration will be paid only to persons authorized under clause 12.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Bylaws.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think we should again look at subclause (d) of clause 13. The word "remuneration" applies to members of the board and to members of consultative committees. It is surely not the intention to put the members of consultative committees on salary. The intention as expressed in clause 12 is that they shall receive their travelling and living expenses. This is just a matter of redrafting subclause (d) to limit the remuneration part to members of the board. If this clause were stood for a minute or two I think the officials might very well correct the drafting, which would save our having to do it across the floor of the house. I suggest that we deal with the following clauses.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with my hon. friend. Clause 13 (d) of the bill deals with one group, namely, the members of the board, and it fixes the remuneration, travelling and living expenses as provided in the bill. Clause 13(d) then refers to members of consultative committees other than members of the board. The bill does not provide for them to receive remuneration for the time they are there but applies only to travelling and living expenses.


Norman Platt Lambert: The minister has got it wrong.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, surely the clause fixes the remuneration, travelling and living expenses to be paid to members of the board. That is the first group. Then surely
4952	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums the intent, as the clause is now worded, is to fix the remuneration, travelling and living expenses to be paid to members of consultative committees. How else are we to read this paragraph? I think it should read something like this; "fixing the remuneration to be paid to members of the board as provided in this act and travelling and living expenses to be paid to members of the board and to members of consultative committees."


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, the members of consultative committees are not to be paid remuneration. That is not the intention of this legislation. They are to be paid only travelling and living expenses. Only the members of the board are to receive a per diem as remuneration. That is what the clause says.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not want to get into a dispute about this, Mr. Chairman. I have suggested that this clause be stood. The officials could look at it, and if from their lofty post they decide that the minister is right and we are wrong, we will have to accept their verdict. But at the moment this clause is not very clear to us. Why can we not stand it? There are eight or ten clauses to be dealt with; we could consider them and come back to clause 13. In the interval we might receive some advice in this respect.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that clause 13 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Agent of Her Majesty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask the minister in connection with this clause. When can we expect a new building for the museum? This question has been raised several times. Can the minister give us any idea of the target date toward which she is working in this respect? Many other buildings have been constructed that we could very well have done without. We have been waiting for this building for a number of years and the fact that it has not been constructed has been responsible for a number of resignations.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, my target was 1967, and I have obviously missed it.


David Orlikow: Has the minister a new target, and can she tell us how many of the directors of the museum have resigned

DEBATES	December I. 1967
because they say commitments were made by various governments that a new building would be erected? How many more directors are likely to resign if a new building is not erected?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first part of the question I may say that I am not sure what the new target is. The building will be erected as funds become available. With regard to the second part of the question, I think three or four directors have resigned in the last five or six years. I cannot give the reasons for all the resignations, but certainly none of them was happy about the facilities they had. So far as the third part of the question is concerned, I hope no more directors will resign for this or any other related reason.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am a little dense. The minister says her target date was 1967. Obviously that has gone. Is there another target date? There is not a freeze on all building. I am not at this time going to be critical of the amount of money which is being spent across the street for the performing arts centre. Perhaps we could have got by with spending $30 million rather than $42 million and could have used the money thus saved to build a museum. I ask the minister whether there is now any target date set for the museum, or is this project to be one of a list which we will one day consider?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty high on the postponed list. I do not think it is in never-never land by any means. As I explained before lunch, we have been looking at other possibilities and perhaps having in centre town a display area and other buildings which are less expensive per square foot outside the core of the city for research and laboratory work. It depends upon the economy. No one wants to see the cultural institutions pinched off. I am sure everyone agrees that when there is only a certain amount of money there are probably higher priorities then the provision of such a new building. However, a number of projects have been postponed.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
One of the things I had hoped to see established this year was another project which would have come under this bill. I refer to the first national zoological gardens. However, that also does not have the highest priority although it was first recommended in the Massey commission report. Nevertheless it
December 1, 1S67	COMMONS
seems to me incredible that a national zoo has never been created and, indeed, it would be necessary to do so to round out our series of museums. But this project, although it has been regarded with considerable favour and was almost accepted for 1967, has had to be postponed as well.
I think it would be unrealistic for me to give the hon. member a definite answer in reply to his question. What I can say is that as long as I am the minister in charge of this department this will be my goal for the current year and the next year, and if it keeps being postponed it will only be because I have to push against a substantial minister.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-Gifts, bequests, etc.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, clause 17 deals with the arrangements whereby the corporation may acquire by gift, bequest or otherwise any real or personal property. In the past the national museum has acquired artefacts which have been discovered in other parts of Canada, and it would appear from past experience that the areas in the provinces in which these artefacts are found have no say in their ultimate disposal. I should like to ask the minister whether, for example, in the instance of an early Indian mound located by archaeologists which, produces artefacts of considerable interest to that area there is any consultation with the province as to the ultimate disposition of these artefacts.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I was speaking to my parliamentary secretary about the answer to another question and I did not hear the latter part of the hon. member's question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Earlier in the discussion the minister intimated she thought the committee of the whole could deal adequately with the details arising from the bill before us. It is quite obvious that the committee is not having great success in this regard. I thought I had made my point quite explicit, and I agree with the hon. member for Carleton that it would be of considerable help, particularly at the committee stage when we are dealing with the details of the bill, if the minister could have the advice of her officials. I have been here for a period of 16 years and it has always been the custom as a courtesy, particularly to members of the opposition, to allow the officials of the department to be
27053-313}
DEBATES	4953
Administration of all National Museums present on the floor of the house to advise the minister with regard to answers to some of the more obscure questions which arise. It is quite impossible, even for ministers, to be omniscient with respect to all matters relating to a department. Even Liberal ministers are not so omniscient; they have human frailties like the rest of us. I think there was every justification for sending this bill to a special committee where we could have examined in depth the important items arising from this bill and where we would have had direct access to the officials and their background of information.
The point on clause 17 which I raised previously arises from past experience. When artifacts are located in a region of Canada which are of special significance to the history of that area-I mentioned as an example the uncovering of an Indian burial mound which would reveal oil sorts of valuable archaeological artifacts-is there any consultation with the provincial government with regard to their ultimate disposal?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would be very happy to have my officials down here but there happen to be four of them and it is customary to have only two on the floor. Two of them are museum directors, one is the director of the national gallery and the fourth one is the under secretary. I do not see any particular reason for having them down here unless there are details which cannot be answered by the usual procedure. This is not to say that I know everything, and the same can be said from having observed hon. members opposite at the time when they were sitting on the front benches on this side. I do not have that kind of arrogance.


Richard Albert Bell: Indeed, you do.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not feel arrogant about museums; I did not know anything about them. I do not suppose anyone could start out knowing as little about them as I did, but at least I wound up knowing more about them than some of the ministers who have dealt with this matter. I am doing what I can about it.
As I informed my hon. friend earlier, the material which has been collected heretofore has been kept in different parts of the museum. Some of it is on display in the science museum and some is on display in the national museum. I am sorry that when my hon. friend first raised the matter I was not certain to what he referred. I think it was during the time when he was responsible for
December 1, 1967

Administration of all National Museums the museum that certain funds were set aside for the purchase of sleighs, buggies and furniture which depicted the confederation period. I had not known of that, but those were in large part the materials which have created the confederation display of today and I think my hon. friend should be congratulated for the fact that his administration was sufficiently farsighted to provide for that several years ago.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, my question has not yet been answered but I will reserve it for another occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 22-Report to Parliament.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one question for the minister. I should like a reassurance from the hon. lady that the report of the chairman of the board will be put before parliament and will be subject to examination by the public accounts committee. I recall that in 1958 or 1959 some questions were raised by the chairman of the Canada Council on whether the report of the council to parliament was properly subject to review by the public accounts committee. There was no insistence that it should not be but a doubt was raised about it. I should like to know whether the minister feels that any such doubt with regard to the report of the board has been removed and that quite properly the report of the board and the Auditor General's comments thereon shall be, in the normal course of events, subject to examination and discussion by the public accounts committee.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I believe there is no question that the board is subject to the usual reviews. The problem to which my hon. friend referred arose, I believe, from the rather special circumstances of the setting up of the Canada Council whose funds were initially and especially appropriated. It was not a matter of coming back to parliament. Only recently of course the Canada Council's funds have been augmented. There is no question about the fact this chairman's report will have to be to parliament and will be subject to the usual parliamentary and financial reviews.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now revert to clause 13.

On clause 13-Bylaws.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: With respect to clause 13, I am informed that what I had advised is correct. However if the committee wishes to pay remuneration, travelling expenses and living expenses to both the board and the consultative committee, I have no objection one way or the other. Originally it was provided that only the board would be paid.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is what we mean.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The board would be paid travelling, living expenses and remuneration, and that the consultative committee would be paid living expenses and remuneration? This is what the legislation says.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But it doesn't.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It may be that the committee would prefer to have the clause read this way: Fixing remuneration to be paid members of the board as provided in this act, and travelling and living expenses to members of the consultative committee other than members of the board.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the minister not depriving the members of the board of travelling and living expenses?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No; I said, fixing the remuneration of the members of the board, and travelling and living expenses.


Mr. Baldwin:: If clause 12 is the governing clause, would it not be much simpler to say what you mean-fixing remuneration and travelling expenses to be paid pursuant to clause 12?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid I do not understand. I do not see anything wrong with clause 12. Then in clause 13, under paragraph (d), the same things which are provided under clause 12 could be incorporated in the bylaws of the corporation. Clause 12 provides for payment to members of the board under all three headings, and payments to members of the consultative committee under only two headings. Clause 13 says you can pass bylaws which fix the remuneration and travelling and living expenses to be paid members of the board as provided in this act.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is pursuant to clause 12.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then we have all agreed on what we want to have it say; and this is what it does say.
December 1, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4955


Gerald William Baldwin: Since there is some ambiguity about it, I suggest we say in (d), referring back to clause 12 which is the governing clause, "fixing the remuneration, travelling and living expenses to be paid as set out in clause 12".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In order to arrive at some conclusion, I will be happy to accept that amendment if the hon. member will so move. As I understand it, the amendment will delete everything after the word "paid" in paragraph (d) and substitute the words "in section 12".


Gerald William Baldwin: Since you may have difficulty in reading my writing, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would amend section 13(d) by deleting all the words after the word "paid" in line 36 and adding the words "pursuant to this act".


Richard Albert Bell: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, if we pass this amendment we have put ourselves into difficulty. We would have now given the board the power, to pass bylaws fixing the remuneration of the various directors and officers. I fear this would be contrary to the other clauses passed earlier, which leave with the governor in council the power to set remuneration. I am afraid we would have to say "pursuant to section 12".


Gerald William Baldwin: I am persuaded to go back to what I originally thought was correct and make reference to section 12 in the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No wonder laymen cannot understand the law.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It is moved by the hon. member for Peace River:
That section 13(d) be amended as follows:
By deleting all the words after the word "paid" in line 36 and by adding the words "pursuant to section 12".
Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have a question I should like to ask about clause 13, particularly as it relates to clause 22 which we have already passed. This clause provides that the chairman of the board will provide a report of all proceedings under this act within three months after the end of the fiscal year. I presume the term "proceedings" as used in clause 22 would include a report on actions taken by the board to develop or to amend the bylaws. My question is for
Administration of all National Museums clarification as to whether or not these bylaws will be public documents. The board, with the approval of the minister, may make bylaws. If the reference had been to the governor in council, the bylaws would in effect be orders in council and would be published. I should like to know whether these bylaws will be published in the Canada Gazette when they are passed by the board and approved by the minister.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not know whether it is a practice in other corporations to publish bylaws; I have never seen published the current bylaws of the national gallery, but I see no objection to that. It might be sufficient if I asked the first chairman of the board, whoever that might be, to make sure that the initial bylaws are incorporated in the first report.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I might pursue my point, I do not think that the internal business conduct of the board ought to be a matter for publication. Instead I think the people of Canada ought to know what are the duties of the director and heads of museums. Paragraph (e) makes an oblique reference to this matter.
On an earlier clause we talked about the policy of lending exhibitions or art collections to local museums. My interpretation may be wrong, but could not a bylaw be developed, under the authority of paragraph (e), to set up the policy of how the board would deal with such matters? That would be of great public interest and would provide members of parliament and others with information about such matters.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Clearly, the minutes of meetings and similar proceedings would not be published. Any report which the board would make would have to do with its responsibilities in fields of research, with respect to travelling exhibits, and that sort of thing. It would deal with the purchase account and what had happened to it; what each of the galleries bought, and that sort of thing. That is the meat of any report which the board would make every year.
People do not like to read bylaws, and I do not see where information such as my hon. friend speaks of would be of benefit, if it were contained in any report which might be printed with any bylaw.


Mr.   Barnell@: From my experience, many acts that parliament passes do not contain in them general guide lines. Regulations govern agencies or departments of government. That
December 1, 1967
4956	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums is the meat of the matter. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that, in effect, the bylaws will be the regulations, as far as this operation is concerned. For example the regulations passed under the Aeronautics Act provide, publicly, details of the operation and administration of the act.
I am sorry, but I do not think the minister's answers were clear enough. I tried to make clear that I was not so much concerned with the internal business of the board. Often the real meat of any policy with respect to any such board is contained in an order in council.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An order in council is filed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Otherwise, we may wait for three months after the end of a fiscal year before obtaining a report on these matters. That is not satisfactory. We can always ask the minister questions in the house, when parliament is sitting; but we know the limitations of answers to questions asked on orders of the day. I am wondering, since in a manner of speaking this corporation is a public corporation whether provision has been made for the publication of bylaws to the extent that the board will deal with matters of public interest and concern.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have never heard of any such publication. Perhaps other hon. members have.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: By leave, now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of the bill.


Richard Albert Bell: I intend to ask that this bill be passed on division. I do so to reiterate my grave concern that under this bill the national gallery may be done in the eye as the result of its being linked with the other museums. If there is any indication in the next few years that the national gallery has suffered by reason of this linking, I assure you, sir, that I shall be back to try to restore it to the status it must have in developing the life of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it is only fair, and I am sure that


regardless of their points of view all members in the opposition agree with what I have to say now, that we should express our thanks to the minister for her co-operation and willingness to accept amendments from the opposition side.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Kootenay West. Also, replying to the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton, I think anyone who has special areas of interest might rise and express the sort of reservation he expressed. Since his remarks were so aptly put I wish to say that my reservations will be to see that the natural history museum does not suffer at the expense of the national gallery.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: So long as members of the house remain militant in protecting each of the museums and galleries, none of them will suffer.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



VISITING FORCES ACT


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: the second reading of Bill No. S-3, respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the basic purpose of this bill is to repeal the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Act, the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, and the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act, and to replace them with one act which would provide for the rights, privileges and duties of the armed forces of any other nation when visiting in Canada. The Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act was enacted in 1932 as a result of the Statute of Westminster. It provides for the privileges, immunities and duties of visiting forces from other parts of the commonwealth when in Canada. Reciprocal legislation was enacted by nations of the commonwealth to provide for Canadian forces visiting those countries.
December 1, 1967

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
During the second world war, with many United States forces visiting Canada their position was provided for by an order in council under the War Measures Act. When at the conclusion of the war it became apparent that United States forces would continue to visit Canada from time to time, the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act was enacted. There is no reciprocal United States legislation as under the law of that country a visiting force automatically carries with it the right to hold courts martial, administer discipline, and so on.
In 1949 Canada became a member of NATO. One of the agreements entered into at the time by Canada was the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the status of their forces. This agreement provided for the status, privileges and duties of the armed forces of one NATO country when in another NATO country.
Canadian legislation was required to approve and implement this agreement. The legislation known as the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Act was enacted for that purpose in 1951. At the time this act was drafted it was foreseen that the armed forces of non-NATO states might visit Canada from time to time and that provision should be made for the status of such forces in Canada. This was done by providing in the act that forces of non-NATO countries could be brought under the act by the governor in council, designating the countries from which they came as associated states under section 5.
Since the visting forces of NATO act was passed, armed forces of many non-NATO countries, particularly the emerging African states, have visited Canada for training and other purposes. It is therefore felt that it is not appropriate that the forces of these non-NATO countries should have their status in Canada determined by an act of parliament designed to implement the north Atlantic treaty. The government therefore decided that it would submit to parliament for approval a bill repealing all the existing visiting forces acts and providing for visiting forces in a uniform way. I may say that this is the course that has been followed by the United Kingdom and most other NATO countries requiring such legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I at this point ask a question of the minister. I notice that he at all times referred to visiting forces, and
Visiting Forces Act
in particular made reference to United States forces. Could I ask him whether this bill applies strictly to what he termed visiting forces? Does the minister differentiate between a visiting force and those forces who, though non-Canadian, are stationed in Canada? For example, United States forces are stationed in three parts of Canada to control nuclear weapons and warheads in this country.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think there is a definition clause at the commencement of the bill. A visiting force means any of the armed forces of a designated state present in Canada in connection with official duties, and includes civilian personnel designated under section 4 as a civilian component of a visiting force. So I would imagine that they include these forces stationed in Canada. It would include forces in Canada for training, under some arrangement with the government. It also includes visiting forces to the country for a short period of time in the normal course of events.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the three purposes that the bill will serve, as I see them, are all desirable. First of all, the three existing visiting forces acts are replaced by one act and this, as the minister said, will lead to uniformity of treatment as far as servicemen in forces of another country visiting Canada are concerned. It will also make for simplicity and is, I think, a reasonable and desirable step to take.
Second, the fact that any country can be designated for inclusion under the act and the servicemen of that country brought within the terms of the act provides for much greater flexibility. I think it is also an improvement of the situation and therefore something that should be approved.
Third, the inclusion of dependants under this bill will remove possible difficulties which could arise over the treatment of these dependants, and this is something I am also glad to see included within the provisions of the bill.
I have gone over the bill in detail and see very little in any of the clauses to which there is objection. Therefore I think it is desirable to pass the bill without undue delay.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I asked a question of the minister because I was anxious to receive an answer to my inquiry. However I hope that during discussion in committee the minister will give a further explanation.

December 1, 1987
Visiting Forces Act
Of particular concern to me is the position of United States forces who are not simply-visiting Canada but are stationed in this country. I differentiate between visiting Canada and stationed in Canada, despite the definition the minister read in the bill.
Whether I like it or not, Mr. Speaker, by agreement we now have United States forces stationed in Canada. They are there because we have Voodoos and Bomarcs-there are two Bomarc stations in Canada-and U.S. officers have absolute control over nuclear warheads for this military hardware. At this moment I am not raising the question of United States control over warheads, but what is of concern to me is this: What exactly is the position of the United States officers who control the nuclear warheads for the Bomarcs and certain other armament for aircraft? Are they under United States martial control in any phase of their activities, or do they come under the supervision of Canadian authorities? Of this I am not yet certain. I realize they control the use of the warheads, but outside of their being stationed in Canada and not being described as visiting forces, are they subject, and subject only, to United States martial law and not Canadian law, either civil of military? I am not going to ask for an answer now, but I believe the minister will understand the clarification I desire, and I hope that at committee stage he will give an expanded answer.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order. It is understood that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I just wanted to say that I agree that this question should be answered at committee stage, but I think I should point out to him that in talking about this exclusive control he is stretching the point a bit. This is a joint control of the warheads.


Harold Edward Winch: The Americans have the key control, do they not?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is well known that any decision to fire a nuclear weapon is taken following joint consultation, and must be a joint decision.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.

On clause 2-Definitions.
Harold Edward Winch: Now may I have the clarification, and in asking for it I wish to say I have no intention of holding up the bill. I think I understand its basic principle, but I do know there is a joint agreement relative to the nuclear warheads which are now stored in Canada. I am told that the key control over their use rests in the hands of American officers stationed in Canada. The minister is shaking his head. I would point out that I have been on the defence committee for quite a while and have visited a number of countries with that committee, including some in Europe.
Although there may have to be a joint understanding as to a nuclear weapon being used, I know that in our own squadrons in Europe the key to the release mechanism of a nuclear warhead is kept in the hands of an American officer. Does the bill mean that Americans stationed in Canada will come only under their own American rules, regulations, courts martial or whatever, and in no way be obligated under our own Canadian civil or defence regulations and procedures?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, the Americans stationed in Canada, to whom my hon. friend refers, are subject to American military law, the same as Canadian forces stationed in Germany are subject to Canadian military law. They are not exempted from the Canadian civil law. This is an agreement between two countries for the purpose of administering justice within a certain confined military field. This is an exchange, in which we apply the American law in the case of the Americans, the same as the Germans apply the Canadian law in the case of Canadians.
I understand the hon. member's concern about atomic weapons but, with due respect, I do not think that is relevant to this particular bill. When he mentions Americans being subject to American law, that is relevant to the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Later in the bill we come to the question of service people from other countries attached to Canadian forces. Are there two types? Are there service people in this country not attached to Canadian forces but serving here in an official capacity on behalf of their own country and in cooperation with Canada, and are there people in this country who are actually attached to Canadian forces? Are there these two groups?
December 1, 1967


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am told there is only one case, that of British officers attached to Canadian forces. This is the only case where that applies.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then there are Americans here as visiting forces, but they are not attached?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not attached.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order to have it on the record, may I ask the minister how many service personnel, from a designated or associate country, there are in Canada at the present time, either visiting or attached? Also, how many Canadians are serving in other countries, either as visiting forces or attached to the forces of those countries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I would have to request the patience of the hon. member until this statistical information can be secured.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The reason I asked this on clause 2 is that I know how rapidly the department acts, and I know that by the time we reach the last of the clauses the minister will have that information.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Thank you for the compliment.


Howard Earl Johnston: Does the bill set up two
classes of possible deserters from the American armed forces, such as an American attached to a visiting force who deserts within Canada, and an American who deserts in the United States and comes to Canada seeking political refuge?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe, in the hypothetical case mentioned, that it would. Actually we are dealing here with people serving in Canada. In the case of a soldier seeking refuge in Canada, having deserted in the United States, I believe he would be dealt with under another jurisdiction, probably the Immigration Act.


Howard Earl Johnston: Under clause 10, for example, we could have the Canadian forces making every effort to apprehend a deserter from the American forces within Canada, yet an entirely different approach would be taken with respect to someone who had deserted elsewhere and then entered Canada.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe clause 10 says very specifically that it would be on the request of the commanding officer of the unit in question. In the hypothetical case
Visiting Forces Act submitted by the hon. member I presume this would not be at the request of the commanding officer, and therefore this bill would hardly apply.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, the point in which I am interested pertains to subclause (1) of clause 12 of the bill, which deals with the police functions of visiting forces. I would hope that the minister might consider this now and give us a clarifying statement when we reach that clause. Would the minister clarify the position of a member of the military police of visiting forces, such as we have in Halifax. If such a person is involved in what we now understand to be capital murder, what is the status of a Canadian citizen who might be involved in perpetrating a capital crime on such a visiting policeman?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member is asking that I answer this question when we reach clause 12.


J. Michael Forrestall: My purpose was to raise it now so that the minister could think about it and answer the question later.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask for further clarification of a matter in respect of a visiting member of the armed forces. Sometimes we have visits from warships of other countries. This year in particular we have had official visits from warships. However, let us take the situation which occurred this year in respect of an official visit to the port of Vancouver when, unfortunately, certain irresponsible individuals broke Canadian law. When they appeared in court they were released on the word of their commanding officer that they would be returned to Canada later to face trial; but they never returned. Just what is the situation in respect of a person who breaks the Canadian civil law while on an official visit? I am in support of this bill in priciple, but there are these little problems which we should like to have clarified. How is the law interpreted in a situation of that kind?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My understanding is that he is not exempt from the Canadian law. If such a person breaks the Canadian law he is subject to that law. I do not see any problem in this regard. If a member of a visiting force breaks a Canadian law, the Canadian law can be applied.



December 1, 1967
Visiting Forces Act


Harold Edward Winch: What about the situation in Vancouver this year where a commanding officer said that the men would be returned tor trial? The men in this case never did return for trial.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sorry. I cannot comment on that. I do not know of the incident in question.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 10-Arrest.
Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, there does not seem to be any reference in this clause to the situation of a member of a visiting force who may wish to become a political refugee or who may seek political asylum in this country. My interpretation of this clause-and I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong-is that if the officer commanding a visiting force requests the Canadian defence authorities to arrest a member of that visiting force, we are required to do so, or we may do so. It does not say that the man must be guilty, but he is deemed to be guilty of some oifence. Where does this leave the political refugee who seeks asylum while in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My understanding of this clause, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister may from time to time by general or special order direct the officers and men of the Canadian forces in this regard. So there is discretion. I would think that in a case of this nature the minister could use that particular discretion. He does not necessarily have to comply with the request of the commanding officer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Police functions.
David James Walker: Clause 12 gives the visiting police force a pretty broad authority to go anywhere and exercise policing functions. Do they require search warrants if, for instance, one of their men has taken refuge in a private Canadian home? Are the visiting officers required to follow the same procedures Canadian authorities would have to follow?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My understanding is that they go according to the prescription of their own law. They actually apply their own law here within Canada. This is what the bill enables them to do.
So far as the query of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) is concerned, the

military police of a visiting force can only exercise the police powers of arrest over other members of the visiting force. However, all members of a visiting force have the ordinary powers of arrest that anyone in Canada has. They can arrest anyone who is committing an offence. This is contained in sections 434 and 436 of the Criminal Code. Section 434 reads as follows:
Anyone may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence.
Then section 436:
Anyone may arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes (a) has committed a criminal offence-
I hope this clarifies the situation.


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not wish to prolong this debate, Mr. Chairman. However, what I am curious about is the protection given to the man who, while under his own law, is a police officer or peace officer, and who may be killed by a Canadian citizen while in the discharge of his duties here in Canada. Dealing in terms of the bill which we had before us recently, is the Canadian citizen in the position of having committed a capital crime, and therefore subject to the death penalty.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I understand that the hon. member is asking about a police officer of a visiting force who may have committed a murder in Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, Mr. Chairman. I am referring to a police officer of a visiting force who is murdered in Canada. What is the status of the Canadian citizen who perpetrates that crime?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I do not see
any problem in that regard. The Canadian citizen is subject to the Canadian law. Therefore, if he has killed a police officer it would be for the judge to decide how to apply the law. I believe the position in respect of such a person is very clear. The Canadian committed an offence against a Canadian law.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: If the hon. member for York Centre had not raised this question I intended to do so, for clarification. I am intrigued by this same matter because, unless I misunderstood the minister, it is very disturbing. My understanding of what the minister said a few moments ago in answer to the hon. member's question is that a member of the military police of a visiting military force may enter a home in Canada without a warrant. That is the impression I gained
December 1, 1967

from what the minister said, and I believe the member for York Centre has the same impression. If that is correct, we had better stand here for some time and talk a little bit about this situation. We do not allow these people in our own country to enter Canadian homes and make arrests without warrants. I hope the minister will clarify this situation, because no visiting military police from another country should have authority in Canada to enter a Canadian home or make an arrest without a Canadian warrant. I hope this will be clarified.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There are two things involved. I do not recall the hon. member for York Centre suggesting that military police from a force visiting Canada could enter a home here without a warrant. I understood him to ask whether such an individual could arrest someone without a Canadian warrant, and I said that he would have to comply with the laws of his own country.


Harold Edward Winch: He would have to comply with the laws of his country, but not with our laws?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: He would have to comply with his own military law in respect of his own people, and that is what we have said from the beginning. My answer to the question as to whether a military policeman of a visiting force can enter a Canadian home in search of one of his own force members without a warrant is that he cannot. To do so would be an invasion of Canadian law, and we have provisions which require that such an individual must have a warrant or be accompanied by a Canadian police officer. This is how the situation would be handled.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Claims against designated states.
Francis Andrew Brewin: As a matter of interest I should like to ask how this clause works. It seems to suggest that if a member of a visiting force commits a tort or wrong within the scope of his duties he is deemed to have committed an offence as a servant of the crown under the Crown Liability Act. Presumably the crown is then liable to anyone who has been damaged or has suffered loss as the result of the commission of such act. Is there any provision or arrangement whereby, if the government of Canada has to pay out
Visiting Forces Act
money in such a case, it can recover from the country whose visiting force is in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This is derived from an arrangement within the NATO agreement. Under that agreement Canada is obliged to process claims against visiting forces in Canada in the same manner as in respect of claims arising out of the activities of our visiting forces outside Canada. This country assumes 25 per cent of the cost of settling such claims, and the country of the visiting force assumes 75 per cent. For the purposes of the Crown Liability Act, this clause would require the country of the visiting force, and its members, to be in the same position as the Canadian force, and its members, and would deem the property of the visiting force, in particular motor vehicles, to be owned by the crown.
The present wording restricts visiting forces liability to subsection 1 of section 3, and therefore prevents the application of subsection 2, which states that the crown is liable for damages sustained by reason of a motor vehicle owned by the crown being operated on a highway, in respect of which the crown would be liable if it was operated by a private person of full age and capacity. In order to put visiting forces in the same position as Canadian forces, thereby implementing Article VIII (5) of the NATO forces agreement, the opening words of clause 15 are not restricted to a particular section or subsection of the Crown Liability Act.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not sure I heard the minister correctly. Did he say that the Canadian government pays 25 per cent and the foreign government of the visiting force pays 75 per cent; and does that include the judgment as well as costs?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This would include all costs.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is there a similar provision applicable in countries in which Canada has visiting forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, and I am given to understand that the same applies.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Exception.
Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the significance of section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, which does not apply in respect of a designated state?

December 1, 1967
Visiting Forces Act


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The explanation is that section 13 of the Official Secrets Act makes certain acts committed outside Canada triable in Canada, in so far as the security of Canada is concerned. It is not considered appropriate or necessary to extend this protection to visiting forces present in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, any breach of security by a member of a visiting force could be tried in the country of that force?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
On clause 23-Service vehicles.
Mr. Deachman:: Before this clause carries I should like to ask about the licensing of vehicles. I note that this clause exempts the vehicles of visiting forces from registration or tax or fee payable in respect of vehicles. What is done to enable police to identify these vehicles? I note that national defence vehicles in Ottawa carry a brown coloured licence plate. What is done specifically for identification purposes in respect of United States vehicles used by its forces stationed in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I must confess that I am stuck for an answer. I do not know.


Grant Deachman: I note that this is not a revision of a former clause, but simply a renumbered clause. Perhaps the answer will be available this afternoon, before we complete our consideration.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I shall certainly try to get it on time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 27-Application of section.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are now getting close to the end of this bill and I wonder whether answers are ready to the questions I put forward.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am still waiting for the accurate figures, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is dealing with figures and I should therefore like to have figures that are as accurate as possible. I am sure he understands the difficulty raised in his questions. I believe the hon. member has two sets
[Mr. Harkness.)
of figures, and it is difficult to arrive at an accurate answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought the minister had the answer at his fingertips. I will wait until we deal with clause 1.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause 27 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the word "temporarily" occurs in clause 2(a). I suppose there is no change here from the earlier acts. What is the practice in this regard? Does "attach temporarily" refer to a period of weeks or months, or does it go beyond this?


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause 27 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am still waiting for an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This provision applies particularly to British officers who would be attached to Canadian forces for an undetermined period of time, which could be a month, six months or a year.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
On Clause 29-Repeals.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on clause 29(2). I was looking at the north Atlantic treaty the other night. Will it be reprinted as an adjunct to this act, or does clause 29 mean it will stay as it is now, and as varied elsewhere, and that it will have to be referred to by searching in the back files?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sure it could be found in the regular documents of the Department of External Affairs. It is not the intention to print it with this bill, because the present bill supersedes it. Actually it is a combination of the three bills already in existence and is covered by the clause in this new bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was looking at the statute last night. I do not have it here, but it appeared to me that this was attached as a schedule to the original act. I ask the minister, where will it be in the future? Where will it appear in the revised statutes, if it does appear there?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I am told it will not be in the statutes but will be attached to the treaties of external affairs, because it is part of a treaty that has
December 1, 1967



been negotiated. We are covering it differently, with a bill encompassing all the situations in Canada.


Mr, Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, where does one go to get these external affairs documents? I have here a note that this was a schedule attached to the bill. It is an 18-page schedule. The north Atlantic treaty may be up for review, of course, and it should be readily accessible. I was wondering whether the department had given some thought to this matter.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am told it is referred to as a treaty series and it is readily available to any hon. member at the Department of External Affairs.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 12, which prescribes the powers of a member of a visiting force in exercising police functions, and the power of arrest, can the minister assure us that such a person is not given powers in excess of those granted to Canadian police officers in the pursuit of their duty? I see that these powers will be prescribed by regulation and I should like to be assured that the regulations spell out that no more power is granted to a visiting police officer than is already granted to a Canadian police officer.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have been referred to Queen's Orders and Regulations which say that a member of the military police of a visiting force may, in relation to any member of that force-therefore it applies only in this particular case-exercise the same police function as a police officer authorized by the Criminal Code, but only in relation to any member of that force.


David James Walker: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, but if a member of the visiting force is in a Canadian home, what is the situation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: He is authorized to act only in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore he has no special status.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the proceedings on this bill. It is the only defence bill we have had in the last four years with which we have been able to deal without controversy in some quarters of the house. The difference between this minister and his predecessor is
Business of the House
so astonishing that I feel somewhat cramped in style.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am beginning to worry.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If this minister, who is so agreeable, will give me the information asked for at some subsequent date-


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I will.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -I will have no objection to passing the bill right now.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I will with
pleasure, Mr. Chairman, seeing the engaging smile of the hon. member, commit myself to bringing him this detailed and precise information in record time.


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


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask from the house leader the forecast for next week.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday we will consider the resolution amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; then the divorce resolution, followed by the second reading of the bill respecting the boundary between the province of British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories then the second reading of the Publication of Statutes Act; the committee stage of the C.N.R. bill; the resolution to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act and the resolution to amend the National Parks Act. Regardless of any progress that may be made on these items of legislation, we propose to resume the budget debate on Wednesday, and the purpose in introducing these resolutions is so hon. members will have an opportunity to see the bills at an early date.

December 1, 1967
Canada Elections Act


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, once the budget debate is started will it be carried on consecutively?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is too far in the future to state with any assurance that that will be so.


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



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order before we proceed with the bill. My recollection is that the house dealt with the age of voters about three weeks ago, and here we are presented with the same problem again. There may be other resolutions or bills on the order paper dealing with the same topic. I suggest to the Chair that it appears from my study of the order paper that 6, 10 or 20 hon. members could put on almost identical bills or motions referring to the same subject with regard to the reduction of the age of voters from 21 to 18, and there would then be no limit to the number of occasions on which this matter would be brought before the house.
I think this is not the intention in arranging the business of the house, and I should like to have some clarification on that point because I have a distinct recollection of entering into a debate on this matter just three weeks ago.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quite correct in saying that this matter was dealt with in the private members hour on November 3 last, but as I recall it-I was not in the house on that occasion-the debate was not resolved; it had not come to a vote. Therefore the matter is in some ways still before the house. I think the hon. member is also right in suggesting there are a number of bills on the same subject. There are five bills which, although they vary somewhat, essentially refer to the same subject. The reason there are so many bills is the fact that there is great concern on all sides of the house that
tMr. MacEachen.]
this matter be resolved at the earliest possible moment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I should like to point out that the hon. member for Prince has a precedent for what he is doing. I will not say it is a good precedent but it is there. In April of 1966 the house settled once and for all the question of capital punishment in a free vote. Nevertheless it was brought back inside of 18 months by a so-called government bill which was resolved by a free vote. So the hon. member for Prince has a precedent on which to hang his argument in opposition to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. As I said before, it is not a good precedent, but it is one.


An hon. Member:: This is one way to hang the hon. member for York-Humber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the importance of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. When a similar subject was discussed at an earlier date no decision was reached, but I do recognize that there is a problem. Perhaps the house would permit the debate to proceed at this particular time, and in the meantime I will have a discussion with Mr. Speaker and the table officials concerning this matter. Would the house so agree at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I say before making my few remarks with regard to the subject matter of the bill, that I think the house could resolve this problem very easily if the government were to take the initiative of referring this, along with other bills-and even the notices of motions, of which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) could also have indicated there are a number-to the committee on privileges and elections, thus ensuring that serious consideration beyond the general debate which takes place during the private members hour could be given to this matter.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would agree that this is a matter on which the house is a good deal behind the rest of the country. There are only about four provinces left in Canada now which retain the voting age at 21. Three provinces, including my own province of Prince Edward Island, have now lowered the voting age in
December 1, 1967

provincial elections to 18, and three others have lowered theirs to 19. I could reel off a list of countries which allow voting at the age of 18, so we are not exactly pioneering when we presume to suggest that in our wisdom we in Ottawa might decide that it is time for people at the age of 18 years and over to have the responsibility thrust into their hands to cast their ballots on election day.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre could also have suggested that possibly there is no issue which has been debated more in private members hour and in adjournment debates, or on which more questions have been asked in the question period, than whether or not the voting age is to be lowered. I believe I could point to at least a dozen definite specific times in the last six or seven years in which a debate has taken place on which there has been general agreement.
One might well ask why it is we have taken so long to deal seriously with this problem. Since I am a relatively new member in the house it is not possible for me to recall in person the various meetings of committees which have dealt with this subject, either in a general way or in detail, but I think I recall correctly that three or four years ago the committee on privileges and elections did suggest in its report that the voting age should be lowered to 18. If one committee of the house, meeting at an earlier time, has felt favourably disposed toward this issue, why is it that we are taking such an extremely long period of time in dealing with this problem?
I for one find it difficult to find any real explanation. It seems to me that there is no clearcut delineation in the whole matter of deciding when a person becomes mature or responsible.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It may not be at the same time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Of course it
would vary to a great extent, depending on the specific individual involved. But in our provincial jurisdiction there seems to be a good deal of difficulty with regard to the legal responsibility that people have in our Canadian society. Recently I was questioned by one of my constituents as to whether it would be a sensible and proper thing to advocate the lowering of the voting age to 18, while at the same time saying little or nothing about legal responsibilities. I thought it
Canada Elections Act
was an extremely good question because if we are asking for certain rights and privileges, by the same token we should also accept the responsibilities which come hand in hand with those rights.
When one tries to discover any universally accepted age of responsibility, he encounters a veritable legal jungle, and I am not even at the stage of a trooper when it comes to beating my way through the jungles of difficulties respecting legal responsibility. I do know there are various ages at which responsibility does occur for people in our society.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In most provinces at about the age of 16 one can obtain a licence to drive a car, which can be either a vehicle for pleasure or one that can do considerable damage. In most provinces, somewhere between the ages of 16 and 21, you can take the important step of joining in matrimony with some person. In most cases today, I think you can join the armed forces at the age of 17; and shortly thereafter, because you are a member of the armed forces, you can exercise the democratic right to vote.
There is a great deal of fog and confusion about this whole question. Perhaps our job here this evening is to try to point out what seems to me to be the basic difficulty many people in our society have today in determining whether we should be granting voting privileges at 18. I believe the heart of the difficulty is this: Many people are concerned about whether or not young people should be given this privilege to vote at age 18, because it is not taken for granted they are going to act responsibly. This is an intriguing argument, and of course it is used for a variety of situations.
From time to time, as a person grows toward maturity and adulthood, it is suggested that he is not yet responsible enough to have this or that particular privilege which may be open to him. I suggest that this is an extremely weak argument upon which anyone should base his opposition to a reduction in the voting age. It would seem to me that argument could be turned around and used against anyone who thinks it has validity. I suggest to hon. members that if young people from the early teenage years who now have access to so many facets of society are not responsible, and therefore should not be given the opportunity to vote, we must be very fearful of that situation. I suggest we cannot afford to have young people growing

December 1, 1967
Canada Elections Act
up who are not learning to be responsible by participating in the democratic process. I suggest to you, sir, that the people who are most irresponsible in our society have never really learned that to vote today is not so much a privilege as it is a responsibility.
If we talk about voting only in terms of its being the particular privilege of individuals in our society, we have lost one of the most important aspects of participating in the democratic processes available to us in our own country. It has always seemed to me that real enlightenment does not come until people become responsible, and that the sometimes erratic judgments people make of issues that are raised, and the opinions that they hold, are very largely the result of a lack of responsibility and a lack of participation. From time to time one hears suggestions and criticisms by newspapers and others about the lack of responsibility amongst members of this house. I think it would be interesting if we could allow the various editors and publishers of newspapers across the country the opportunity to sit in the house, and to function as living, breathing members of parliament for a period sufficiently lengthy to enable them to gain enlightenment about the responsibility resting upon a member of parliament in this place.
It seems to me, if one could use that analogy, the same thing has to happen if we are going to obtain more responsible democracy. We must allow more and more young people to participate early in the democratic processes. We have come to the conclusion somehow that there is really only one way in which people participate in the democratic process, and that is by going to the polling booth on election day to cast a ballot. We have deluded ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if we think that is the only aspect of participation that is really important. Anyone who has studied the history of civilizations knows that very often some of the most important things that happen to a society bear no relationship to the actual, recognized function of choosing or not choosing governments and representatives. If we are afraid to entrust young men and young women at the age of 18 with the exercise of responsibility at the ballot box, then we should be very fearful indeed of the great influence these people are already having on many of our social structures today.
I say to you, sir, it is inconsistent for us to establish the Company of Young Canadians or to send young people all over the world as representatives of either state organizations or

church organizations, and then at this juncture say to them that this is where their responsibility ends. This kind of inconsistency, I am sure, flys in the face of many young people, and to which they can only reply, "Sham".
I do not plan to take up a great deal of time this evening because I am hopeful that we can either conclude the debate in this hour and have the bill passed-I am sure hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will agree with that-or else save the precious time in private members hour that might be spent in discussing this measure by referring it to the committee on privi-liges and elections. If that is impossible because the committee has not been constituted, perhaps we could have some real commitment from a representative of the government toward this end. I believe it is the wish of members on every side of this house that we take action now in this parliament, so the next time a federal election is called all adults beyond the age of 18 will participate fully in that election.
I should like to quote a speech made by one member of this house on July 14, 1960, as reported at page 6277 of Hansard:
There is a great deal to be said in the circumstances of today for the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18, and most of the major arguments in favour of such a change were given by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The argument which I think must make the greatest appeal is that we do not hesitate as a state to call on young people to fight for our country and, if necessary to die for our country, as thousands under the age of 21 have done. We ask them to accept the supreme obligation of citizenship in this regard, irrespective of whether they are 21 or 20 or 19 or 18, so it seems to me that if we ask Canadians to take on that obligation the time has come when they should have the privilege of voting so they may do their share in determining the policies which might affect the situations in which they would be asked to share in this supreme obligation.
I agree with the words of the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the name of the hon. member?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and I believe at the present time he is acting in the capacity of Prime Minister of this country. It is my belief he is of this same opinion today. Someone may interrupt and suggest that while he was in opposition he might be inclined to say one thing, and say something different when he is in office. Let me quote from some remarks he made while in office on November 18,
December 1, 1967

1963. I shall read into the record the question asked by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) and the reply of the Prime Minister as recorded on page 4858 of Hansard for that date:
I have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the report in the newspapers of this morning that the right hon. gentleman expects to introduce legislation reducing the voting age from 21 to 18. I have such a measure standing in my name, being Bill No. C-60. I wondered whether the right hon. gentleman would consent to having this transferred to a government order, thereby saving the time and trouble of our overworked staff in preparing legislation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) :: Well, Mr. Speaker, this party has been committed to the reduction of the voting age to 18 years of age for some years, and we are anxious to see that it is done as quickly as possible.
* (5:20 p.m.)
That was "as quickly as possible" on November 18, 1963, slightly over four years ago. I trust that the hon. gentleman and his associates will move as quickly as possible to see that necessary action facilitated.


Mr. Pepin:: It is next on the list.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in entering this debate, because this is the first occasion on which an opportunity has presented itself for me to express my views on a subject which is of more than academic interest to many in Canada.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), the mover of this bill which is to amend the Canada Elections Act and lower the voting age from 21 to 18. That is a worthy objective, more especially since the hon. member himself is one of the younger members in the house. I extend to him my congratulations and good wishes. This bill is timely. I have reason to believe that this matter will be under active consideration by the government, if not during the present session, then certainly early in the new year. In any event, I am all for the principle of the bill.
One would have to take into consideration whether the 18-year-old is really interested in voting. Much to my disappointment-and no doubt the hon. member was disappointed -during the recent Ontario provincial elections qualified students at Lakehead University failed to be really interested in the elections, and only 27 per cent of those eligible turned out to vote. Similar experiences were found in other Ontario universities, and this brings the question of whether it is really
Canada Elections Act
worth while extending the franchise to include boys and girls of 18 years of age.
One explanation for the apparent lack of interest of university students in the issues of the Ontario provincial elections was that some students did not know about transfer arrangements, in spite of the wide publicity and appeals made on the campuses to register. For example, it was reported that at Glendon college, Toronto, the returning officer reported that special enumerators sat nearly all day in a room on the Glendon campus, and that of an estimated 60 eligible students, exactly 12 registered, or 20 per cent of those who could have qualified.
I am told that some student leaders suggested that the lack of interest was due to a dull campaign which focussed on uninteresting matters, including the future of Canada as a united country, and the crisis in housing. Why did not the probing students, who usually are very vocal on any and all political issues, ask questions about matters they care about?
One of our metropolitan dailies, in an interesting observation, reported that the oft reported leftist tendencies of university students led some to believe that the majority of students would vote for the New Democratic party candidates. On nearly all campuses in the province of Ontario the N.D.P. candidate ran third.
On the other hand, I believe that in the majority of cases an 18-year-old can be sufficiently responsible to express an intelligent opinion by means of the ballot box. In an election, every adult has one vote; as everyone knows, he has a direct influence on the outcome equal to that of every other elector. Degree of interest and intelligence are not taken into consideration. Such a system assumes the exercise of the suffrage by every qualified citizen; that is, it assumes the total involvement of the population in self government. Hence, voting entails a considerable responsibility as well as a privilege.
The franchise should theoretically be granted to every citizen. In practice, however, the application of this principle is not feasible. Obviously babes in arms are not capable of voting in an intelligent or responsible manner. The purpose of imposing qualifications on suffrage, then, is to limit to mature citizens participation in the collective decision. But, one may ask, who are "mature citizens"? Is there an examination which proves maturity? If so, is anyone capable of administering it? In the absence of both we have accepted the need for establishing some

December 1, 1967
Canada Elections Act
indisputable criteria which are related to mature judgment.
Age is beyond dispute and, to a degree, is correlated with maturity. So despite such objections as the fact that different people mature at different rates, and that there is little difference in an individual's maturity between his twentieth and twenty first year, the arbitrary age criterion has been accepted as necessary for practical considerations.
The next logical question is as to the age at which suffrage should be granted. The lack of consensus on this matter is evident in the fact that of the ten provinces of Canada, four-Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba-have adopted 21 as the voting age; the three provinces of, Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia have adopted 19 years, and the three provinces of, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan have adopted 18 years. The federal voting age is currently 21 years.
Hon. E. C. Manning, premier of Alberta for the past 27 years, has this to say of young people:
The younger generation of Canadians is capable of political thought and action at a level of maturity much higher than that characterizing party politics in this country at the present time. Youth today is quick to detect, and is strongly repulsed by sham and superficiality. Young people who are looking for purpose, conviction, inspiration, and leadership in matters of private and national concern will not, nor should be expected to, be satisfied by gimmicks and slogans, cliches and promises, and slick but shallow promotional campaigns. There will be little room in the Canada of tomorrow for elections without issues, politicians without philosophical standards, parties without relevant policies, or citizenship without definition and purpose.
I feel that the lowering of the voting age should be accompanied by a program to increase political education. What is at present being taught in our high schools about civic responsibilties is not adequate, and I would suggest a course in citizenship and politics to give students greater knowledge of their responsibilities.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When considering amendments to and revisions in the Canada Elections Act, to eliminate discrepancies and discrimination in our present regulations, the necessary provision for patients confined to hospitals to cast their votes in a federal general election is of primary importance.
An active general hospital presents a problem. Very few patients are in hospital as long as six weeks, in which event it would become necessary both to enumerate them and to

have them vote in a hospital poll. Of the few who are, it is usually impossible to predict which ones will be in hospital on election day, and therefore as far as I know none were enumerated in the last several elections. Some did remain in hospital through the enumeration and into the election period, and were therefore disfranchised. They may have been enumerated at their homes, and would have voted at their home polls if it had been physically possible. I presume the spouse at home might well have included the one in hospital in the residential enumeration. Most other patients were at home at enumeration time, but were admitted to hospital later. Neither group can vote in the hospital, although a poll is set up there to handle the few student nurses and other personnel living in hospital residences. The exception to this is the candidate's right to appoint two agents to vote in the poll and to represent him there.
There has been talk of a permanent voters' registry for all people. This would solve the problem, but it will likely take a long time and may be impossible. It is not an excuse for delaying action to protect the franchises of several specific groups. This measure can deal with hospital patients; other measures should be introduced to deal with university students, especially if the trimester system of university education becomes widespread.
It should be relatively easy to establish a solution for patients living in the same riding in which they are hospitalized. A simple method that occurs to me would be for the returning officer to contact the other poll by phone, and satisfy himself that this particular person was entitled to a vote. However this is not good enough to ensure against fraud and illegal voting.
Someone would have to obtain a slip from the district returning officer in the person's original poll. This could be delivered to the hospital in-patient, who would then present it to the district returning officer in a poll located in or adajcent to the hospital. One assumes he would be physically able to travel inside the hospital to the polling booth. A good number, perhaps 50 per cent are able to do so.
For those living in Fort William, for example, and then requiring hospitalization in a university centre such as Toronto or Winnipeg, the difficulties are rather formidable. The same system could be used; but the patient might find it more difficult to be sure which candidate was the better one, or the best one. It would also require making an
December 1, 1967

application several days prior to election day, to allow for transmission of the slip from one district returning officer to another, via the patient. For those who might be living in the same city, but residing in one riding and staying in a hospital in another riding, the difficulties would fall somewhere between the situation I have already described. If a patient's relative, friend, or agent presented a request to grant the patient the right to vote in another poll, then the advance poll district returning officer could strike the name oil the original poll list and issue a slip to this effect for transmission to the patient. The patient could then present the slip on election day to the district returning officer at the hospital poll.
I realize that this is not the object of the bill under discussion. Nevertheless I think that when considering any changes to the elections act these should include measures which will ensure voting facilities for every qualified voter, whether he is at home or temporarily in a health institution away from home.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to say unequivocally that I am in favour of the purposes of this bill, and if and when it comes to a vote I will certainly vote for it.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in support of this bill will be confined to three or four minutes in the hope that we can get some action to advance it beyond this stage.
The argument made so well by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), whose bill this is, touched, very well I thought on the point that today's young people are a mature group quite able to take part in the electoral processes of our country. The hon. member also said that in the interest of democracy the voting age should be lowered. I would add to that the fact that in the majority of our provinces the voting age is now less than 21 years, which is the voting age in federal elections, and it has been for many years.
I want to draw to the attention of members one other fact which seems to me to be relevant, and that is that 50 per cent of Canadians are now under 25 years of age. Another fact which struck me as interesting is that the average age of members of parliament is 50 years and six months. I suggest that there is a disparity between those two age groups which this bill, if it were endorsed, would lessen.
Canada Elections Act
I would just add one other suggestion or bring one other fact forward in support of the bill. In his bill the hon. member for Prince, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in his, and my colleague from Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) in his, representatives of the three major parties, have all put forward the same proposition, that the voting age in the federal field be lowered to 18. I think, if I may make a suggestion, that action would be speeded up if in the event this bill were not sent to committee tonight, those hon. members got together and made an appeal to the administration to have the subject matters of all three bills referred to the committee on privileges and elections. However, I am hopeful that action will be taken on this particular bill, and I will therefore sit down and confine myself to these remarks.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief and will indicate the lively interest of the fourth party in the chamber in the subject matter that is now before us. I will not bother repeating any of the arguments that I put forward almost two years ago, when I made my maiden speech in this chamber, but would only point out that since that time absolutely nothing has been done to reform any part of the elections act. Two full years have passed, and we will be into another election with nothing done, unless some action is taken soon, e (5:40 p.m.)
There has been no change in the age of voters, no change in the voters list, and no change in the rules and regulations relating to election expenses. There has been no change with regard to putting party labels on the ballots. In effect there has been no change at all. Is it any wonder that we find the provinces taking the initiative in holding a conference for the confederation of the future, and taking the initiative in almost every other field, when this chamber and this government seem totally paralyzed in effecting any of the necessary changes in this basic part of the democratic process?
I would urge that we pass the bill this afternoon.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr
Speaker, I am not old enough to be repeating myself nor important enough to be quoting myself, but if I may forget myself for a moment I wish to say that I have in the past

December J, 1967
Canada Elections Act
spoken in favour of such a measure. I entertain the same views now as I did then. I come down very strongly in favour of the point of view enunciated by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston).
I have frequently asked when the committee on privileges and elections will have referred to it the Canada Elections Act. It is in that committee that all these matters should be discussed. The age of voters is one of the most important sections in the elections act. It has been traditional for years and years that, after an election, that committee goes over the elections act with a fine tooth comb, and in doing so it often finds a lot of unpleasant bugs in the machinery. But we have allowed two elections to pass without referring the act to the committee. It is regrettable that this step has been so long delayed.
Having been exposed to the university community ever since I came to this house- that is where I came from to this house-I am convinced that in this age group from 18 to 21 we often find young people with a more enlightened interest in politics and public affairs than they have in later years when they become involved with concerns closer to their own business. I have the greatest respect for the perspective and judgment of the younger people. Indeed I believe the younger people of the country can detect a phony far more quickly than their elders.
In these electronic days I think we have a chance to bring about a greater involvement of our younger people in our political processes than ever before. Two important political events have demonstrated this in recent times. The Progressive Conservative conference of September brought about tremendous involvement. People realized politics is important. The Confederation of Tomorrow conference, which I had the honour of attending recently, caused, prompted and stimulated a great involvement. The world around us is there to be participated in, and I think we should open the avenues to fuller participation by those in the age group referred to so eloquently by hon. members who have spoken. I would say that immediate referral of these and other matters to the committee on privileges and elections is the way to proceed.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take the opportunity of this debate to endorse the remarks

of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), who proposed to enfranchise Canadian citizens of 18 years of age.
Throughout the years, we have seen on parliament hill several groups of students and, as the hon. member mentioned earlier, owing to our modern media of communication, such as television and radio, Canadians in general and, more particularly, our young people, are fully aware of what is going on here in Ottawa. However, they often realize their inability to make present decisions, but wish, nevertheless, to participate in our political activities. In my opinion, the proper procedure would be to enfranchise our young people as soon as they are 18 years old.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) who has proposed this resolution, I would simply like to say that I think members from all political parties, Social Credit, N.D.P., Liberals and Conservative, have seen an increased activity in politics on the part of our younger citizens, and these not only at the university level.
The hon. member who just preceded me spoke of the university students who are taking a greater and greater interest in the political process in Canada. But I will go even further. I think some of the most dynamic and interesting audiences for politicians today are in our high schools. They are really turned on, if that is the new expression, in terms of being involved in political activities. Because of modern communications, radio and television, much more so than when I was in high school or even in my early years of college, the young people are taking a real interest in what is going on here in Ottawa.
But this is not good enough. I have said many times before-and I do not think I am being negative or too pessimistic when I repeat it-that there seems to be a faulty dialogue between the elected and the electorate, because we have not lived up to the expectations of many of our people. Through the new electronic media that put people in instant daily contact with what is going on here in Ottawa, there is a sense of involvement and a desire to participate.
I have already mentioned this when speaking in French. In the final analysis people realize that although they cannot have their hands on the levers of power, they do want to be consulted and participate in the decision making process. I think we can provide
December 1, 1967

this in no better way than by according the right to vote to the Canadian citizen of 18 years of age, who today is truly, and in a very positive way, involved in what is going on here in Ottawa.
I do not know if there are any statistics on the matter, but I believe more and more young people are visiting parliament hill. We see thousands of them here every year. There are hon. members present who have been here a lot longer than I, but it seems to me that the number of our young visitors increases every year. This is a good thing. It symbolizes the fact that there is this involvement, interest, and a desire to participate, and it again underlines the desirability of our moving forward as quickly as possible in this young country.
Statistics have already been given, but I do not think we should accord too much importance to them. We often draw a false line by talking about chronological age, dividing young Canadians from old Canadians, and saying we have such a such a percentage under 25, or under 30. I am not really interested in these statistics as such, and neither are many young people. But I do think the very general things I have mentioned here this afternoon underscore again and again the desirability of our according the right to vote to our 18-year-old citizens. If we do they will live up to their responsibilities in a dynamic, forward-looking country.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of the principle of Bill C-14 introduced by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald). I am not going to take up the time of the house by repeating all the very constructive and conclusive reasons and arguments that have been presented as to why this bill should be passed and not talked out, but there is one point I do want to make. It is that Canada in time of war not only expects but demands that youth, 18 years of age and over, shall not only offer but give their lives for this country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that being the established and recognized fact, it just does not make sense to me that anyone who is over the age of 18 years and wishes to live for his country should be denied the privilege and responsibility of voting for it. If we expect and demand that a person shall be willing to fight and die for his country if he is 18 years of age, then we should give him
Canada Elections Act
the right and responsibility of voting for his country if he is 18 years of age.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all congratulate the member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) for having introduced the bill now under consideration.
I want to tell him that as early as 1960, when I was about his age, I introduced a similar bill in the house. Let us say simply that youths, those who are 18 years of age, are far more advanced today than we probably were at that time, and that was one of the reasons why I introduced the bill in the house.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he would permit a question?


Mr. Racine:: Certainly.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Beauce has just mentioned that seven years ago he himself placed a bill on the order paper advocating the same matter which I have brought before the house, would he not be willing to have this question brought to a vote now, in order to expedite this matter and have it adopted? In view of what he has said I would expect that he would be in agreement with this.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member, but I do not think that either he or I should take care of this. I believe the government should take care of it in the near future, or as soon as possible. This is not something which should come from either the member from Beauce or the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald). I think the hon. member agrees.
Since I introduced the bill I have received a letter which I believe is interesting, and which I should like to read. It is as follows:
I feel very strongly in favour of this bill, but I did not realize how very involved the procedure of changing our laws is. Dr. Boyd Upper, of the Leader of the Opposition in Toronto, kindly took the trouble to inquire about this bill for me, and informed me of the way in which to contact you.
Many others of my particular age group-eighteen to twenty-one-have stated that they are in support of the idea that we have a right to vote too.

December 1, 1967
Canada Elections Act
Then there is a paragraph in which I am very much interested:
There is only one difference, which is: We feel that not everyone who is eighteen should he allowed to cast a ballot, referring to those still in school. I feel, along with the others, that only those who are paying taxes in support of the federal government should be considered to have the privilege of voting.

I think many questions might crop up. In fact, for the information of the member for Prince, there were all kinds of objections in 1960. Among others, it was claimed that young girls were not interested in politics; so, having minors vote was not favoured. However, it was deemed profitable for boys and it was agreed that they should vote at the age of 18.
It was also said that to allow voting at 18 years was a good principle, because too many people between the ages of 21 and 35 neglected this important civic duty. And so, the number of electors would be increased.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing though that I would like to discuss. It is said that those who pay taxes will have the right to vote. At this stage, I honestly wonder if some of our university students really take seriously the role they should play. For instance, when political personalities, when members of parliament visit the university, I wonder if those same students act as seriously as they should.
We now know-and we actually see this in our areas-that those who work, who are married, who pay taxes, are much more versed in political affairs; in short that they contribute in a special way to the study of such problems as may exist.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it would be desirable to grant the right to vote to young people at the age of 18.
In any case, let us say that today's youths are much more developed than we were at their age, and that, normally-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Jean-Paul Racine: No, no. I feel that young people, as I suggested back in 1960, should have the opportunity to participate, to some extent, in our activities.


Richard Albert Bell: Question.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman has tallced it out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour allotted for private members business has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the acting house leader. In view of the fact that the subject matter of Bill No. C-5, a bill identical to the one we have been discussing in the past hour, was referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections on June 23, will the acting house leader ascertain, between now and Monday, why that committee has not met to deal with this matter.


Mr. Pennell:: I will bring it to the attention of the house leader, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 4, 1967