Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

At their request. Do not let us be silly.

Mr. Murray (Cariboo):

I recall one experience I had which illustrates the position here. On a hot day I was travelling along the Cariboo road. The United States tourists were rushing up into that very favoured part of western Canada. The dust was thick and, as I say, it was very hot. I came along to where there was a beautiful waterfall and under a tree there lay a young Indian. He had tethered his horse, unsaddled it and had the saddle under his head. There he was lying pleasantly and happily about four o'clock in the afternoon. I stopped to fill my radiator and I said to this young Indian, "What are you doing here?" He said, "George, I am waiting for the sun to go down." That was a very wise thing to do on a hot day on the Cariboo road. That is what our Conservative friends are waiting for tonight. They are waiting for the discussion to die down and for someone to come along with a new charter, a new amendment or something at some time in the future. I submit that we should go ahead with this legislation introduced by the splendid young minister who is so representative of young Canada and who wishes to make a contribution toward his country.

There are just as many different kinds of Indians in Canada as there are different kinds of members in this House of Commons. I know the Indians from one end of the country to the other. When I go to Montreal and see some of these steel workers I realize that they are just as smart and clever, that they have just as much money in their pockets as any of the white wage earners around Montreal. Then I go up into Brant county and I can see no difference between the farms of the old Canadian stock and those of the Indians. The Indians are just as progressive, they have just as fine houses and barns, their fences are in as good repair and they look after the cultivation of their land as well as the other inhabitants.

Then you pass on into the west and you get into the Cariboo country which stretches 700 miles from north to south. There are

Indian Act

many types of Indians in that region. Some years ago at Williams Lake there used to be an Indian known as Eagle Lake Henry. He would come into Williams Lake in the fall of the year with 500 head of cattle and sell them in competition with the other ranchers. He was not particularly educated but he knew his arithmetic. I often think how splendid it is that some men are well educated in arithmetic. After selling his cattle he would buy tractors, machinery, combines and so forth. Yet he was an outcast; he was not one of us although he was one of the big operators in the country.

Then as you go north up around Prince George you find the Beaver and the Cree, a different type of Indian. In my youth 1 knew Pauline Johnson, the great poetess, whose verses are as beautiful as any ever written by any Canadian poet. I did not know Oronhyatekha, who was known as Old Iron Teakettle, who in his early days was one of the leading financiers of the country. A bronze statue of him stands in Toronto. He was a full-blooded Indian with great culture and ability.

I think also of the sisters of a certain religious order who are operating a hospital and school at Williams Lake with a standard equal to anything in our country. Then there are teachers and others.

The legislation before us is a start. It is not perfect because man, whether white or otherwise, with all his ingenuity and gifts is not perfect and his legislation is never perfect. But this is a start toward establishing the Indians of Canada in their proper position as Canadian people.

Without quibbling and without splitting hairs this legislation should be passed. Later on amendments can be made. The laws that we make today are not final. I call upon all members in the house to give the minister support at this time in making a start in establishing a true democracy in Canada where there will be no division of colour or of race or of religion, where all Canadians will be equal under the law.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, with the concluding words of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) I am in entire agreement, and it is just for that reason that I am going to speak in opposition to the bill. I was one of those who believed that out of the Indian committee would indeed come a charter that would be beneficial to the Indians of Canada. On May 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) -and I am not going to read it now because it has been read before-whether an opportunity would be given to the Indian population to consider the bill to be introduced. I 55946-25 li

did that in no partisan way. This is one subject that we can and will deal with in a non-partisan manner for the reason that the bill in its present form affects the political future of none of us.

The Prime Minister said that he appreciated the tone of the representations I had made and that the matter would receive the consideration of the Indians across this country. I listened this afternoon to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who was chairman of the committee on Indian affairs. He earned for himself as chairman of the committee a reputation for a willingness and desire to contribute something to the welfare of the Indians. His statement, his observations and his conclusion regarding the bill were a miracle in terminology. I cannot repeat word for word what he said but it was to the effect that as far as it went, whether or not he agreed with it, he believed that the minister had done as much as he could. Whatever he meant, one thing stands out, that he as chairman of that committee was disappointed with the bill.

It is a mirage, Mr. Speaker. It is no charter. It is merely an alteration of some of the provisions of the Indian Act intensified in so far as administrative officials are concerned to make them more powerful than they have ever been before under the Indian Act as it has existed since 1880. The hon. member for Cariboo says: Let us have equality under the law; let us maintain freedom; and the minister brings to the house a bill that is a negation of freedom, a denial of equality under the law. Indeed it provides that Indians can have no recourse to the courts unless they have the permission of the minister to proceed. When I compare the report that the special committee on Indian affairs made on June 22, 1948, with the bill now before the house, it is obvious that the master hands of the administrative officials of the Indian affairs branch have wrought changes that parliament never thought of. After speaking of the purposes of the amendments to the act the report of the special committee reads as follows:

In order to achieve these objectives, your committee recommends, in addition to other recommendations hereinafter set out (a) that the revised act contain provisions to protect from injustice and exploitation such Indians as are not sufficiently advanced to manage their own affairs.

When the minister replies let him say what new section of the bill implements protection of the Indians from exploitation. Other recommendations were:

That greater responsibility and more progressive measures of self-government of reserve and band affairs be granted to band councils to assume and carry out such responsibilities;

Indian Act .

That the offence and penalty sections of the Indian Act be made equitable and brought into conformity with similar sections in the Criminal Code . . .

That the Indians be accorded the same rights and be liable to the same penalties as others with regard to the consumption of intoxicating beverages on licensed premises, but there shall be no manufacture, sale or consumption, in or on a reserve, of "intoxicants" within the meaning of the Indian Act;

That it be the duty and responsibility of all officials dealing with Indians to assist them to attain the full rights and to assume the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

Then these recommendations are m.ade:

Your committee recommends that rules of the House of Commons be amended to provide for the appointment of a select standing committee on Indian affairs.

Your committee recommends that a commission in the nature of a claims commission be set up, with the least possible delay, to inquire into the terms of all Indian treaties in order to discover and determine, definitely and finally, such rights and obligations as are therein involved and, further, to assess and settle finally and in a just and equitable manner all claims for grievances which have arisen thereunder.

The bill in its present form simply places the Indian in a position where he will have no equality under the law, where he will be at the beck and control of officials on the various reserves. Rights? He cannot take a case to court when there is wrongdoing unless he has the permission of the minister. Appeals provided for? There is an appeal from the official in charge of the reserve to the minister, from the hired man to the hired man's boss.

Mr. Mitchell:

May I ask my hon. friend a simple question?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Surely.

Mr. Mitchell:

You' say he has no right to appeal without the permission of the minister?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

That is what it says.

Mr. Mitchell:

Read it.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I am glad the minister asked that because there is no greater exponent of the abiding principles of British freedom than the minister.

Mr. Mitchell:

Absolutely.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I knew the fact that those provisions were in there would shock his British sensibilities. I feel sure that the minister will now join the rest of us.

Mr. Mitchell:

Sing your Christmas carol and get it over with.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

You know, I love to hear the minister expatiate on British traditions and principles and read parliament these

wonderful lectures on parliamentary government. Nevertheless he is a member of a government that brings before the house a bill that denies to the individual Indian that freedom and equality referred to by the hon. member for Cariboo. When an Indian commits an offence under the proposed act or is alleged to have committed an offence, who tries him? Is it the ordinary courts of law? No; those who try him will be the Indian agent, or an official of the Indian department, or appointees of the minister who will act as justices of the peace. I cannot understand the reason for these provisions. Why should an Indian be tried for a criminal offence before an appointee of the department of Indian affairs? Why should he not be tried by the ordinary courts of law? Why the denial of those principles for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) speaks so volubly on so many occasions?

In its present form this bill is a travesty on the representations made by members of both houses of parliament. Members of this house and of the other place met togethe' for three years, and then brought in recommendations. Those recommendations, except with respect to administrative difficulties which have existed over the years, did not result in material changes which would benefit the Indians of this country. I point to something else that is not being done. Why has no action been taken on the recommendation that a commission be set up, so that the Indians may not continue to feel that have been unjustly treated, as they have? In 1931 or 1932 the department permitted one action to be brought; it allowed one petition of right to an Indian band in Saskatchewan, and what happened? The action was tried; the Indian department and its officials were shown to have wrongfully applied some $20,000 belonging to that band and held in trust. Have they been granted the right to sue since? I know several solicitors who have endeavoured to obtain petitions of right and failed. That was prior to the appointment of the present minister, but I know of no change that has taken place in that regard since. These Indians, deprived of their rights under treaty, have to ask leave in order to sue, and that leave is not granted. Fiat after fiat has been refused by the Department of Justice to Indians who desire to assert their rights in the courts of law.

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):

What bands are you referring to?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I refer to the bands in northern Saskatchewan. The action I mentioned had to do with the band at Mistawasis. The minister will remember it; the department lost the action, and wrongdoing was

established before the court. Since that day no Indian band in Saskatchewan has received permission to sue the department for wrongdoing. Matters like this are embalmed in this bill, and these are the things that will be perpetuated if this bill becomes law.

I could go on and refer to various other matters, but suffice it to say that there has been a serious endeavour to solve the difficulty in relation to citizenship. I know that difficulty. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) mentioned that the Indians might not agree on many matters if they were given the opportunity to appear here. Some want citizenship; others do not. As a result a novel plan has been adopted. How it will work out I do not know, but as far as the plan for citizenship is concerned it does represent a serious attempt to do something to solve the almost impossible situation that prevails today. As far as giving the Indian an opportunity to benefit himself is concerned, or to raise his standard, in its present form this bill is nothing but a perpetuation of bureaucracy and bureaucratic control over the Indians on the reserves. If it is passed the rights of the Indians will not be increased in any way, while the power of the officials on the reserves will be just as great as in the past, if not greater.

This act was passed originally in 1880, before the rebellion of 1885. Conditions were different then. A few amendments have been brought in since. Two committees of parliament have met and discussed the matter, prior to the appointment of the last committee two or three years ago. The law respecting Indians is a denial of the principles we accept under the United Nations. As it is now drawn this bill places these people in a position of wardship, making it impossible for the individual Indian to preserve and protect his rights against the tyranny of officials. Why those terms? Why not place the Indian in a position equal to that of other people in this land as far as the law is concerned? Why place him in the position that when he is charged with an offence he must be tried by the person who prosecutes him? On the one hand the Indian agent on the reserve says this man committed an offence. The trial will take place before another official appointed by the department, often a junior official on the reserve. Will you get justice that way? Will you preserve the rights of the individual? By legislation such as this, dealing with people who are operating under the difficulties that have been theirs for generations, will you lessen the intensity of their feeling? All this will do is emphasize their feeling that parliament is not regarding

Indian Act

them seriously, that parliament has failed to carry out what was recommended by a parliamentary committee.

Why the rush? The hon. member for Calgary West made a powerful, meaningful plea in that regard. What changes are in this bill that cannot be brought in after the Indians have had an opportunity of considering it? While the hon. member for Calgary West was speaking I received my mail. Here is a letter from an outstanding clergyman in the city of Calgary, who says:

I must confess that I know very little about It-

Mr. Murray (Cariboo):

On a matter of

privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is out of order. It was so ruled this afternoon by Mr. Speaker, and I believe the same rule should apply now.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

That is not a question of order at all.

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):

He rose on a

question of privilege.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Then I presume I may

continue?

Mr. Murray (Cariboo):

After that legal

advice I will raise a point of order and ask that this be ruled out. The reading of a document, a letter or telegram, was ruled out of order this afternoon by Mr. Speaker, and this therefore should be ruled out of order as well.