Frank Bainard STACEY

STACEY, Frank Bainard, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Westminster District (British Columbia)
Birth Date
March 27, 1859
Deceased Date
March 18, 1930
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bainard_Stacey
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8905e3c1-be71-4f8c-a314-1eee0a306beb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
fruit grower, minister

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Westminster District (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 12)


June 1, 1921

Mr. STACEY:

If I understand the minister correctly, I think he has failed to make provision for one class of civil servants that should have recognition. I can best illustrate my meaning by citing a case in point. I have in view a man, representative of a large number of men, who is approaching the age of seventy, and who has been in the employ of the Government for over thirty-five years working full time, ten, twelve, fourteen and even fifteen hours per day. He has not been in receipt of a stated salary, but the Government has taken good care to see that the allowance is practically the equivalent of a stated salary, and under the provisions of the Act of last year he cannot be given anything on retirement. Am I to understand that the present amendment makes provision for men of that type?

Topic:   RETIREMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Full View Permalink

April 15, 1921

Mr. STACEY:

Has any change been

made in the regulations by which American citizens are permitted to fish in the streams of British Columbia upon payment of a nominal fee, such fishing presumably not being for commercial purposes but for [DOT] sport, although it is not always confined to sport?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   SECOND READINGS
Full View Permalink

March 21, 1921

Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley) :

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add to the discussion. I wish to say that I am in full accord with those hon. gentlemen who have expressed themselves in sympathy with the idea that ministers of the Crown should have a seat in this House. With very much of the argument adduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) I am in full accord, I think it is evident to every private member that all matters affecting Estimates can be discussed as a rule, more intelligently, at any rate, with greater satisfaction upon the representations- made by the minister in charge of the department than when presented by any other person.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has stated in the course of his address that the resolution if adopted suggested, if not demanded, constitutional changes inasmuch as the Senate was not representative of the people. Sir, that gives me my clue. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) also said that in his judgment, if the adoption of the resolution did not involve a constitutional change, at any rate it would he better to have the matter thoroughly discussed throughout the country, in the press and elsewhere, before such a radical change were brought into effect.

Now I have one criticism to offer, and I am speaking as private member, neither as a friend nor as an opponent of the Government, for in this matter, I take it, there is no partisanship whatever. It appears to me Sir, that neither the motion as sub- mitted by the hon. member nor any remarks so far made have gone quite far enough. I believe that the country at large is more concerned about another phase of this question than as to whether or not min741

isters of the Crown who are in the Senate should have seats here. I believe that the great body of the people of Canada are thinking seriously about the best method of selecting senators if the upper house is to continue. I cannot bring myself to believe that it can much longer continue to be the right-it may be the legal right- but I cannot bring myself to believe that it is the, moral and democratic right of any government to decide who shall constitute the senate of this country. I am convinced of this fact, that if it is desired to give the senate a stronger hold on the sympathy and the confidence of the people of Canada than it has to-day, the best way to bring that about would be to have the people themselves choose or elect the Senate. The method of so doing is not for me now to discuss, or even to suggest. It might be by some system of grouping constituencies by which the electorate of the country could determine who should constitute the Senate of this Dominion. Personally, I think we shall have two Houses of Parliament for a long time to come, perhaps always. But at this period in the history of Canada it occurs to me that it is a most opportune time for the country, for the press, for the Government, and for Parliament, to consider whether or not some such change should be made in the British North America Act. Is it not advisable to give to the electors of Canada the right to say who shall represent them in the Senate? I.believe that the Senate should represent the people rather than the Government of any day. I think the Senate should be elected for a stated time; not perhaps, for such a short period of four or five years, hut for a longer specified time; and they should be responsible to, and be elected by, the people. If that were done, the principle involved in the resolution would not perhaps present insuperable difficulties. While I admit that a change was suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), I had hoped that he would develop it more fully, and I have ventured to express at least my own opinion, and what I believe to be the opinion of a very large number of the people of this country, namely, that the time has come when the Parliament of Canada should consider the advisability of taking such steps as are necessary in order to give to the people the right to elect, not merely the members of the House of Commons, but also the members of the Senate of Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE HOUSING PROBLEM. PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL HOUSING BOARD
Full View Permalink

June 28, 1920

Mr. STACEY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau',. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1920

Mr. STACEY:

I would not detain the House at this time to discuss this matter were it not for the fact that this Bill brings to the front certain phases of the Indian question which are very vital at the present time in British Columbia; and because certain ex parte presentations of the case have been made to many people in Eastern Canada. Therefore I feel constrained to give some facts relative to the general situation in the province of British Columbia.

As was pointed out when the Bill received its first reading it contains two main features, first, the clause dealing with compulsory education, and second, the clause providing for the enfranchisement of certain Indians who are now wards of the Government. The passage of this Bill will make a very decided advance in the policy of Canada in respect to our Indian popula-

tion. I have heard it stated, Mr. Chairman, that Canada has no clearly defined Indian policy. In other words, that while the Government in co-operation with the churches of the country has sought to improve the moral and social status of the Indian youth, she has not made any adequate provision for their full and subsequent citizenship. This Bill is ian honest and carefully wrought out measure to promote, with reasonable celerity, the social and civic welfare of the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country.

The native has been and is in many ways under-rated and misjudged, possiblv because he differs in many important respects from the white man, but those differences are mainly the results of generations of training, environment, and natural or race characteristics. When we consider his history and understand his character, we find many strong mental and moral qualities that promise well for his future development and citizenship. At the same time there are certain obvious defects in his mentality which demand from us as his guardians kindness and consideration, to enable him to reach the largest measure of self-adjustment and independence.

The Indian is by nature very strongly domestic in his habits. He is a faithful friend and possesses in a high degree the artistic temperament, as evidenced by the dexterity of the women and by the style of public address used by the Indian orator. But he is slow to move, has little initiative, and is allnost devoid of the economic instinct. Therefore it may be regarded as incumbent upon us, by reason of these existing conditions, to do our utmost to help him realize and enjoy what we conceive to be the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

There are about 100,000 Indians in Canada; approximately one-quarter of these are in British Columbia. It is of those and those only, Mr. Chairman, and of their relation to this Bill that I propose now to speak. These Indians represent all grades and conditions of civilization and progress, from the aboriginal state to comparative social and financial comfort. I understand that one Indian of British Columbia bought 525,000 worth of Victory Bonds last fall. It is estimated that probably less than one-half of these Indians have ever had an opportunity to secure even a rudimentary education, and of those who have had the opportunity a very considerable number have refused to attend the school provided.

There are seven or eight linguistic stocks in the province, each of which has several distinct dialects. These stocks vary in intellectual capacity, as they do in other respects. Some, indeed', are of very high order, mentally alert, analytical, vigorous, and capable of great development under favourable conditions. But it is worthy of note that while there are many natives who are financially easy and many more who are intellectually qualified to a very high degree, not a single Indian from British Columbia has up to the present time made application for, enfranchisement. When it is noted that 300 Indians in the Dominion at the present time have applied for enfranchisement the question naturally arises: why are none from British Columbia included in that number? One reason that may be assigned-I do not say the only one -is that an unfortunate state of affairs exists in British Columbia between certain Indian tribes on the one hand and the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada on the other. Bill No. 13 which has been before this House is an attempt to remove the difficulties existing on the former account, whereas Bill No. 14 proposes or aims to promote the social and civic welfare of the individual Indian. In all fairness it must be said that a number of Indians from British Columbia appeared 'before your committee to oppose the passage of this Bill. But with equal candour it must be stated that it was soon discovered, upon their own admission, that their opposition was not really against the provisions of the Bill; for more than one of them stated that they did not know anything about those provisions. Their attitude was based, rather, upon the twofold objection as set forth by their counsel, Mr. O'Meara: first, that they formed a kind of protectorate under the British Crown and therefore this Parliament had no authority to pass this Bill-or, inferentially, any other Bill-affecting the allied tribes of British Columbia; second, upon the ground that they claimed tribal ownership under aboriginal title and Royal Proclamation of 1763 and were entitled to an interest in all the lands of the province. I propose now, Mr. Chairman, to state to the committee as clearly as I am able, not in the learned language of the lawyer but in the simpler speech of the layman, the condition of affairs in British Columbia in so far as they relate to the two points presented to your ^committee, as mentioned a moment ago.

It is necessary for us to review very briefly the history of the settlement and de-

velopment of the Coast province. With reference to the entire Pacific coast, the first explorers came from Spain and Russia. Those from Spain explored the coast line of Mexico and the Pacific States and sailed as far north as the Aleutian islands, where there are still to he found certain geographical names of Spanish origin. The Russians, on the other hand, explored the Alaskan coast and sailed as far south as California. About the same time, or a little later, Captain Cook, Mears and others from. England explored' the coast line from the mouth of the Columbia river northward, including parts which are now British Columbia, for example, the Queen Charlotte islands, and all explorers including those from England, claimed the territory discovered by simply landing and formally taking possession in the name of their sovereign, oust as D'Arcy McGee described Jacques Cartier:

In the forests of the North, while his townsmen mourned his loss,

He was rearing on Mount Royal the fleur-de-lis and Cross.

After the American Revolution, England's activities were greatly lessened on this continent by reason of the French Revolution, which continued to occupy her time and strength down to and including the earlier years of the last century. In the meantime the fur traders of the world had been looking with longing eyes to the wealth of the Pacific coast. The charter of the Hudson Bay Company did not permit them to extend their operations west of the Rockies, but the old Northwest Company had secured a lease on what is now the mainland of British Columbia. About one hundred years ago the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company joined forces1, which gave the former a footing on the Coast. In 1843 Vancouver island was leased to the Hudson Bay Company, and soon they established a post on the present site of the city of Victoria, and in 1849, Vancouver island was made a Crown colony.

What was then called British Columbia, namely, the mainland and Queen Charlotte islands, was made a Crown colony in 1858, and in 1866 the two colonies were united and five years later British Columbia entered Confederation.

Now, it is impossible for us to understand the British Columbia Indian question without some idea of its development through the successive periods I have just outlined. First, let us bear in mind that when the discoverers claimed the territory and formally took possession, the natives were

recognized, not as owners of the land, but as inhabitants of the country. They had absolutely no conception of ownership, as we understand the term. Then, a lttle later, when the territory came under the sway of the Hudson Bay Company, the same attitude and relation was recognized and maintained.

. It must further be borne in mind that if we consider the relation of the Indian tribes to the Dominion, there is no fixed date which may be regarded as the time at which the whole question was definitely decided or settled. As a matter of fact, their present status is the result of long and gradual growth, just as the English constitution is the development of centuries and our own present national status is the outcome of natural growth subsequent to Confederation. So, in a similar manner, it can be stated that the present relation of the Indian tribes to this country has been the result of a century or more of mutual understandings and arrangements through, first, the Imperial Government, then, the Colonial Government and finally, the Dominion or Provincial Government and, indeed, with many tribes treaties are made. They, each in turn, dealt generously with the natives who were always regarded as the country's wards.

The allied tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in a petition presented to the House of Commons, claim tribal ownership of the land under aboriginal title, and this claim appears to be based upon the proclamation of King George III in 1763. This proclamation was issued after the conquest of Canada to establish His Majesty's Government in the newly conquered territory. The proclamation states that it is issued for the purpose of establishing a Government in the extensive and valuable acquisitions in America secured by the Treaty of Paris.

It is, perhaps, needless to point out that the French made no claim to what is now the province of British Columbia. Thirty years afterward, or in 1793, Captain Vancouver landed on the island that now bears his name, and in the following year McKenzie made his overland journey to the coast.

Regarding the proclamation itself, it was repealed by subsequent Acts of the Imperial Parliament, courts were set up, and a system of government was gradually developed. It is a well-kpow fact that the Hudson Bay Company always treated the Indians generously. It was in their interests,

The Indians have, in fact, been held to be the special wards of the Crown, and in the exer-oise of this guardianship government has, in all cases where it has been desirable for the interests of the Indians, set apart such portions of the Crown lands as were deemed proportionate to, and amply sufficient for, the requirements of each tribe ; and these Indian Reserves are held by Government, in trust, for the exclusive use and benefit of the Indians resident thereon.

And further, and even more emphatic:

But the title of the Indians in the fee of the public lands, or of any portion thereof, has never been acknowledged by government, but on the contrary, is distinctly denied. In no case has any special agreement been made with any of the tribes of the mainland for the extinction of their claims of possession; but these claims have been held to have been fully satisfied by securing to each tribe, as the progress of the settlement of the country seemed to require, the use of sufficient traots of land for their wants for agricultural and pastoral purposes.

The first Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia was the Honourable J. W. Trutch, and in a letter addressed to Sir John Macdonald in October of 1872, he wrote as follows:

Then as to Indian policy I am fully satisfied that for the present the wisest course would be to continue the system which has prevailed hitherto only providing increased means for educating the Indians and generally improving their condition, moral and physical. The Canadian system-

-that is, the Eastern system-

-as I understand it will hardly work here. We have never bought out any Indian claims for lands, nor do they expect we should, but we reserve for their use and benefit from time to time traots of sufficient extent to fulfil all their reasonable requirements for cultivation or grazing. If you now commence to buy out Indian title to the lands of British Columbia you would go back of all that has been done here for thirty years past and would be equitably bound to compensate the tribes who inhabited the districts now settled, formed by white people equally with those in the more remote and uncultivated portions. Our Indians are sufficiently satisfied and had better be left alone as far as a new system towards them is concerned. Only give us the means of educating them by teachers employed directly by the Government as well as by aiding the efforts of the missionaries now working among them.

Some time after British Columbia entered Confederation, what is known as the "Land Question" became a vital issue in the province. The Dominion Government had granted to the Indians east of the Rockies reserves amounting to a grant per family of some 80 acres, while on the western slope of the Rockies, where reserves had been granted, it had amounted to some 20 acres per family.

While this may appear on the face of it to suggest larger generosity on the part of

the Dominion than obtained in the province, a knowledge of local hunting conditions and the comparative value of the land concerned would remove such a criticism. However, leaving that aside, the Indians complained that they had not received as much land as had been granted to other tribes across the Rockies, and many of them and others who were supporting their claims pressed very strongly for a recognition of an Indian title and for treatment similar to that which the Indians to the east of the Rocky mountains received.

As great dissatisfaction existed over the allotment of reserves, the Provincial and Dominion Governments made an agreement in 1875, which led to the appointment of Reserve Oommissions, whose duty is was to set aside reserves under agreement, one of the provisions of which reads as follows:

That each reserve shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the nation of Indians to which it has been allotted and in the event of any material increase or decrease hereafter of the members of a nation occupying a reserve, such reserve shall be enlarged or diminished, as the case may be, so that it shall bear a fair proportion to the members of the nation occupying it. The extra land required for any reserve shall be allotted from Crown lands and any land taken off a reserve shall revert to the province. [DOT]

This provision gave rise to What is known as the reversionary interest of British Columbia in Indian reserves.

As time passed, the claim of the Indians and their friends that they had title to the provincial lands was constantly pressed and in more recent years has been advocated by counsel in the employ of certain Indians and their friends.

Shortly after the appointment of the present Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, the question of the Indian title in British Columbia became urgent by reason of strong representations made to the Government by certain influential persons and interested organizations. Recommendations were, in consequence, made to the Government, which were adopted by an Order in Council dated June, 1914, and which still stand as the proposition of the Government to the Indians, and the conditions of the Order in Council are as follows:

1. The Indians cf British Columbia shall, by their chiefs or representatives, in a binding way, agree, if the court, or, on appeal, the Privy Council, decides that they have a title to lands of the province, to surrender such title, receiving from the Dominion benefits to be granted for extinguishment of title in accordance with past usage of the Crown in satisfying the Indian claim to unsurrendered territories, and to accept the finding of the Royal

JUNE 23, 19i20

Commission on Indian Affairs in British Columbia as approved by the Government of the Dominion and the province as a full allotment of reserve lands to he administered for their benefit as part of the compensation.

2. That the province of British Columbia by granting' the said reserves as approved shall be held to have satisfied all claims of the Indians against the province.

That the remaining considerations shall be provided and the cost thereof borne by the Government of the Dominion of Canada.

3. That the Government of British Columbia shall ibe represented by counsel, that the Indians shall be represented by counsel nominated and paid by the Dominion.

4. That, in the event of the court or Privy Council deciding that the Indians have no title in the lands of the province of British Columbia, the policy of the Dominion towards the Indians shall be governed by consideration of their interests and future developments.

So that in any case the Indian stood to win.

It (will be remembered that one provision of the 13th clause of the Union negotiations provided that the Dominion should carry out such a policy in the interest of the Indians that would be at least equal to that which had Ibeen pursued by the Crown colony prior to 1871. The fact should be emphasized that while the British Columbia Indians are not in possession of a documented treaty, they bave always enjoyed the substance of a treaty. Provision has been made for their education; they have been protected on their reserves; irrigation and dyking have received attention and they have been encouraged in agriculture and fruit-growing and in general, the progressive policy, which has governed the Crown in its relation to the natives of other parts of the country, has been extended to the Indians of British Columbia in no unstinted degree.

Further, ever since the province entered the Union, yearly appropriations have been made by Parliamnt to carry out the policy of the Government with reference to the Indians' of British Columbia.

During the last 20 years, $4,632,288.14 have been expended for Indian purposes in British Columbia, so that as a matter of fact, a policy much more generous than that adopted by the Crown colony has been in operation during the days of Confederation.

A consideration of the foregoing facts has fully satisfied me that the objection to this advanced programme as presented by their counsel before your committee and widely promulgated throughout the country, is groundless, and that the present policy and programme of the Government in its efioTt to bring them into the Tights and privileges of full Canadian citizenship is the policy which will commend itself, not only to the best thnking and most progressive Indians but to their true and real friends throughout the country.

I was strongly impressed with a remark made by Mr. Soott, whether personal or official, I am not prepared to say, 'but in my opinion it presented the ideal and correct solution of the whole Indian problem, when he stated that he hoped, in time, not in his day, not perhaps for 100 years hence, but some day, in Canada, there Would be no Indian problem. The Indians would all be absorbed into the nation and take their place in the social, economic and civic life of the community, and of the state, on a par with all other citizens.

And now, coming to consider the two main provisions of the Bill, le't ns look at the actual conditions. 'The Deputy Superintendent General advised your committee that the Reserve Day 'Schools in the West were practically a failure. The children were kept at home for the slightest reason or excuse. Irregularity in attendance, the bane of all teachers, prevailed everywhere. In fact, teachers were mildly buying the attendance of the children, a ruinous policy, and worse principle. The Deputy Superintendent General further stated that the Indian school system is somewhat peculiar in that the churches co-operate with the department in the work of education and he added:

"I have always been In favour of that, because of the success which has attended the work and which Is due in a great measure to the co-operation of the churches."

He further added that in 1910, when Mr. Oliver was minister, he called all the heads of the denominations concerned-the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Methodists and 'Presbyterians-to Ottawa and they had a conference, and there has 'been a decided improvement as a result. The churches are conducting 'boarding schools under a contract system, the Government then consenting to an increase in the per capita grant, which is not now sufficient to meet the cost of living, hut the churches have loyally made up the deficiency out of their own resources.

At that time, Mr. Oliver agreed to spend a certain amount every year in the erection of new buildings and this policy was continued by the Borden 'Government and Parliament was very generous in its appropriations until the war broke out.

With regard to the Industrial and Boarding Schools as carried on by co-operation

with the churches operating in the province, there are 3 Anglican, 2 Presbyterian, 3 Methodist and 8 Roman Catholic. The buildings required for the carrying on of this work have been very largely provided by the churches concerned. The Government has contributed $160,000 towards the erection of buildings for the Roman Catholic chuTch and $44,000 for the construction of those operated by the Presbyterian church, while up to the present, the Anglican and Methodist bodies have built their own residential schools.

Roughly speaking, one-third of the total cost involved in carrying on these residential schools has been and is supplied by the churches themselves and although the cost of maintenance during the last 4 or 5 years, has been greatly increased, such extra outlay has been borne entirely by the churches and the Government has maintained the same per capita grant that obtained prior to the (war.

I mention these facts mainly for the purpose of pointing out the importance of the fact that the disinterested and patriotic educators of the Indian population of the West are practically ta unit in strongly urging the Government to adopt a compulsory educational system, in so far as it affects the attendance of the children of the native population.

It cannot perhaps be expected for obvious reasons that they would take a similar position or indeed any pronounced attitude upon the question of the enfranchisement of these Indians. However, we do know that many who have been a long while engaged in the work of Indian education and understand their character and habits thoroughly, are strongly of the opinion that some such advanced legislation as is provided for in the Bill, should be enacted. Their ground for this opinion is well taken and, one reason is as follows:

The Indian boy or girl when leaving the school, say at the age of 16 or 18, naturally returns to his or her home among the tribe, and having no civic or individual goal to reach as a citizen in the community, there is necessarily more or less deterioration. In fairness, however, to the work of the schools of the country, it should be said that the best type of Indian home life follows the union of young men and women who have both had their training in these industrial schools.

Now, it is not believed by the committee or the department, or indeed by any one, that any wholesale process of enfrancliise-

ment will follow the passage of this Bill, or that any arbitrary method ioif compelling certain Indians to at once assume the duties of citizenship will follow, but it is believed, and very strongly believed, that it is necessary for this department to have and exercise the power of initiative, so that when these people are in a position to assume their proper place in the life of the aoam-try, the machinery of the Government shall enable them to do so, and in this connection let me say it was a matter of very great satisfaction to your committee to learn that almost every Indian who spoke declared his unbounded confidence in the Deputy Superintendent General in fact, one British Columbia Indian stated in a very unique and emphatic manner that if he could only be assured that Mr. iScott would live forever, he did not care what kind or amount of legislation was passed by the Parliament, that he knew it would be all right; so long as Mr. Scott was there, they would be well treated.

Mr. Chairman, I have reached the conclusion that the real friend of the British Columbia Indians is not the man who encourages them in the mistaken idea that they are independent of the Canadian Parliament, and that they have some legal claim on the lands of the province, and who takes their money and the money of other well-intentioned friends of the Indian in order that he may continue this agitation and develop a case, which already the Imperial Privy Council has declined to consider.

I repeat, Sir, that the real friend of the British Columbia native is not the man who pursues such a policy. He may be actuated by philanthropic and disinterested motives but I do not know a man in British Columbia who understands the situation that believes it.

The real friends of the Indians are their teachers and missionaries, many of whom have given a lifetime of unrewarded labour to promote their welfare at great personal and domestic sacrifice and whose splendid service the country is beginning to recognize. Their real friends are those white men who seek to help them and to encourage them when and where possible and who discourage all agitation and agitators and, may I further add, that in my opinion, the Indians of British Columbia, or indeed of any and every part of Canada, have no more disinterested and sympathetic advocate, no truer friend anywhere than the

Deputy Superintendent General, Mr. D. C. Scott.

Mr. Speaker, having listened carefully to the case as presented by Mr. O'Meara, on behalf of the allied tribes of British Columbia and having given the whole subject and his argument such study and consideration as I am capable of doing, and having in mind the fact that the land question was their main reason why this Bill should not pass, (they not having presented or urged any objection against the provisions of the Bill itself), I am fully convinced that his objections are groundless and in the main hypothetical, and believing that it is highly desirable in the interests both of the Indian and of the white population of British Columbia, that this Bill should pass, I support it with full confidence that its administration will be marked by kindness, consideration and firmness.

The CHAIRM1AN: Shall clause 1 carry?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink