1969-03-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in French and English- Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Will the minister say if postal workers in Vancouver are being threatened with dismissal if they adhere to the article in their labour contract respecting wash-up time?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Postal workers across the country are expected to adhere to the instructions laid down in accordance with the contract, and they are expected to obey instructions of the government. A decision has been made in the department which will eliminate an additional sorting between one o'clock and two o'clock p.m., because we did not consider this was justified. If workers wish to appeal this, they can institute a grievance procedure. We will proceed as quickly as possible to adjudication as we are quite anxious for a third party to pronounce on who is actually running the Post Office.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to convene a meeting of his senior management staff and the negotiators of the postal unions as recommended to him
today as the best means of avoiding an explosion with regard to the postal service in Vancouver?


Eric William Kierans: I have been meeting, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: In connection with the Post Office Department, Mr. Speaker, is there anything in the nature of a slowdown taking place in the transhipment or sending of mail? I ask that because I sent a letter marked first class mail to Mr. George Cloakey, 720 Earl Grey Crescent S.W., Calgary, Alberta, which left Ottawa on February 20 and was received in Calgary February 26. What is the reason for mail being held up like this? Will the minister look into this, because it is another flagrant-


Eric William Kierans: I am sure the letter is very important, Mr. Speaker, and I will be glad to look into the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that
observation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. member rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes I am. That observation was totally uncalled for. All mail is important, even that which comes from members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General regarding the wire he has received from the postal workers in Vancouver. Has the Postmaster General been advised by the postal workers that the management has threatened suspension and dismissal of members who are merely insisting that the terms of the contract under which they operate shall be carried out? Will the minister assure the house that there will be no dismissals until the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement has been thoroughly explored?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just brought up exactly the same question. As I have replied, the best
March 6. 1963

Inquiries of the Ministry way to resolve this problem is to proceed by way of grievance and to go to adjudication. We would certainly waive the preliminary steps and ask for a third party decision as quickly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the Postmaster General did not get the import of my question. I am asking the Postmaster General if during the time that discussions are being held regarding the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement he can assure the house that there will be no suspensions or dismissals as have been threatened by management?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, when the two sides decide to go to adjudication on these issues I imagine that neither side will want to test its strength, or at least should not want to, and meanwhile all people working for the Post Office are expected to obey the legitimate directives of the administration of the Post Office.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: As one of the main bones of contention between the postal union and the minister and his department, as to the provision for wash-up facilities and the right to use those facilities when needed, does not the minister consider it would be cheaper and far more preferable to allow the postal workers to return to their stations at noon instead of providing these portable wash-up facilities to follow them around their routes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



EFFECT OF RATE CHANGES IN NON-PROFIT PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary or related question to the Postmaster General. Having in mind the continued volume of protests coming from the non-profit publications of Canada would he not take a second look at that situation and give further consideration to those mailing rates.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, my definition of a non-profit publication is a publication that does not make a profit; but the majority of non-profit publications seem to think the definition is that they should make considerable losses and

that these should be chargeable to one government department or another. In my opinion a non-profit organization is an organization that makes neither losses nor profits. If a non-profit organization is suffering and needs subsidies from the government to continue with its own purposes and objectives, I think that it should apply openly to the government department from which it needs assistance and that such assistance should not be hidden in the mail rates that are paid by the taxes of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we could go on to the next subject. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mine was a supplementary to the original question, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will no -doubt recall that on February 19 last I asked him whether he had seen the report of a three year Study in Alberta which pointed out the monopolistic control large oil companies have over service stations. The report is alleged to state that this situation arises in all parts of Canada. I asked him whether he had seen the report and what steps he intended to take with regard to the revelations in its. At that time he said he had only had reports about it. Perhaps now he has studied it and could answer my question.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, copies of the report have now been received from Alberta, and have been referred to the research division of the Combines Investigation Branch. The report, consisting of some 700 pages, is receiving very close analysis by that division. As the report contains some 700 pages the analysis will take some time but the study is continuing. I have also referred copies of the report to the Economic Council of Canada, in that the Alberta report appears to deal with many of the same aspects of that particular industry that were dealt with by the Restrictive Trade Practices T.B.A. report. The report was also referred specifically by the government to the Economic Council, because it was felt that there would be value
March 6, 1969

in the Economic Council having the Alberta report.


David Lewis: I am very glad to hear about the steps that have been taken. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the possibility that the present act will not permit action against the companies in certain respects, whether the revelations in the Alberta report make changes in the present act even more necessary, and whether his department is giving careful consideration to this.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, as I have said we are giving very careful consideration to the report itself. In so far as the report may indicate that the present Combines Investigation Act should be amended, we will consider that situation. I have made it clear however in the past, as did my predecessor, that we do not anticipate amendments to the Combines Investigation Act until such time as the Economic Council reports on competition policy, at which time I would hope to be able to bring in a complete revision of the act.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister say whether it will be the intention of his department to consider seriously some of the specific recommendations of the inquiry, such as a bill of rights for operators, more favourable lease arrangements and the right of operators to determine their own hours of business.


Stanley Ronald Basford: All of those aspects of the report are being examined by the research division which I mentioned earlier.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the future Minister of Economic Regional Development.
Could he tell the house whether his program intended to abolish regional disparities will be amended in such a way that the Sherbrooke area and some neighbouring areas will be considered as special areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Is not the hon. member aware that the scope of his question is somewhat too broad and is calling for a statement of principle from the minister? Therefore it cannot be
Inquiries of the Ministry accepted at the moment, but should the hon. member deem it urgent, he could give me notice of it and we could discuss it on the adjournment motion.



P.E.I.-DESIRABILITY OF COMMITTEE REPORT BEFORE CAUSEWAY REJECTION STATEMENT

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he now practise in this house the principle of dialogue and discussion which he so glowingly referred to last night when addressing a group which I shall refer to as a group decorated for having skirmished successfully with the war on poverty. Would the right hon. gentleman agree there is a benefit to be derived from securing the opinions of standing committees before irrevocable decisions are made such as that contained in the announcement he made yesterday with regard to Prince Edward Island, without having sought the views of the Standing Committee on Transport which visited the Island and was in the process of completing a report which undoubtedly would have dealt with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is not acceptable. It is a question asking the Prime Minister to express his opinion about the value of decisions made before reports are given by a committee. The question is academic, philosophical and rhetorical.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what happened, does not the Prime Minister consider it would have been advisable to have waited?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister send the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to interview a person who called his office this week to object to the federal medical assistance plan.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that there was a gentleman who
6276	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry came to my office to make certain threats against my person. As a result, an initiative was taken by my office to report the matter to the R.C.M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are going to be busy.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADIAN MEDALLISTS IN MEXICO OLYMPIC GAMES

John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I wonder whether I might acknowledge the presence in the gallery of seven of the eight persons who won medals for Canada in the Mexico Olympic games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Where are the horses?


John Carr Munro: The horses are outside.


George Harris Hees: Are they on the payroll?


John Carr Munro: If I might make a few comments: The Prime Minister, as the house knows, immediately following the games expressed the thanks of Canada to these fine athletes for their performance at Mexico. However, since that time the government has not taken the opportunity to show some expression of gratitude for the magnificent efforts of these athletes. I am pleased to say that we will be rectifying this situation tonight, when I will have the privilege of hosting a banquet in their honour on behalf of the Canadian government. They have contributed a great deal to national unity and provided tremendous incentive to sports throughout the country. I am sure all members of the house join with us in honouring them today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. In rising might I take the opportunity of joining with the minister in his greetings to these very eminent sportsmen from Canada. The minister

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
was rather fortunate to have a pleasant announcement to make in answer to a question I put to him which was rather unpleasant. Therefore, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister undertake to the house to give a report as soon as possible on the circumstances surrounding the investigation of the person who made a complaint to his office in connection with the federal medicare plan, and will the minister explain why the same day the mounted police were sent to interview this person?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure this is a matter of urgency. I do not want to cut off the inquiries being directed to the minister by the hon. member but I doubt whether thus is the type of matter about which a question can be asked at this time. However, the first question having been allowed, I should allow the minister to answer the supplementary question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is simply referring to a person who has indicated in the past-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Order. You have been ruled out on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will allow me, I indicated that the first question having been allowed, perhaps the minister might be permitted to reply to the supplementary.


John Carr Munro: There is a long history concerning this person's unhappiness with the federal medicare plan.


An hon. Member:: He is not the only one.


John Carr Munro: He expressed his dissatisfaction, and in the course of so doing made some threats against me that he said he was going to carry out. This is what was reported to me. My executive assistant felt it incumbent upon him to report this matter to the R.C.M.P., which he did. They called and questioned the man, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. What did this man say he was going to do?


John Carr Munro: Oh, he said he was going to kill me-or something.


George Harris Hees: That is not enough!
March 6. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka feel that the matter should be carried further? I really have some doubts as to the propriety of pursuing this question further.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question to another minister, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to ask the Solicitor General this question but, although he is supposed to be here, he is not. I therefore ask the Minister of Justice whether he has been asked to investigate the particular matter I have just raised.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: have not, Mr. Speaker, but I am always willing to protect the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka resume his seat. With great deference to the hon. member, I have serious doubts as to whether this is the kind of question that can be asked at this time. Only very few minutes are allowed hon. members in which to direct questions to the ministry. The hon. member has asked three questions on the subject. If he feels this matter should be pursued further, I wonder whether he might not put it down for discussion at the time of adjournment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In connection with the answer of the Minister of Justice, do I understand the minister to say that he has at this moment no knowledge of this matter?


John Napier Turner: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The R.C.M.P. report to my colleague the Solicitor General, and he has not mentioned it to me.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the contents of the conciliation board report, which in effect asks the C.B.C. not to hide behind so-called federal government guide lines and virtually invites the ARTEC union to take a strike vote, would the minister advise the house what steps he has taken to bring the two parties together, and has he made any representations to the C.B.C. or his deskmate?
29180-398J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Bryce S. Macliasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to interfere with the free collective bargaining process. The conciliation board report was tabled in my department, and released. Both parties are free to have recourse to the law; that is, the unions are free to go on strike on March 12. The Minister of Labour has at this moment no intention of interfering, whether the union stays on strike for three or four months or whether the C.B.C. decides to lock out the unions for three or four months. This is the purpose of the act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be willing to use his good offices to prevent a strike occurring in our national broadcasting network?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think such action is necessary. Both sides have complied with the law. They have gone through the conciliation board stage. They have had long and extensive hearings before the conciliation board, chaired by a very competent chairman who made a very impressive and far-reaching report. It is now up to both sides to resume bargaining directly with each other.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question concerning negotiations that have been going on for a few days about the situation in the port of Montreal.
Could the minister tell us where the negotiations stand in the dispute between ship owners and the dockers of the port of Montreal?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the negotiating team of the Shipping Federation and the longshoremen will be resuming negotiations tomorrow before the conciliation board, chaired by Judge Gold.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister held conversations within the last few days with the two parties involved in this dispute?
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have had many conversations in the last few days with individuals connected with the shipping industry, directly or indirectly.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The Montreal Gazette does not say that.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence, I direct it to the Prime Minister.
Last night at about 2 a.m., people in the township of Nepean were awakened by aircraft noise, and as the Nepean police reported after an investigation that it was caused by jet aircraft from the Bagotville Air Force Base making supersonic flights over the Ottawa area, I ask the Prime Minister if, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, he would investigate and see that this does not happen again?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representation and should consider that the responsible minister has taken it as notice.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the President of the Privy Council. Since the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he would have no objection to a full disclosure of the facts regarding the Prince Edward Island causeway studies, and the facts upon which the cancellation of this project was based, can the minister indicate by what means and when this subject will be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I am prepared to discuss this with my colleagues. As the hon. member probably knows, after today four opposition days will remain until the 26th day of this month. If the hon. member and others would like to discuss this, it may well be that we could use one of the opposition days for this purpose.



P.E.I.-EFFECT OF CAUSEWAY REJECTION ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether the government assessed the effects which the abandonment of the causeway project would have on the successful implementation of the comprehensive development plan.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: As I said yesterday, the government had a very difficult decision to make. We do not have sufficient funds to proceed at the same time with the causeway and with the FRED program, and in assessing both projects we decided that funds were more urgently needed for the FRED program than for the causeway.
I might add while I am on my feet that I understand there has been some misunderstanding as to whether the decision was taken in conjunction with the government of Prince Edward Island. I thought I had made it quite clear in my statement when I said we had consulted the government of the province, as we are always exhorted to do by all sides of this house, but that the decision was ours. We are the ones who decided not to proceed with the causeway. In this connection I am sure there will be an opportunity at some time or other, as suggested by the house leader, to look into the facts and figures.
In making this decision we assessed the future over the next 60 years or more and we considered whether the causeway was feasible or whether it could be paid for in any terms comparable to the cost of a ferry service. We reached the conclusion that the ferry service was considerably cheaper than building a causeway. That was the basis of our decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The "oh" I hear from over there will perhaps be changed to "ah" when the hon. members have an opportunity to look at the figures.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since he and his government have abandoned the causeway and consigned the people of Prince Edward Island to 60 years of ferry service, will he assure the house that the Canadian National Railways current proposal for a 50 per cent increase on those ferry rates will also be abandoned?
March 6, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member obviously misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said. When we speak of 60 years we speak about the possible length of time during which a causeway would be serviceable, and we used a costing process over a period of 60 years to compare the capital investments required for one type of crossing as opposed to the other. It is this comparison which led us to base our calculations on a period of 60 years. We assume that any causeway which would be built would last approximately 60 years.
Does the hon. member have a problem?


Mr. Horner:: You are opposed on both sides of the house.



P.E.I.-COMMUNICATION FROM PREMIER ASKING REVIEW OF CROSSING PROJECT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this project which was acknowledged earlier by two previous governments to the people of Prince Edward Island, has the Prime Minister received today an urgent communication from the premier of Prince Edward Island asking for an immediate personal review of the decision to scrap the crossing project? If he has received this communication, could he indicate the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such communication, but if I had received one-and this is hypothetical-I can tell the house what my reply would have been. I think no one in this house or in Prince Edward Island thinks that we prefer not to build the causeway and that we prefer to make the people cross by ferry. The decision is based on the matter of cost. There is no hidden preference on our side for seafaring vessels as opposed to wheeled vehicles. We chose the cheaper method of crossing, because this is what the country can afford at this time. This is how I would answer any such hypothetical communication.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. In view of what seems to be some disagreement on facts between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island, and the importance of having a full discussion and disclosure, as the Prime Minister agreed yesterday, of all the facts of the situation, would the Prime Minister not agree that the place for such a review would not be in Committee of the Whole or in the house
Inquiries of the Ministry where there could only be a very limited debate, but rather in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works? Would the Prime Minister indicate when this matter might be placed before the committee so that a complete and satisfactory discussion could take place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will let the house leader discuss with the leaders of the other parties what place would be the most appropriate to present this information and to allow for a full dialogue.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I have a supplementary question for the minister of regional economic expansion. WilL the government announce a development program for eastern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the near future and will such agreements be made despite the fact that these provinces do not have trading stamps in the form of causeways?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, some arrangements have already been signed with Quebec and New Brunswick, and we do not intend to sign any other.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of the people of Vancouver Island who have been consigned to a permanent situation of being dependent on the ferry service and who will be required to pay in part for the FRED program, and will do so willingly I am sure, if he will assure hon. members opposite that ferry services can be quite adequate.


An hon. Member:: You will get your medal for that.
Another hon. Member: You turned state evidence.



P.E.I.-REJECTION OF CAUSEWAY-AVAILABILITY OF REPORT OF MARITIME HEARINGS OF COMMITTEE

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister-When the matter of the causeway is discussed either in this house or before some committee would he ask the house leader to make sure that the evidence taken before the Transport and Communications Committee on its recent trip to Prince Edward Island for this purpose is available?
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that that would he quite easy to arrange and I think there would be no difficulty in giving such an undertaking. However, I think that if we want to have full information on this matter by way of comparative costs we might ask the opposition to come forth with the figures they have in mind when they suggest we build a tunnel between Newfoundland and Labrador.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative opposition has never-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister made a deliberate misrepresentation here today. He has made similar misrepresentations in the past and I challenge him to produce the slightest evidence that this party ever made a commitment to build a causeway between Newfoundland and the mainland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a further point of order but I wonder whether he should go on with the subject much longer. I see a number of hon. members who want to ask supplementary questions on this point. If hon. members think that the rest of the question period should be devoted to this question, I have no objection but I have some doubts that this is the will of all members of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish to speak on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused of deliberate misrepresentation and I would like to tell the house that I am sorry, I thought they spoke about a tunnel, but I understand now that they meant a causeway.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is a serious matter, because this is the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't think so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say again that this party has never made any such commitment to build a tunnel, a causeway or any other form of such crossing and that this assertion by the Prime Minister is a deliberate misrepresentation.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that the debate on points of order and associated questions is perhaps getting somewhat out of hand, and we are beginning to use rather strong language. I do not think there is really any purpose in pursuing the matter much further, because we have reached a point where the situation is possibly getting a bit out of control. I think we might drop the issue for the moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with Your Honour precisely, and for that reason I want to make this remark. Your Honour quite properly refuses to allow questions which are out of order when members of opposition parties ask them. Equally, Your Honour should direct spokesmen on the government benches and the Prime Minister to be responsive to questions which are asked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the question which was put to me.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw your remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I should tell the house that when I suggested that the opposition come foreword with figures as to the cost of either a tunnel or a causeway, as the Leader of the Opposition now says, I was being facetious. I do not really insist that the opposition come forward with those figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The answer given by the Prime Minister seems to confirm my view that we are not achieving very much by pursuing points of order, the question of privilege, or the discussion which was raised originally by the hon. member for Malpeque. Perhaps hon. members will agree that I should call upon the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate says he has a sensible supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask his sensible supplementary question briefly; hon. members at the other end of
March 6, 1969

the chamber have been anxious to put questions and I think I should be allowed to call them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have neither a sensible supplementary nor an explosive question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McGrath:: I wish to rise on a point of order to set the record straight and to tell the government and the Prime Minister that their friend the Premier of Newfoundland has undertaken such a study as to the feasibility of a tunnel across the strait to Bell Isle. I suggest the right hon. gentleman should consult with his friend in Newfoundland as to the feasibility of the project.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that that is not a point of order but a matter of debate. We may shortly have to call on the Olympic team to come into the house and see that order is maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Later:}


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this is the sensible supplementary I was promising. It is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he give the house an undertaking to hold discussions with Premier Joseph R. Smallwood in connection with this causeway to check the feasibility of the project, possibly using his own skin-diving techniques to investigate it at first hand before the seal hunt finishes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot agree with the hon. member's appreciation of his question.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: This question is not an explosive one, Mr. Speaker, but it is of interest to more people in this country than even the causeway. It is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some time ago I learned from the department that a study was to be made on the subject of hearing aids,


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is a good thing this is funny to a lot of members in this house, because it is not funny to many people across this country. I understood the report would
Inquiries of the Ministry be available early in 1969. I should like to ask the minister today when the report will be available and whether the public will be able to have access to the facts contained in that report.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not heard recently from my officials with regard to this report.


An hon. Member:: Louder, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I know they are working very hard on this examination of the manufacture and distribution of hearing aids, and I hope to have a report very soon. I share the hon. member's concern about this problem and agree as to its importance. When I receive the report I shall have to examine it, as I told the hon. member previously, to determine what portions of it may be made public. I would hope to make as much of it public as possible.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May we hear about it soon.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I refer to a statement made by the minister yesterday and to previous statements made by him concerning an exchange of letters between Quebec and France on the subject of co-operation in the field of satellite communication. Since the position of the Government of Canada is that no agreement of this question can exist between Quebec and France which has international status, will the minister say whether the federal government intends to take action to prevent the implementation of this aspect of the letters and, if so, what action does the government plan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I think it is sufficient to say that this is not an international agreement in that sense, and everything flows from that statement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: My question arises out of the participation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a kind of trialogue on Ten Million Questions.
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Twenty million.


John George Diefenbaker: Twenty million?


An hon. Member:: What's ten million?


John George Diefenbaker: I halved the number. The minister was in great difficulty during the course of the discussion. Among other things he said it was the intention of the government to bring about an exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Vatican. Then he went on to point out that he was greatly surprised by the large volume of objection to such a proposal. I now ask the hon. gentleman, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister when the subject came up originally-I asked him about it and suggested that four prime ministers had contributed to dividing the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the right hon. gentleman would come to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been led astray today by the Prime Minister-by the manner in which he wandered so far afield. May I ask the minister now whether, in view of this very large volume of objection which comes from all the provinces and all religious faiths, the government has decided not to go ahead with the exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Vatican.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. gentleman of something else I said on that program, when I referred to the large volume of adverse mail in connection with the proposal to approve a new Canadian flag. It might have pleased him at that time, but the rest of us were inclined to believe that the mail then did not really represent the views of the people of Canada. And today we have a new Canadian flag of which we are very proud.
To answer the specific question, no final decision has yet been made as to whether we will proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can read from the record what the minister said. I ask him now, is the government giving consideration to departing from its original plan to bring about an exchange of diplomatic r epr es entatives ?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman will no doubt remember, the Prime Minister, when he announced he had

discussed this matter with His Holiness the Pope, said he hoped there would be some discussion of the matter and that the government would then take a decision. That decision has not yet been finally taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that, unfortunately, the question period expired some minutes ago. I regret very much that some hon. members who wished to ask questions did not have the opportunity to do so. I have a mental note of them and will give them priority on future occasions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council rising on a point of order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be helpful if I could make my weekly announcement of the business for the coming week.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Somebody is being facetious over there. One should not be facetious in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe it has become a custom and almost a rule of the house that on Thursdays the opposition house leader rises to ask a member of the government to make an announcement of the business to be considered during the ensuing week, after which an announcement of forthcoming business is made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But today there is no
agreement.	.


Mr. Speaker:: That has been my understanding of the rules. But if there is objection to the minister's announcement I doubt whether the Chair can override that objection. I hoped hon. members would agree to having the announcement made, because I suggest it is to the advantage of all hon. members to hear forthcoming business announced.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 6, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as announced a week ago today, the business for tomorrow will be item 25 on the order paper, Bill C-138, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. That is to be followed by item 43, Bill C-157. Then we shall take item 7, Bill C-112.
On Monday and Tuesday of next week we will call again the government reorganization bill, to completion. On Wednesday and Thursday of next week we will call the drug prices bill, that is, the amendments to the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, to completion. On Friday next we will call first the bill with respect to the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act for second reading, notice of which is being given today, to be followed by Bill S-15, for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the bill to amend the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act will be introduced and given first reading early in the week, so thait we may see the contents of the bill and be prepared to debate it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that bill will come forward for first reading on Monday next, unless hon. members wish to abridge the rules so that it can be given first reading tomorrow. Normally, first reading would take place on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government, in spite of successive admissions of its failure to deal adequately with the various social and economic problems confronting our native Indian people, is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Indian affairs is being promoted mainly because it has been a number of years since
DEBATES	6283
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians parliament has had a reasonably full opportunity to express its views about the entire matter of Indian affairs and government activity in that field. Because of general elections and manoeuvring that has taken place from time to time between various levels of government and the committee of the house interested in Indian affairs, a number of obstacles prevented our committee from examining in full various aspects of Indian affairs which ought to have been examined. Although members of that committee wished to visit Indian communities and see for themselves how Indian people lived, they were frustrated in their hopes and the expected visits did not materialize. Members of that committee wish to examine matters affecting our Indian peoples in detail. Many of them feel that various levels of government have interfered with the operation of the committee and we therefore welcome the opportunity for the present debate. We hope to have on record a clear announcement of government policy with respect to many areas of activity involving our Indian peoples, and the views of hon. members of this house on this extremely important subject.
It may be well to take a brief look at the history of the treatment we have accorded our native Indians. From the time of Confederation, the British North America Act decreed that land preserved for our Indians would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. That provision was a mistake. It drew a political line between our Indian population and the rest of Canada. In so many words it recognized that in this country there were two classes of people, the native Indians, to whom one standard of law applied, and the rest of the population, to whom another standard applied. Our native Indians were relegated to the status of second class citizens, and the basis for the discrimination which has persisted over the years was established.
I am sure that those who are aware of our history in this regard are ashamed. I know that deep in his heart the minister is ashamed of our history, although I hasten to say that in no way is he nor any hon. member here, personally responsible for what has happened. That does not alter the fact that Canadian society as a whole has discriminated against our Indians on an ethnic and cultural basis.
I hope the minister will realize that what I am about to say is not meant unkindly. I am sure he would be among the first to rebel if the situation that applied to our Indians were to apply to our French speaking peoples. He
6284	COMMONS DEBATES	March 6. 1969
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians would object to a "French Act" setting the French speaking peoples of our country apart from the rest. Not only the minister but all others of his cultural and linguistic group would have rebelled a long time ago against the provisions of any such "French Act", particularly if, for argument's sake, to take the situation in reverse, it were administered by Indians. Instead we have an Indian Act administered by non-Indians.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The Indian Act gave birth in 1867 to a system of paternalism which has been like a fungus growth that unfortunately is still with us today and still growing. We need more than the pious declarations and fine speeches which have been made in recent times about the necessity of cutting out this and eliminating that. As the minister knows, words come easy. I have listened to statements by the minister and have read statements by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). I have listened to the late Guy Favreau, to Senator Tremblay when he was the minister and to Mr. Nicholson, the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, when he was minister. They have all said the same thing, but what we need is action.
As long as we have an Indian Act, a special law relating to people with a different cultural inheritance from everybody else, and as long as we have a separate department, we will have discrimination and denials of fundamental human rights. We will have interference with the mutual esteem and selfrespect which people need to have for one another. Our society must have as its foundation respect for the quality of life and the dignity of the Indian. Every Indian must be able to have self-respect and to feel proud of himself and his culture. Is this not what our social order and society are all about? If so, what is this government doing to attain this objective?
We in this party have suggested for a long time that the objective of the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be self-destruction of the department and the minister's position. The minister must seek to work himself out of a job and become unemployed as a minister in charge of a department which provides support and special status to a group of people. This is what the minister and the government must do. I hope the minister accomplishes this objective. Predecessors of the minister stated they had this objective, but in recent

years a number of them by the inflation of their own competence have become senators, a Lieutenant Governor and even Minister of Public Works. None of them accomplished in the slightest way even a minor step toward the major objective of equity of position and rights for all people in Canada.
Quite frankly I do not know whether the objective will be attained during the present minister's time in charge of the department. All indications so far are that he will not suceed. I and many other people read with interest the minister's speeches as they are ground out by his department, but so far I have not read any announcement of government policy regarding this objective. There have been platitudes and concern expressed with a feeling of emotion in these speeches but no declaration of policy or intention. I am sure the minister and the government have had ample time to come to a conclusion on this fundamental matter.
I am sure the minister knows personally of empire builders within his department. He would not be worth his salt as a human being if he did not know they exist. There is a Parkinson's law concept in the department in the perpetuation of an administrative structure for no other purpose than that the administrators can maintain their comfortable positions and pretend to be doing a great deal while accomplishing nothing in a meaningful sense so far as native Canadian Indians are concerned.
The growth of the Indian affairs branch in recent years has been almost phenomenal. The minister provided me with information for April of 1962. At that time, just six years ago, the staff of the branch numbered 2,325. Today it is 3,175, an increase of more than 800 people. In the fiscal year 1962-63 the department had an expenditure of approximately $51 million. In 1967-68, the last full year for which I have figures, the amount was $122 million, more than double. What does this mean in terms of per capita expenditure by the department in relation to the native Indian people who have status under the Indian Act? I am not relating it to the total number of native people because that is a much higher number. In 1962 the government expended $250 per native Indian per year. In 1967 that figure had risen to $530 per year per man, woman and child. In a family of six, father, mother and four children, the expenditure made by the department per year on that basis would be $3,180.
March 6. 1969

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This growth in expenditure has been lauded by the government. We remember how the previous minister, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), used to gloat about how much money was being spent, as though that was the most commendable thing that had ever happened. He never said anything about what was accomplished. He never talked in terms of value received by the native people, and I have not heard the present minister deal much in those terms either.
There is no virtue in building a bigger bureaucracy. There is no virtue in being one of the last of the big-time spenders in terms of public funds. If the Indian people do not care what you spend they are concerned about what you accomplish. This is what society is concerned about too, and it is what this parliament is concerned about. When I talk about what is being accomplished I am thinking in terms of accomplishment not as the department has considered it, doing things for the Indian people, but rather accomplishment in getting out of the business of doing things for these people, getting out of the business of interfering with them because you have done too much already and most of it has been bad.
Again we have only a few statistics to which we can refer. These are official statistics from the Indian Affairs Branch. There may be later ones but if there are I do not think the situation has changed very much in the interim. Here is what has been accomplished. I am trying to explain how the native people themselves view the situation, how they live, what they feel, what they go through, what they know from their very existence to be the case although they probably cannot put it in statistical form but rather know it because they have lived through and have died under this system.
In the field of health, for instance, not too many years ago, in 1963, the average age of death of native Indian men was 33 years. For non-Indian men it was 60J years, almost double the life expectancy of Indians. For native Indian women the average life expectancy in 1963 was 34 years and for non-Indian women it was 64 years. Again the ratio is almost double. Most of the deaths of native Indian people arose from causes which were preventable such as colds, pneumonia, bronchial afflictions and accidents. Their deaths were caused by their environment, by much
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians poorer housing conditions, much poorer sanitation conditions, much poorer health measures, and fewer of the amenities of life that the rest of us have.
Their income is a pretty sad picture too, as the minister will admit. Again these are 1963 statistics. There may be later ones but I do not think they will show a much different situation in terms of the total picture. In 1963, 50 per cent of the native Indian families in this nation earned less than $1,000 a year and 75 per cent earned less than $2,000 a year. Of a total of 31,300 families the average income was $1,600 a year. Yet the government spends almost twice that much per family in expenditures by the Indian Affairs Branch.
The government could very easily wipe out the Indian Affairs Branch. Of course it would throw all those people out of work, but I am sure some other government department might be able to absorb them. Some of them might even have to go to work, which I realize might be a traumatic experience for them. Nevertheless, we could wipe out the Indian Affairs Branch today and give every native person $530 a year, every man, woman and child, which would mean that Indian famines would receive almost twice the amount they receive today. I only use this as an example of what might be done.
Quite frankly, I say again, Mr. Minister, that the sooner you get out of this business the better. I do not mean out of the government because you may have a great capabilities in some other department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair. I assume the remarks he has just made were not addressed to the Chair.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I got so carried away that I bypassed the Chair for the moment. My remarks are always through you, sir, to others. The sooner that the minister gets out of this business, the better off our native Indian people will be.
The services that exist in Indian communities are terribly shocking. The Indians suffer from a tremendous lack of electricity, water, sewage facilities, plumbing, streets, roads, street lights and all the other facilities and social services that exist in the rest of Canada. By and large, to a tremendous extent these are denied our native Indian people. This is a national disgrace, as I am sure the minister will agree. It is a shocking thing to have to listen to and to read about. It is even more shocking to visit Indian people in their
March 6, 1969
6286	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians own homes and see the terribly depressing and horrible conditions under which they live in this day and age, at a time when the government is squandering almost $3,000 per native Indian family per year. The native people know this and they wonder what is happening. They wonder why the money being spent by the department does not trickle down and show up in the quality of their daily lives. Surely we should be concerned and incensed about this.
The other night the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) addressed a meeting in one of the public buildings in Ottawa. Regretfully, I was not able to attend as I had another commitment, but I read in the newspapers what he said. Generally speaking, he pointed out that there are a couple of obstacles to the betterment of life for Indians. One is that the provincial governments have not involved themselves in this field as much as they should. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member on that point. He said the other obstacle was the indecisiveness of the native people themselves. To say the least that was a slighting comment, because it tends to blame the Indian people for their own environment, and the hon. member knows that this is not so.
I would be surprised if the minister does not say, as he has already said, that everything is going to change now, that things are going to be different, that soon a new day will dawn. I hope he means this and that he will be able to accomplish it. The native people will then be able to go through that door which has been closed to them for so long. It will open up and they will be admitted into the just society, or whatever other phrase the departmental propagandists think is catchy at the time. But you cannot do by propaganda what you cannot accomplish by action. From recent articles in some newspapers I believe that the newspapers have been taken in by the propagandists in the minister's department. I do not know what structure the minister has for the distribution of information, in terms of the department's expenditures and the like, but it is fairly massive. It grinds out public relations and press information in somewhat the same way a factory would grind out fertilizer. That is about as imaginative a simile as I can think of for this situation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Alexander:: And it is appropriate.


Frank Howard: It is appropriate because much of it is simply fertilizer and I mean in the old-fashioned natural form. Probably the greatest single thing that has been done-and in a sense this is commendable-is the introduction of the so-called consultation process in which the government is involved. Of course, this was not something conceived by the minister. His predecessor developed it and started it off more than a year ago. This is something we have advocated for many years. In fact, it is something that many of us have personally put into effect. We have engaged in consultation and meetings with the native people in an attempt to obtain a fuller understanding of their feelings and needs.
Regrettably, even though in essence the consultation program is good, as a general program I do not think it has met the expectations of or been accepted by the native Indian people because it reflects again the bureaucracy of the department to a large extent. The questions were prepared here in Ottawa by someone somewhere in the department. The questions contained in the publication, "Choosing a Path", and the methods followed primarily revolve around the concept of keeping the Indian Act and the department in existence. The suggested questions and discussion contained within that booklet all revolve around the principle of changing the act, making amendments to it, altering it and adjusting it, but retaining it even though the name may be changed. In other words, the intention is to keep an apartheid type law on our statute books.
If that is still the objective of the minister it is one that is fraught with danger for the native Indian people because they can only look forward to further interference in their daily lives by people in the department who really do not have too much concern about human needs and human values. If it is to be the policy of government to maintain a separate law and separate act, this will interfere with the dignity of the individual. The native Indian people for 100 years have been trying to get out from under the thumb of a government or department set up particularly on a special cultural base.
The booklet, "Choosing a Path", which is the foundation of the discussion at the consultation conferences, regrettably seems to lean in the direction of the perpetuation of the system. Fortunately, as the minister is aware, at many of the conferences the native Indian delegates had a little more concern than the
March 6, 1969

[DOT]department had about their own affairs and in some cases brushed aside the booklet and took the position that they would deal with it later if there should be time but that at that moment they would deal with other problems and choose the subjects. If the departmental officials or the minister had been able to go to these consultation conferences with the attitude that they had nothing to suggest and had asked the Indians to tell them, I suggest we would have been much better off.
Many native Indian people were insulted by the booklet, "Choosing a Path." Many of them were also amused. But the native Indian people were too polite to exhibit their amusement at what was presented to them. They would not express their amusement by laughing because they are seriously concerned about coping with serious problems. They did not mind giving the department and the government another chance, even though they had been saying these things for many years and even though they had been asking questions for years. Even though the Indians were sure in their own minds that no one had been listening to them over the years, they answered the questions again. Surely the questions about the liquor sections of the act have been answered so many times that it is almost laughable to think that they should even be asked them again. Surely the questions about the sale of farm produce on the prairies or the operation of farms by the minister have been answered so many times by the native Indian people that to present those same questions to them again in a booklet was virtually an insult to these people who have been declaring themselves about these matters for many years. Surely the question about classifying a child as a juvenile delinquent if he does not attend school regularly is undignified and an interference with free people. But other matters such as the Indian Claims Commission and education either were not mentioned or were glossed over in that document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member has agreement of the house to continue beyond his allotted time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell it the way it is.
DEBATES	6287
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to transgress upon the generosity of the house.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have my time.


Frank Howard: I shall curtail as much as I can what I think needs to be said. Many of the things I am saying are the same things the Indian people are saying. I am only trying to reflect in this forum the views the native people have about their own involvement in their own affairs. In the matter of education, to give an indication of how many native people have looked upon the consultation conferences and upon the government, many of them think this government is being deceitful in this regard. At the same time the consultation process was taking place and at the same time the minister and the departmental officials were sitting down asking for the views of the native Indian people about these things, the very important matter of education was being negotiated secretly with the provincial governments.
I do not know exactly when but some time last fall this house passed nine motions I introduced asking for the production of correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments about educational matters. We have seen neither hide nor hair of it since. The native people continually ask me where the correspondence is that I was going to get. I have to reply that I do not know where it is. Then they say they would certainly like to know before the whole consultation process is over so that they will be in a position to express their views about something as fundamental as education. This situation has existed for some time. This information has been denied to them at the same time the consultation processes were being carried on.
The departmental reorganization program which the minister inherited from his predecessor was put into effect at the very same time a continuing consultation conference was being carried on with the Indian people. It is not possible to have two standards. The government is not credible when this is done. On the one hand they say they want to consult about something and on the other hand say they are not going to consult about it.
As the minister knows, the native Indian people have raised objection to the new construction within the department. They see in it a reversal of the trend toward decentralization. Surely this is something which should have been discussed with the native Indian
March 6. 1969
6288	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians people while the consultations were going on instead of being imposed upon them. They ask questions about the double standard approach in respect of the involvement of the government in native Indian affairs. The situation is so silly that there is even a directive within the department to Indian superintendents and Indian agents in the field to the effect that they are forbidden to communicate with Members of Parliament and M.L.A.'s.
[DOT] (3:30 p.ra.)
The minister shakes his head. Let us suppose that a native Indian person writes to me about a problem at home. I am here, 3,000 miles away. In many cases I write to the Indian agent on the spot and ask him to do something about the problem or to tell me what it is all about. Do I get an answer from the Indian agent? No, I do not. I get an answer from Commissioner Boys, who used to be the commissioner at Vancouver, and he is about 1,000 miles away from the complainant and does not know what it is all about.
I ask the minister to look at this sort of situation. What happens is that Mr. Boys does not write the letter that I receive; the Indian agent writes it. The Indian agent leaves the signature blank, puts the letter in an envelope, mails it to Vancouver, Mr. Boys appends his signature and then sends it to me. This sort of thing is a pretty picayune and miserable reflection on the attitude of the department which refuses to treat people like adults and human beings. I do not care that the Indian agent does not write to me because I can talk to him on the telephone, but surely the native Indian who has a problem with Indian Affairs is entitled to something better than a runaround through the mails. Whether this problem exists in other provinces, I do not know, but it certainly does in British Columbia and the situation is resented by the native Indian people.
I have to explain to individuals with problems that Mr. Boys in Vancouver has told me this and told me that, and they reply in language I cannot repeat here. Well, I could, but I expect Hansard would dress it up so that it would not be recognizable. The complainant asks me what Mr. Boys knows about the particular problem; he tells me Mr. Boys does not know anything about it. Mr. Boys would admit this because he is ensconced in an office 500 miles or more distant from the particular situation in question. There have been


innumerable examples of this sort of thing but I have mentioned that one to indicate that a narrow view is taken by the department in such cases.
Our native Indian people are also concerned about economic activities and the lack of job opportunities which prevent their earning a decent living. They do not want welfare programs. They appreciate that it is destructive of human dignity to be asked to exist on the dole. Yet nothing else is offered. The department has not involved itself in any real way to provide opportunities for our native Indian people.
For example, in Prince Rupert this summer
1,000	to 1,500 workers in fish canneries will be put out of work because the canneries are closing down. Most of these workers are Indians. The minister heard about this when he was in Terrace for the wind-up of the consultation conference, and this was the first time the matter was brought to public light. So far we have not had a meeting of officials from Indian Affairs, the Department of Fisheries and the department of Manpower to try to do something for the individuals who will be put out of work this summer. These people are concerned about this situation, as they should be.
So far there has been almost absolute silence in regard to economic development programs. Many people have expressed the thought that, although action is taken in regard to cultural questions and individual problems, unless individuals and families are given the opportunity to earn a decent wage and do something meaningful in terms of work so they can earn a decent living their dignity will be destroyed. This is what we have been doing as far as the Indians are concerned for the last 100 years.
What has been taking place is nothing more than an invasion of the fundamental human rights of individuals. This has simply got to stop and it is the minister who must stop it. The native Indian people are not interested any longer in listening to fine speeches; they want something done now.
The native Indian people were very upset by what the minister did not long ago in regard to the summit conference, that was supposed to be held in Ottawa some time in January following the consultation conferences. Then it was to be some time in February. Then the date was set for today, March 6.


Mr. Orlikow:: Next year.


Frank Howard: No, today, and then that was cancelled. Why? The minister said
March 6. 1969

that some of the people objected to it being held at this time, that they wanted it held over so they could examine what had been presented, and so on.
The native Indian people are also concerned about the Indian Claims Commission bill, and I should like to tie that into my remarks at this point. They consider that there is an element of deceit and falsehood on the part of the government. Last October the government put on the order paper a notice indicating it was going to introduce the Indian Claims Commission bill; I forget the exact date of the notice. Having been questioned about the Indian Claims Commission bill, the minister rose in the house and said he had taken the bill back. It had been hidden to start with. It was not given to the people at the consultation conferences. In any event, the bill was taken back for revision as a result of some of the views expressed and representations made at the consultation conferences.
Withdrawing the bill is fine, but it was accidental. Nobody at the consultation conferences had seen the Indian Claims Commission bill. They did not know what was in the government's mind but they accidentally hit upon some of the weaknesses in it. I should like to know how many more weaknesses are in the bill. Today the consultation conference in Ottawa was supposed to meet and we have not seen the bill yet. The minister shakes his head. Did the minister delay the conference because the bill was faulty? The minister indicates no. When is the bill going to be ready? The minister says soon.
My mother had a saying about "soon" which was related to a cat that we had. She called the cat a "sooner". It would sooner stay inside and perform the natural functions than go outside on a cold day. Soon does not mean anything, and I am sure the minister would not want to be classified as a sooner. The native Indian people want to know where the blazes this bill is. Is the minister having trouble getting it through cabinet, or with his associate minister? Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not agree with what has been presented in the bill? These are serious questions to which our native people want an answer.
I have talked with some of the people who were delegates to the conference that was supposed to have been held today. Two of them told me they may not even bother to come when it is held because they are so fed up with all the delay and procrastination.
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians They have seen what has gone on at the consultation conferences and want no further involvement.
I was going to make some mention of housing which is a pretty serious problem for our native Indian people. One of the communities in my constituency has 30 families on a priority list waiting for houses. If you go to practically any Indian village in Canada you will find two or three families living in the same house. In fact, the word "house" is a euphemism. You see six or seven little kiddies sleeping in the same bed, and the same thing in another bedroom. People have to sleep on couches in the living room. Students are unable to do any meaningful homework in that sort of environment because conditions are overcrowded and youngsters are wandering around, as well as grandparents and parents. Too many people are living in the same house. Where is the quality of life here?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
All these people are living in the same home for two reasons. The first is that the average income a few years ago was $1,600 per family. The second is that the government, through its departmental administrative structure, spends twice that much money per family which does not filter down to the people. Another problem is that these people do not have the opportunity to become meaningfully employed, to do some work and earn an income, because the government has failed miserably in its attempts to develop anything worth while in terms of job opportunities and economics.
The government says it is helping with its housing program and building homes for these people. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what kind of homes are being built for elderly citizens, some of whom have to live by themselves in two-room shacks? These elderly people have difficulty getting around at the best of times, but the houses for them are built without inside toilets or running water. These people have to take a bucket and walk outside to the seashore because they do not have a sewer system or the amenities of life that we believe standard in our society. This is disgraceful.
The propaganda machine in the department grinds out propaganda about the houses being built and the money being spent on this program, etc., etc. But this money does not reach the individual human beings who live in this sort of environment. It is no wonder that
March 6, 1969
6290	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians Ross Thatcher, the Premier of Saskatchewan, is reported to have said yesterday that a time bomb is ticking. That time bomb has been ticking for the last four or five years and its tick is getting stronger and stronger. So far neither I nor many native Indian people have seen any indication on the part of the government that it intends to do anything meaningful or worth while to cope with particular problems such as this.
The younger people are simply not content to go through the same sort of degrading and denigrating situation that their parents went through. They are no longer content to live in these places called reserves but which are nothing more than isolated economic concentration camps where there is no opportunity to realize the full benefits of our society. They are fed up with being treated and looked upon as a group apart from the rest of society. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) will tell the government this, as he undoubtedly has. Ask any person of native Indian origin, and he will tell you the same thing. He is not interested in having his problems dealt with from the point of view of his cultural background. There is within the concept of our social order and within the concept of the department too much looking upon this situation as an "Indian problem". I put the words "Indian problem" in quotation marks. It is not an Indian problem; it is a social problem that confronts native Indian people to a far stronger degree than it does anybody else.
Native Indian people are underprivileged Canadians, far more so than any other single ethnic group in this nation. Their problems have to be coped with on that basis, as problems confronting people, problems confronting human beings. We have to develop within the department, within the government structure, something more than has been developed before. The government has to head in the direction of getting out of the business of interfering in other people's lives. It must provide them with the opportunity to realize those values of human dignity and quality of life that promote self-respect and enable the individual to have a feeling of pride and respect for himself as a human being. The native Indian has not had this opportunity up to now.
The government must embark upon a program which will provide people with opportunities to develop human freedoms, economic freedom, economic opportunity, work and


not welfare. Only in this way can the native Indian have the advantage of the amenities of life and the services of our society. Only in this way can they appreciate these things and be on an equal basis with other Canadians.
The government has to deal with the human, fundamental rights of people on the basis that they are Canadians first and that the native Indian is confronted with social problems more serious than those of other people. There have been 100 years of repression and suppression of the rights and freedoms of the native Indian people. This fact must be counterbalanced in the shortest possible period of time. A century of wrongdoing will take a little while to undo. It has to be done by deliberate and conscious effort. It cannot be done by pious hopes or propaganda; it has to be done by accomplishment. The accomplishment has to be related to a period of time when there will no longer be a person at the head of a department that is set up to deal with the problems of people on an ethnic or cultural basis. That is discriminatory, wrong, and terribly shocking for people to have to accept. The minister should know this better than anybody.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I thank him for the reasonable tone in which he made the speech. The hon. member raised many of the fundamental questions that I, as Minister of Indian Affairs, have in mind. I thank him very sincerely for taking this approach to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we inherited years ago the problem facing us today with regard to the Indian people in Canada. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) claims that during the last century we built, within our own society, a separate group which is known as the Indians of Canada. Because of their ethnic origin and the colour of their skin, they are governed by a group of institutions other than those set up for the other Canadians citizens. This is a serious problem which the government is now looking into carefully.
In the last few months, we have had a series of consultations with the Indians of Canada. We have held 18 meetings across Canada and I am pleased to report to the house that we attended these consultations primarily to listen to the Indians.
March 6. 1969	COMMONS
It is true that we had given them in recent months a booklet entitled Choosing a Path outlining certain points to guide their discussion.
But when my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Ondras) and myself participated in those consultations, we discussed all the matters the Indians brought up. We listened to them and never did we try to impose our views upon them.

It is very clear at this moment that at these consultations the message of the Indians was loud and clear. They do not need any lawyers; they do not need anyone to speak for them. They have shown the people of Canada that they can speak for themselves. They spoke about their problems. It is very clear that they want to be full citizens of Canada; they want to share both the advantages and responsibilities of being Canadians.
I think we have understood them. They have spoken about their treaty rights and aboriginal rights. We have listened to them and will respond to them. They want more autonomy. They want to make decisions, at the band level, for themselves and by themselves. We have understood them, and when we come up with our new Indian policy they will see that we have understood that message.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think we made a lot of progress over the last seven months in our consultations and our dealings with the Indians. For the first time we have provided them with a genuine opportunity to talk to the people of Canada. It is being said that there are too many civil servants around, but you cannot operate a government department without having civil servants to do the job. One of the factors to be considered is that the way in which we have organized these consultations has provided the Indians with the occasion to speak not only amongst themselves but to the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) blamed us for having spent some money on public relations. It is true that we did so at these consultations but it was done with the purpose of providing the Indians with the opportunity to speak to the people of Canada. At these consultations we made sure that the press and television cameras were there. I will not apologize to anyone for having provided the Indians with that opportunity, and I
DEBATES	6291
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians think that these consultations have been profitable.
It is true that I have postponed the meeting we were supposed to have today. The reason is that the consultation was to terminate at the end of December but at the request of the hon. member for Skeena and of his constituents we held another meeting at the end of January in the riding of Skeena to listen once more to the Indians in that riding. I was there and so was the hon. member. I said almost nothing and the hon. member said nothing at all; all we did was to listen to the Indians. Their message was loud and clear.
We have put every word the Indians said on tape and it has been transcribed. All this takes time. We have not yet sent the report to all the delegates, and it would have been unfair to the people of Skeena to call them to Ottawa today when their views were not yet made known to the other Indians of Canada. I postponed the meeting because some of the Indians who want to come here and have a meaningful discussion with the authorities want to have more time to study the views of Indians from other parts of Canada.
The hon. member has accused us of not being ready with the Indian Claims Commission bill. There are many reasons for that. I gave a reason in December-because further representations were made at the consultations. I said that perhaps I will have to take another look at the bill. The hon. member for Skeena disappoints me because for months and years he has been speaking about the situation of Indians in Canada. I realize today that he is beginning to be out of touch with the people in his own riding.
The president of the Nishga tribal council, who is a member of the New Democratic Party and an Indian, Mr. Frank Calder called me to urge me not to proceed right away with the Indian Claims Commission bill because their case is before the court in British Columbia and they do not want it to be prejudiced. He is an M.L.A. out there and he asked the hon. member for Skeena to ask me to postpone the bill because they do not want me to jeopardize their case before the B.C. court. That is one of the reasons why we have not proceeded with it.
I am not too shy to respond to a reasonable request by the very Indians who perhaps in part vote for the hon. member for Skeena. Right now we are engaged in reviewing these consultations. We are studying them because we want to come up some time in the future-the hon. member for Skeena does not
March 6, 1969
6292	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians want me to use the word "soon"-with a positive policy which the hon. member will look at favourably because we think we will change many of the rules.
I have said many times in the house that it is true that the present Indian Act is too paternalistic. Out of the 135 clauses in the act there are 111 where it is said that the minister has to do this or that or should do this or that. I have spent hours in my office signing documents which permit Indians to borrow $3,000 or $4,000 from the C.M.H.C. I am ashamed at my age to appear to be the white father of the Indian population. I think we have to change many things but we cannot do this before completing the first round of consultations. The hon. member blames us for doing things without consulting the Indians and yet although we have not completed the consultations he rises in the house today to blame me for not proceeding with the claims commission bill. I hope that next month, although I cannot give a specific date today, I will be able to listen to the views of the representatives who have been chosen by the Indians. Following this I will come to the House of Commons and tell the members what the government plans to do to solve the problems of the Indian people of Canada.
I made speeches in which I said that one of the problems in Canada is that the provincial governments do not consider Indians to be citizens of the province. I say that Indians should be citizens of the province equal to any one of us because they are human beings like any one of us. The government is ready to try to find a solution to this difference in views.
As the hon. member said, we cannot solve all these problems overnight but there are some fundamental questions to which we must reply. I can assure the house that as soon as the consultations with the Indians are over the government will make up its mind on the new Indian policy to be adopted and will inform the house of it.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we spoke repeatedly of the Indian problem. And the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself mentions it in all his speeches, on the rights of the citizens.
This government is extremely concerned with it, and that is why we have given it a priority it did not have before.
I could speak of what we have done in the past. We are accused of having spent too

much money on the Indians, of having increased the budget too rapidly in the last few years. It is true that we have spent a lot of money; still, one must be objective. We have more than tripled our expenditures for Indian affairs in the last few years, that is from 1962 to 1969, and we have produced some results. We may not have built enough houses, but we did build approximately 10,000 units since 1963. We have given better schooling to the Indians. Ten years ago, only 15 per cent of Indian children stayed in school after the 5th grade. Today, 95 per cent of the school age children in the Indian population of Canada have gone beyond the fifth grade.
We said that we wanted to give the Indians more autonomy. We have taken the necessary steps towards that end. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Manitoba Indians for this very purpose. As they are organized and as they have expressed the wish to administer their own affairs, we are ready to negotiate with them and with the provincial authorities towards an agreement giving them the opportunity to assume a greater share of the responsibilities.
After having criticized us freely, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will perhaps allow me to read the comments of the person who surely knows quite a bit about the problems of the Manitoba Indians, and I refer to Mr. David Courchene.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the debate which the house is conducting today is certainly most timely. In fact, it is long overdue. As the hon. member for Skeena
March 6. 1969
6294	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians (Mr. Howard) said, it is a considerable time since the house has had an opportunity to discuss this important subject, and I do not doubt that all hon. members will realize that it is, indeed, an important subject. I say this because should we, as legislators or as Canadians, fail to attack this problem in a meaningful way and do our best to enable our Indian people to become equal partners in society, it will be increasingly hard for future generations to do so.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Skeena spoke of those subjects which concern our Indian peoples today. He spoke of the necessity of maintaining human dignity, cultural identity, and the desire of the Indians to take their full part in Canadian society. I was pleased to hear the minister say the government was anxious to attack these problems as quickly as possible. I notice he said that the government had inherited its problems. That is quite right. Similar problems have faced other governments. It is gratifying to find that Canadians now think present difficulties in this field should be cured quickly.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that there had been consultations where representatives of the government met representatives of our Indian peoples. It will be agreed, I think, that members of all parties have insisted on such consultation over the years. When one speaks of consultation one must ask, to what extent is it being carried on? One must remember that when governments plan new legislation affecting our Indian peoples much time is spent by so-called experts and legal advisers in preparing and planning it. Such planning can go on for many months. After all that work the minister and some of his officials may go to the Indian people, outline the proposed program in one or two brief meetings and expect the Indians to digest the program and say which parts are acceptable and which are not. We speak of consultation, and we must remember that our Indian people need time and all the assistance we can give them if they are to examine plans that the government proposes in an adequate manner.
The present attitude of the government which has led to consultations being held with the Indian people is a far cry from the attitude that prevailed not too many mears ago. Hon. members will no doubt recall that the actions of Liberal ministers were severely criticized when health services to our native


peoples were to be cut back. Without prior notice being given to the heads of our Indian communities, regional directors of health services were informed that health services to Indian peoples would be curtailed. Hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and members of other opposition parties took great exception at that time to what was happening. It is therefore gratifying to see that the government has now adopted a different attitude and is willing to consult our Indian peoples before presenting legislation to the house.
The hon. member for Skeena said that the minister should be working toward the abolition of his department and portfolio. I am sure the minister realizes the hon. member was not being critical but was expressing a hope. He was trying to say that not only the minister but all officials of the department ought to try to eliminate the problems confronting our Indian peoples, thereby doing away with the necessity for the department. I support that suggestion.
I have good friends in the department, and I learned something which those outside the department may not know but which is common knowledge within the department. It is epitomized in a reported conversation between two older members of the department. One said to the other, "Do you not find it strange that junior members of the department have not come forward with suggestions to alleviate some of the problems facing our Indians?" The reply was, "These juniors are acting as we acted 20 years ago when we were younger. They are afraid that if they bring forward too many suggestions and solve problems they may find themselves without jobs before retirement age." This story is not to be taken in a jocular manner because it exemplifies the feeling of some officials in the department. I do not criticize civil servants in general. In the Department of Indian Affairs we have some diligent, hard-working men, and excellent field men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Simpson: I could mention names but I will not. Yet it can be said, as the minister himself suggested, that many in the department adopt a paternalistic attitude to our Indian peoples. I think the hon. member for Skeena had all these matters in mind when he suggested that the minister ought to work toward abolishing his own ministry.
I was also pleased to hear the minister say that as a result of meetings he has attended
March 6. 1969	COMMONS
with Indian peoples he has concluded they are capable of speaking for themselves. That fact was proven conclusively during a meeting not long ago in Ottawa of the Indian Affairs Committee. It will be remembered that representatives of the Indian Brotherhood came to Ottawa for the sole purpose of forming a national Indian brotherhood, and they attended our committee meeting. I do not know whether the minister was there. The deputy minister, 1 believe, was there on that occasion, and with him were eight, nine or ten experts from the department. Those representatives questioned the deputy minister, and Members of Parliament on the committee directed questions at all the experts for about two hours.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Before the meeting concluded the chairman asked the representatives of the Indian Brotherhood if they would like to say a few words. I recall the words of Isaac Beaulieu who was representing the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood on that occasion. He stated he had heard a number of questions directed to the officials of the Indian Affairs Branch and heard a number of answers to the effect the department had been considering these problems but had been unable to arrive at an adequate solution.
Mr. Beaulieu was curious about the fact that the people in the Indian Affairs Branch had not been able to arrive at solutions and had not consulted with the officials of the Indian Brotherhood who represent the Indian people of Canada. Mr. Beaulieu's remarks were very timely and very much in line with what is taking place today. In many cases Indian problems are not being dealt with in the proper manner and not as quickly as they should be.
As the hon. member who initiated this debate rightfully said, we in the opposition parties have been asking the government for some time to set up the Indian Claims Commission. The minister is aware by this attendance at some of the consultation meetings in regard to changes in the Indian Act that the Indian people, including those representing Indian bands in Manitoba, have requested direct Indian representation on that claims commission. I do not know whether the minister has given the matter the consideration it deserves and has been able to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that Indian representation is desirable on the claims commission when it is set up.
DEBATES	6295
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I want to go on record as saying that it is not only desirable but imperative that there be equal or majority representation of our native people on the Indian Claims Commission. The minister has stated today that the Indian people can speak for themselves. I assure the minister that we in the official opposition are not attacking the motives of the government, but we maintain that the government is not attacking the problems of the Indian people in a manner acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians or the Indian people concerned. I assume that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) are sincere.
During the last election campaign I told the Indian people I would not criticize the previous government except for the course it took in relation to health services. I told them I would not criticize the sincerity of the government in regard to wanting to help the Indian people. As the minister mentioned, there is no doubt that those who speak today will give him some very frank ideas as to what should and can be done. We in the official opposition believe there is a genuine desire on the part of the government to improve the position of the Indian people of Canada, although I hasten to add that the government is not adopting the proper course. I accept that this is a most difficult problem. It is not our purpose to make it more difficult but to force the government to act as progressively as they have been talking. We expect the government to practise what they preach.
The minister stated that some delay has occurred in the continuation of the consultation meetings with respect to changes or amendments of the Indian Act and the setting up of the Indian Claims Commission. He stated that these delays were at the request of the Indian people. I accept that because I feel that the Indian people must be given an adequate length of time to digest thoroughly the plans of the government. In view of the fact the government and its predecessors for several years have said that an Indian Claims Commission would be set up, we feel this should be done as quickly as possible. The government is not being effective in Indian policy. There is disturbing evidence the government is not giving this matter priority. It should be near the top of the list of priorities. I will not get into a discussion at this time regarding the two constitutional conferences held during the last two years.
March 6. 1969
6296	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member for Churchill may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to be brief.
e (4:30 p.m.)
It is amazing to me that we can have discussions from one end of Canada to the other on subjects such as bilingualism and bicul-turalism, which I know are tremendously important, but how much importance has this house placed on the questions we have raised from time to time about the abrogation of Indian treaty rights? On occasion we have raised the abrogation of rights granted to our native Indian people by treaties entered into with them by the government of Canada. When we mention such matters we do not get much response from the government, and we do not get much attention from the news media. But just mention bilingualism or biculturalism and everyone plays it up. On the one hand, we are violating treaties; on the other hand, some people are trying to institute bilingualism across Canada. Without criticizing them I say we pay more attention to the desirability of bringing in something new than we do to the fact that the government has actually welshed on its agreements with the Indians. Let no one again use the phrase "just society" in Canada until the government gets around to correcting the situation that stems from the abrogation of Indian rights.
One of the principal examples is the abrogation of Indian hunting rights. The fact that certain conservationists feel that the Indian people should not have special privileges has nothing to do with the case. The Indians have treaty rights. Two Indians from my constituency had their cases taken right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on a five to four decision of the nine judges the Migratory Birds Convention Act was ruled to take precedence over Indian treaty rights. Regardless of which way the decision went, there were four judges who felt that the government was wrong in what it had done in relation to these treaty rights.

When the minister points out that the government is endeavouring to straighten out this very difficult problem I reply that these things can be straightened out provided he meets with the other authorities concerned. For the past four years I have been requesting that ministers sit down with their counterparts in the United States and renegotiate the Migratory Birds Convention so that Canada may be able to live up to its commitments to its Indian people. Many people will say that repeated mention of this problem takes up a lot of parliament's time, but I am sure Canada's reputation in the world at large would not be too good if we abrogated treaties with other countries. Let us show we have the desire to solve the problems of our native people by beginning immediately to solve this problem.
A little while ago the minister announced postponement of a major consultation conference scheduled for Ottawa, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena. We hope it is a postponement and not a cancellation. The reason given for cancelling the meeting was that more time was needed to consider the material that had been presented. But many people believe this is not a valid reason. Some Indian people were highly critical of the representation they were granted at the conference, and indeed some spokesmen for the Indians of Alberta were so disturbed that they threatened to boycott the conference. Some meetings have already been held at various points across Canada, and we can only hope that after the final meeting the government will decide what changes it will propose in the Indian Act.
The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood has stated that one fact emerges most clearly from the meetings that have been held, namely, that the Indian people need and demand legislation that will change their present status from so-called protected wards of the government to equal citizenship with all other Canadians. Therefore they say that the Indian Act in its present form must be abolished because it is merely a catalogue of restrictions, and whatever the new legislation is called it must be more than a mere revision of the old act. The Indian people demand the destruction of all the old barriers and the provision of enlightened government action to provide opportunities whereby Indians, controlling their own destiny, can take their proper place in the Canadian mosaic. We in the official opposition will be anxiously awaiting an announcement from the minister that
March 6. 1969

the government is prepared to take the proper action.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is not able to be in the house at this time. I know he is busy having meetings with regard to a subject which I brought to his attention within the last few days.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to make some remarks on health services my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), told me he will be back in the house soon. He is having a meeting in his own office with Indians from Manitoba.


Robert Simpson: I thank the minister. I am sure he realizes I was not criticizing the Minister of National Health and Welfare for not being here. In fact I assumed he was having a meeting with Chief Gordon Lathlin of The Pas Indian Band, who is in Ottawa today. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will make a statement in the house later today with respect to two requests which the members of The Pas Indian band have made to him.
e (4:40 p.m.)
This matter is another instance of lack of consultation. It does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but under the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the past four or five days the Indians of The Pas band have found it necessary in their own good judgment to set up a picket line in front of the Indian health clinic at The Pas. They have demanded that they have full control over the community health worker program. This would include wages, transportation costs and the administrative expenses for the program. Second, they have asked that a federal employee whom I shall not name at this time be removed from the Indian health clinic at The Pas. I have discussed this matter over the telephone with the chief. These people have very diligently laid out their reasons for these two requests. They have laid out quite plainly for the minister several reasons why they wish the removal of this employee.
The minister and members of his staff no doubt will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter with the chief at the meeting today. The minister advised me in the house that he thought he would have the answer in one or two days. So when he comes into the house later this afternoon I hope he will be able to make a statement and advise the
DEBATES	6297
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians house whether the two requests made by the Indian people at The Pas can be granted or whether, to use his words, the Indian people will have to go on picketing until doomsday. I am not being critical. I really hate to put this on the record when the minister is not in the house. If he were here I would say the same thing, because one of the complaints of the people is that they were told they could picket until doomsday but that the minister would give them his answer when he was ready. I am taking this information from a press release put out under the authority of the chief of the Indian band at The Pas. As I say, I regret very much that the minister is not in the house at this time. I am sure he received a copy of this press release. I hope he will be able to clear up the situation to the satisfaction of the Indian people.
In conclusion I should like to remind the minister that we were very pleased to hear he feels that the Indian people have many problems. We were also very pleased to hear that he feels they are capable of speaking for themselves. We were equally pleased to hear that the government will at all times have full consultation with the Indian people before adopting new policies. This is what the Indian people want and this is what they are entitled to. Again I remind the minister that the evidence we will have to go by will be the results in respect of certain things such as whether or not the Indian people have proper representation on the Indian Claims Commission when it is set up and whether the Indian people are given full opportunity to examine the many changes which are to be made to the Indian Act. I further request that every effort be made by the departmental officials and the government to hasten the day when the Indian Act will become a thing of the past so that the Indian people will be able to take their rightful place in Canadian society.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is about a year since we have had the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the situation in respect of our native peoples. I believe it is only fair to say that the debate which has been going on so far today has been on the same non-partisan level which we have enjoyed in the past. I think we should also welcome the new minister to the list of ministers of this department. The Department of Indian Affairs has had more casualties than any other, I believe largely because of the inherent impossibility of the task the minister is given to perform.
March 6, 1969
6298	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I should like to speak briefly about one area in which I believe the Department of Indian Affairs should be moving. I have some statistics concerning the progress made in the field of education in terms of the number of students now taking courses at the various educational levels. For example, in 1957-58 there were 124 post-secondary students. For 1967-68 that number has gone up to 225. The number of children in high schools in the same period has increased from 1,900 to 5,900. The number attending at the elementary school level is 48,000 now compared with 31,000 in 1957-58. I think this indicates a very laudable improvement.
There is, however, one aspect of the problem which bothers me considerably. Once the students leave school the Department of Indian Affairs seems to have very few support programs to assist them in taking their rightful place in society. Once an Indian has received an education he cannot go back to the sterile existence that he would have on the reserve. He must go into a world very different from that which he knew while at school or on the reserve. When he does, the Department of Indian Affairs has practically no program of assistance. The only program it has is a rather minor one involving Indian friendship centres.
In the whole of Canada there are only 21 of these centres, all of which are in provinces west of the Ontario-Quebec border. There are none in Quebec or the maritimes. The information I have from the Indian Affairs office indicates that in Ontario there are four which are located at London, Toronto, Parry Sound and Port Arthur. I know there is a friendship centre in Kenora, Ontario. Perhaps the statistics of the Department of Indian Affairs are not always up to date. The centre in Kenora has been unable to obtain any meaningful assistance. Their facilities are overcrowded and yet there is no program for a capital grant.
The type of program the federal government has to assist Indian friendship centres is ridiculous, to say the least. In the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta there are federal provincial agreements providing grants in amounts varying from $20,000 to $30,000 annually to each of these three provinces. In order to receive these grants the province must pay 50 per cent of the costs under a cost-sharing plan. These grants are designed to pay only the administration costs of the friendship centres. They do not cover


capital costs, hostel costs or even court worker costs.
In Ontario and British Columbia the friendship centres make their own approaches to the citizenship branch in Ottawa which makes matching grants equal to the provincial grants. However, the provincial and federal matching grants meet only two-thirds of the annual administrative costs. Therefore one-third of the annual administrative costs must be raised locally by each individual friendship centre. It seems to me this is a totally inadequate way to deal with a very serious problem. The bureaucratic system is probably the best way we have found to deal with problems through government action, but when we get into a situation where bureaucracy works against bureaucracy changes must be made quickly.
Indians who leave their reserves to seek work need help. Just as immigrants who have come to Canada have adopted the church hall type of program to assist them in becoming integrated into Canadian life, so too the Indian people need help. The Indian people are on a different basis from immigrants and it seems to me they need special help. When one is organizing Indian friendship centres it is difficult to get assistance at all from the federal government. There are individuals in the Indian Affairs and Citizenship Branches who do give some assistance but their efforts are often stopped by the department itself.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I want to give a specific example of the problem I am speaking about. In one town in my constituency, Red Lake, there is employment for Indians. Consequently Indians have come from all over North Western Ontario, from the northern areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, I am told, even from Alberta, because there are jobs in the gold mines at Red Lake. There are not as many as before but there are some. A new iron mine in the area has made an effort to hire Indian labour.
The problem is that there is no housing and no organization to assist the Indians. There is nowhere they can go to receive help in integrating themselves into the new culture even though they are willing to do so. However, there is an organization there now called the Red Lake Indian Association which is trying to establish a friendship centre in the town of Red Lake where there is almost no serviced land. The township of Red Lake offered to provide serviced land to this organization at a cost of $1. A heating system has been offered
March G, 1969	COMMONS
by one of the local gold mines. Yet, there is no way in which either the federal government or the provincial government to this date can move and provide these people with the assistance they require.
In the new policy, which I hope the government will be announcing, I trust the tools that are required to enable the Indians to take their place in Canadian society will be provided. At the present time it seems to me that the educational program is adequate but the follow-up is simply lousy. A lot of work remains to be done and much imagination needs to be shown.
I should like to deal with some of the larger issues in what we term the Indian problem. My way of looking at it is to consider it not as an Indian problem but as a problem facing 230,000 people who have lived outside the mainstream of Canadian life and who are now trying to establish their place within the Canadian mainstream. It seems to me one of the primary things the federal government should do is to involve the provincial governments more deeply in Indian affairs. There are two reasons for this. First of all, there should be no distinction made between citizens of Canada. There should not be any necessity to provide separate services for Indians in, for example, the fields of education and medical services. However, the provinces will not be particularly willing to move into these areas, and one reason for this, I suggest, is the plight of the Metis.
If you begin to extend provincial services to the Metis it means that people, part Indian, part white, who for years have received no services from either the provincial government or the federal government, will receive provincial services. Therefore the cost to the provinces of these additional services for Indian people is not measured just by what the federal government pays in providing services to the Indian people, but also by the cost of extending such services to all these other people who have been ignored over a period of time. That, too, is part of the problem. It may well be that the federal government should look very carefully at this problem and integrate the Metis into programs that are designed for the Indian people. If the government does enter into negotiations with the provinces with a view to turning over these services and paying its share of the costs, it should also insist that the Metis be given their rightful share of fundamental rights that everybody in Canada enjoys and for which, incidentally, these people of Metis 29180-399
DEBATES	6299
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians descent are paying federal and provincial taxes.
I also favour the decentralization of Indian affairs because I do not believe that the federal government is the source of wisdom in all things, particularly Indian affairs. I think there is much more conventional wisdom, if I may use that phrase, among the people living in communities which contain both whites and Indians. Often a far better relationship exists between them than exists between the Indians and the department.
When we talk about new policies for the Indian people I think we have to realize that much of what has been said in this house today does not apply to the Indian people who reside in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, or in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. The people in my riding are not necessarily able to take advantage of all the programs available to them simply because they do not know how to cope with the white man's society. For example, it is only within the last ten years that roads have been built to some of the Indian communities that are close to white communities in my constituency. Only now are these people adjusting to the services that the Department of Indian Affairs and the provinces can now provide. Therefore it is absurd to assume that all Indian people are equally advanced and able to take advantage of all the opportunities we hope to provide to them. It seems to me that we require a far more flexible system that will offer a series of options and permit the Indians to opt in or opt out as they see fit. Perhaps it may be necessary for the government to set time limits, to establish quotas, to establish a timetable, so that when Indians at one level are prepared in order to move up to another level they can, but not to the disadvantage of others who many not be as advanced as they are.
Another aspect of the problem is that in my opinion there is a great deal of arrogance toward Indians in the House of Commons, and perhaps I am as guilty in this regard as anybody else. We seem to assume that we can formulate policies for our Indian people which they are going to follow. Although we pass the Indian Act it is the Indians themselves who should be deeply involved in the framing of its terms, even in its administration. It is the Indians who are affected by its provisions, not us. I detect a certain amount of arrogance in speeches that have been made on this subject that do not fit the facts, and I think we are all guilty of it.
March 6. 1969
6300	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I should like to give the house an illustration of the difficulties that we are going to have to face. In many areas there are going to be tremendous conflicts between the young people and the older generation. They will have to learn to govern themselves and resolve their own internal difficulties. The Indian Affairs Branch has been a very convenient scapegoat for many Indians. Because of the Indian Affairs Branch we have been unable to progress, say the Indians. Because of the Indian Affairs Branch, they say, we have not been able to govern ourselves.
If a new Indian Act is passed, as we hope it will be, this is going to mean that the Indians themselves will have to accept a great deal more responsibility for their own activities. Such a procedure will, I suggest, be difficult and slow. I do not think we can come up with any policy that is going to solve all the problems of the Indians in 100 years. I think that any government or legislative body that announces that it has a program to settle all Indian problems in 100 years flat is clearly not in touch with what is going on in the country and with what the Indian people are thinking. I sense this type of attitude among the members of the cabinet, though not so much on the part of the two ministers directly responsible. However, I get the feeling that the cabinet has decided that it is not going to do anything about solving the problems of the Indians until it is able to come up with a program that will solve the problems of the Indians in 100 years guaranteed. I think that is unrealistic.
I should like to see the Indian Act done away with because I believe it is an anachronism. Nevertheless, I understand that because of historic treaty rights and for other reasons we will have to have some form of Indian Act. We have to recognize that the original intention of the Indian Act was to provide protection for Indians. We have to continue to provide them with certain services. But the goal toward which we should work is that which the hon. member for Skeena suggested; the minister should work himself out of a job. But I think we have to face up to the realities of the situation.
I believe, that what the Department of Indian Affairs should be doing is helping the Indians to develop among themselves their own agencies that will work toward their own benefit. In the riding of Kenora-Rainy River there are a number of organizations, Indian corporations, that operate under an advisory body called the Amik Association. The Amik


Association has been receiving a grant of $15,000 from the provincial government, a sum shared jointly by the federal government. Because of the organization's success the grant has been upped to $24,000, again shared equally by the two governments.
The organization has prepared a very extensive and I think well thought-out brief for the Ford Foundation because it was not getting anywhere with the federal and provincial governments. It could get a little money to help meet administration costs but could not get the "seed" money it really required in order to go ahead with some of the projects it has in mind. So it submitted a brief to the Ford Foundation of America, which was accepted enthusiastically. The Ford Foundation wrote back and said: "We will put up $50,000 for a revolving loan fund for your area provided the federal and provincial governments will each put up $50,000." The money is to be used for "seed" projects.
0	(5:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that here is an example of a great initiative by a group of local people, some white, some Indian, working sometimes in concert with and at other times in opposition to the Department of Indian Affairs and the other do-gooder organizations that involve themselves in Indian affairs. They came up with a proposal which they submitted to the federal and provincial governments. I think the two governments are on trial. I do not think they have any choice but to go ahead and provide the money to this organization which has proven itself to be effective. It is completely independently controlled; it is autonomous; it is on its own. I think the minister should look into this matter as soon as possible with a view to approving the program.
I would like to say a word or two about the consultative process. Quite frankly, I have not been happy with the way it has been carried out, particularly with the way it has affected the Indian people of my area. The concept of the consultation process has been that the Indian, like the white man, is used to the operations of the white man's institutions.
1	think this is a false assumption. Basically, it has been my experience that there is no concept of representation, as we know it, on the Indian reserves. When I have consultations with the Indians, in the northern areas particularly, the chief will be telling me something and as he is speaking somebody, not a member of the band council necessarily, may interrupt him and make a correction or put
March 6, 1969

across another point of view. The chief will go back, reverse his stand, take that person's point of view into consideration, and go ahead. There is a sort of direct relationship here.
The consultation was imposed from the top down. The Indians were told to elect representatives and send them to the Lakehead or Toronto. They were taken out of their native areas and natural environment and put in a white man's situation. In this situation we expected them to provide us with proper information with regard to the Indians.
I admit that perhaps this is a little overdrawn, but I think the general idea is true. Far more work should have been carried out at the band level. There would have been far more understanding of the questions involved if this process had been carried out at the band level because the Indians would have known what matters were being raised. This is particularly true of Indians in rural and other areas where they are not in direct communication one with another. This was not done. To a large extent I think this was responsible for the first series of consultations not being as successful as we hoped they would be.
At this time I should single out the former minister of Indian Affairs, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), for his initiative in setting up this program and for the work he did. If anybody could be said to be the father of consultations, it would be the present Minister of Public Works. Mind you, it was not a very pleasant form of consultation at times; sometimes it resembled a shouting match. Nevertheless, he believed in consultation and dialogue and went ahead and set it up.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the situation was not the same in the district of the hon. member, but I would like to inform the House of Commons that in many provinces we provided money to the Indian associations so they could go into every reserve and discuss with the Indians there the forthcoming consultations. This happened in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and I think British Columbia. Perhaps that process did not occur in Ontario or in the northern part of that province. But we welcomed this initiative of the Indians and provided them with money in order to permit Indians who were aware of the situation to go to the reserves and discuss, ahead of time, with the local Indians the consultations that were forthcoming.
DEBATES	6301
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


John Mercer Reid: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. All I say is that I was told by various band councils that they were not consulted and did not really know what was going to happen. There was a consultative process, which was the proper thing to do, but it brought out many surprises. For example, one of the chiefs told me that this was the first time he had ever known there was a basis behind the actions of the Department of Indian Affairs. He did not realize that there was an Indian Act. He always thought the department had acted in an arbitrary fashion and without any sense at all. I hope that when it comes to the second round of consultations the minister will take this into consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree to give more time to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just one brief point to make concerning the Indian Claims Commission. I understand there has been some talk among the government that before we proceed with the Indian Claims Commission the Indians must be fully consulted and made fully aware of all the implications involved. I further understand that the government has tied the Indian Claims Commission bill to general policy for Indians which the minister, we hope, will be introducing shortly.
If this be true-I have no way of knowing whether it is true; it happens to be rumour- I disagree completely with this view. I think it would be extremely foolish if the government were to tie the Indian Claims Commission bill to a general Indian policy. My reason for saying this is that there are many grievances which the Indian people have outstanding; they have taken, I think, the proper position and have insisted that their grievances be satisfied before they go on to other things. They, like us, are the victims of their own history. They have really no reason to trust the white man. I think we have an obligation to make proper restitution if restitution is necessary. All these grievances must be looked into and we must come up with a just settlement; otherwise how can they believe us?
6302	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
In my opinion the Indian Claims Commission has absolutely no relationship to a future Indian policy. It has a great deal to do with the abuses which the Indians have suffered over a period of time and it is very important that the government move quickly in this regard. I hope that when the minister meets with the National Indian Association next month he will be able 'to seriously discuss with them the terms of the bill, and that shortly after that meeting, should they concur, the bill will be presented to the house. I would oppose any attempt to hold back the bill on the ground of it not being integrated with an Indian policy for 100 years hence. This would be a travesty of justice and a misreading of the situation. I think the government has an obligation to press forward with this matter as soon as possible.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the debate thus far today has been conducted on a very high level indeed. As hon. members know, I am not one who usually becomes partisan in matters of this nature, and I do not intend to break that habit. To indicate the sincerity of that remark I will now do something that is usual and quite normal for me, that is, compliment a member of the treasury benches. I refer, of course, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who, in one aspect of his portfolio, namely, Indian Affairs, is making a very sincere effort to overcome an almost insurmountable problem, the tragedy of our Indian population. From time to time, of course, I will be critical of the other aspect of his portfolio, Northern Development, which is also my responsibility. In the meantime I believe he is making a commendable effort in regard to Indian Affairs and I hope that he continues along the present course.
I agree in large measure with what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said. He knows, as I do and as perhaps few hon. members who have not been in the northern area of our country do, the extent of the deplorable conditions which exist among our Indian people in that region of Canada. The minister has seen something of them and so have some of his officials, but not often enough.
One of the things on which I agree very positively with the hon. member for Skeena is his criticism of the department, more than of the minister, with respect to the administrative procedures now in force in connection

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
with the representations made from time to time by Members of Parliament. I happen to know of the procedure of which the hon. member for Skeena spoke according to which the problems are now handled by the Vancouver office instead of, as in my case, the Yukon agency or whatever agency handles the Skeena area. The problems mentioned in our correspondence are referred to Vancouver of all places. This procedure was invoked during the administration of the minister's predecessor and my belief is that it was done only for political purposes. There is no other logical explanation for it. This is very wrong. If the literally hundreds of representations which are made by Members of Parliament, in areas such as mine at any rate, on behalf of the Indian people require routing to Vancouver, then there is not much purpose in maintaining a Yukon agency.
As a matter of coincidence, before I even knew what was coming up in the house today I wrote to the minister's senior official in Vancouver and I sent the minister and the superintendent of the Yukon agency a copy of my letter in which I objected very strenuously to being obliged to go through this routine. The minister will receive that letter in due course. I wrote on behalf of an elderly Indian in my riding who was in need of assistance. My letter was dated February 4 and the reply from Vancouver was dated February 20. When there are people in need of assistance in weather 40, 50 or 60 degrees below zero and when the very matter of their survival is at stake, they cannot wait from February 4 to February 20 until these requests are funnelled through the usual channels before relief is obtained. So I urge the minister to consider the fact that no useful purpose is being served and, in fact, every evil purpose, by a continuation of that kind of nonsensical procedure. There is no reason in the world why the same procedure should not be followed that was in force for the ten and a half years prior to the imposition of the innovation of the minister's predecessor. There is no reason why the superintendent of the Yukon agency and his staff cannot handle these problems with which they can deal much more quickly than can Vancouver. I am sure the Vancouver office would be the first to agree.
This brings me to something else I want to say which I have not had the opportunity to do for some years now. It relates to the personnel of the department. I believe that the department has too few of the kind of dedicated personnel necessary to give any effect
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
to the purpose of the department. In the almost 20 years that I have been in the Yukon a consistently high calibre of field workers and personnel has been staffing the Yukon agency and dealing with the problems of the Indian people. It is too bad that I cannot say that giant steps in terms of progress have been made over the same period because despite the dedication of the personnel, despite their intention and their sincerity, they have been prohibited from achieving their desires and in some instances prosecuted for doing what was right. I am sure that if the minister consults his files and goes back in history he will know the people to whom I refer in making this comment.
It is very interesting to look at the proceedings of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Indian Affairs in 1960 and 1961, starting at page 605 of the bound volume, and the recommendations that were set forth in the committee report of that day. They are almost precisely what we have been hearing on an annual basis ever since. It is little wonder that the actions or the lack of action of those responsible for improvement in the area of Indian Affairs can be described as they were by a northern Indian chief when he said: "Their words are like the snows. We learn to live with them but they always go away like their promises." I do not want to be critical of the minister and I hope he takes my remarks as being critical only of what is not being done.
I am in favour of the motion that has been put forward criticizing the government for its failure to deal adequately with Canada's native population. I believe that this motion must have the conscientious support of every member of the house because when the evidence is in one must conclude that the indictment is proven on all counts. The policies of the past several years and previous policies under all governments have simply not been adequate. I am reminded of the large amount of verbiage that has cluttered the pages of Hansard with respect to the Indian Claims Commission bill. I remember that the draft of that bill was first heard of in 1961 and I believe that in 1962 the bill was ready for parliament. However, along came an election that year. We have been hearing about the bill to establish the Indian Claims Commission every year since, but we do not have it yet.
The minister has asked for constructive criticism and I intend to relate my constructive criticism with respect to the department
DEBATES	6303
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians to my own riding, but I am sure that it applies equally to a good many others in Canada including the riding represented by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). He said in his remarks that the Indian people of his riding are below the national average-I believe that was his description-and that it is only now that roads are being built into some of the areas where the Indian people live. In many communities in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories there are no roads at all and contact with the white people is infrequent, to say the least.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
When one speaks of the Indian people one must think in the same breath, if I may coin a phrase, about the Eskimo population, and when I think of the Eskimo population I cannot but recall the words of Mary Carpenter, an Eskimo girl from Sachs Harbour, Victoria Island, Northwest Territories, 300 or 400 miles off the Mackenzie Delta, who is attending a university in western Canada where she is majoring in history and journalism. In a speech to delegates attending the national meeting of the Indian-Eskimo Association in Toronto last fall she criticized government bureaucrats for regarding the Eskimo as-and I am using her words now-a kind of new nigger in a parka, and for supporting the Panarctic oil scheme which exploits native lands. She told the delegates:
I don't wish to alarm you, but the fact is that the federal government is doing to my people what the whites have done to the negroes of the United States. They are making us into a service class people, or slaves; take your pick.
It is all very well to talk about the number of Indian children who are attending schools. It is all very well to talk in terms of statistics which are in themselves misleading. I made a note of the figures referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. They look impressive, but what do they mean? What proportion of the increase of some 17,000 children of Indian lineage now attending elementary schools is the result of a natural increase in population? The statistics have to be related to that factor to mean anything at all. Again, it is all very fine to lay on educational programs for the Indian people, to produce more heavy duty equipment mechanics, more automotive mechanics, plumbers, electricians and so on. But training of this kind is of little use unless we can find ways of putting the newly trained tradesmen to work.
The minister has asked us for constructive criticism. I suggest it is of little use talking
6304	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians about new policies, giving band councils more autonomy, sending more children to school and building more houses, if the department itself continues to create ghettos for Indian people as a consequence of the very things it is doing. This is precisely the situation in Whitehorse where what is literally a ghetto has been created. All the new houses for Indians built in the area are being constructed on land set aside for the Indian people- not on a reserve, because there are no reserves in the Yukon. Indians are not permitted to integrate with the other elements of our society in Whitehorse. Technically, I suppose, integration would be permitted, but it would cost money. Remember, it costs $4,000 or $5,000 to build a house on land set aside for Indians in the Whitehorse village. And I suppose it would cost between $12,000 and $15,000 to build any kind of home which would not reduce land and property values in the other residential areas of that community.
Look at the rest of the communities in the Yukon. Take Upper Liard, for instance. The chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is in his place today, knows that when the committee visited the Yukon recently the separation of the Indian community was immediately apparent to everyone. All these communities-Upper Liard, Teslin, Whitehorse, Car-cross, Haines Junction, Mayo, Burwash, Beaver Creek-are places where the Indian people are segregated. Homes are built for them somewhere out of town until, of course, the encroachment of progress demands more commercial land for industry or development and then the Indians are moved out again. Once this was done without consultation even.
The department would be well advised to get away from the idea that amenities for Indians have to be grouped in segregated pockets. If there is to be integration, instead of following a housing program in a ghetto let us build homes integrated with the rest of the community. If this costs more money, so be it; the end product will be much more useful to society than it is at the moment, and the present policy is not working anyway. In fact, it is a waste of money.
A few moments ago I mentioned the encroachment of progress. As things are at present, the right hand of the department does not know what the left is doing in the field of development. I think of the situation at Old Crow where there is an Indian population unique in all Canada, I suggest. We find there a community of ambitious, intelligent,

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
bright people who make their living primarily from trapping muskrat in a vast area known as Crow flats. Among us who live in the Yukon there is a great fear that the basis of their economy will be swept from beneath their feet as a result of the tremendous increase in investment interests in the oil and gas potential of this area as a result of the Prudhoe Bay discoveries. Great Plains Exploration has over 800,000 acres leased in this area. The side of the department concerned with development has informed the local press in response to inquiries that there are no oil and gas lands under lease within 200 miles of Old Crow. If extensive exploration is to be permitted in an unrestricted way in this area it will be the beginning of the end for these people because the economy of the whole region would be destroyed. The result would be another 250 people on welfare. I do not suggest to the minister that he place a tight cap on the development of our oil and gas resources anywhere in Canada, but I say there should be a very keen awareness of the possible effects of such development upon communities like Old Crow.
As my second constructive suggestion to the minister I want to say a word about the sad parade of humanity which one sees day after day, every day except Saturdays and Sundays, before the police magistrate or the justice of the peace primarily in the Northwest Territories. Anyone who attends these courts will hear charges being read to people who do not understand what is being said. Judicial personnel ask whether they understand the charges, and a nod of the head comes back in reply. "Do you plead guilty or not guilty?" they ask, and again a nod of the head is given, because if there is one thing an Indian person wants to do it is to please. Before he knows what has happened, let alone understands what has been read to him, he is convicted and fined $15 or $20. Because he has no money, he finds himself in jail for two or three weeks.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This government set up a commission in the Northwest Territories under Mr. Justice Morrow to study the situation. I suggest to the minister that the commission's recommendations apply to the Yukon territory as much as to territory lying on the other side of the Richardson Mountains. One recommendation was that Indian people ought to have a representative in court. It does not matter whether he comes from the Department of Indian Affairs or the Department of Justice.
March 6, 1969	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Finish what you were saying.


Erik Nielsen: Could I finish the sentence, Mr. Speaker? It the government does not wish to vote funds to provide counsel, at least it should instigate a policy under which someone will be present in court to advise Indian people what the proceedings are all about, before anyone is sent to jail.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying that the minister had some good things to say today, especially when he announced that in future less paternalism would be displayed towards our Indian population since Indians are now able to speak for themselves. Frankly, some of us would take the minister's statements more seriously if we had not heard similar statements so often in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, the present minister is the fifth minister to hold the Indian Affairs portfolio since 1963. Former ministers were, I think, Mr. Favreau, Mr. Nicholson, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) and the minister responsible for regional development (Mr. Marchand). I may not be entirely accurate about the ministers who held the portfolio; yet, I think all this minister's predecessors made a speech almost exactly the same as the one he made today. The Indians of Canada will believe in the government's good intentions when they see actions taking the place of words.
I did not think I would ever agree with anything the premier of Saskatchewan said, but I must confess I agree with his assertion made in the provincial legislature in Regina yesterday that, with respect to our Indians, we are sitting on a time bomb. The St. Regis Indians have blockaded the bridge crossing their reservation. There is trouble at the Pas where the Indians have been picketing a health centre because they believe the person running it is displaying discriminatory attitudes. Then, we have the disgrace of Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife, where the students are living under conditions that would not be tolerated by any other student group in this country. There, students 19, 20 and 21 years of age, are being treated as second class citizens. They are not allowed out in the evening without a written pass. They cannot go from the hospital to the gymnasium in the school
DEBATES	6305
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians without obtaining a written pass and giving it back to their superiors when they return. They cannot smoke or drink, even where the law permits them to do so. In addition, they need a special permit to visit the old part of Yellowknife. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Other Indians live in the old part of town, and the students need special permission before going there. The minister has had sufficient time to investigate what is going on in Akaitcho Hall. The difficulties there continue because many in this country believe that Indians are not as good as the rest of us. When the minister allows the current situation there to continue, he helps to foster the kind of thinking prevalent among some sections of our community. No wonder our Indians are concerned about what is happening.
I am ashamed that a magistrate of my city who sees Indians in court every day, and deals with their alleged infractions of the law, saw fit to appear on the national television program the "Public Eye" and make the statement reported in a letter that Chief Courchene sent. According to the letter, Magistrate Rice said;
I have never come across a married Indian Couple... There is something in their blood, I don't know what it is but an Indian and alcohol just don't mix ... An Indian woman told me-I guess she was an Indian, I can't tell the difference between an Indian and a Metis-if abortions were allowed she would have to have an abortion every morning.
In view of statements like these, is it any wonder our Indians are becoming restless, that they are beginning to demonstrate and that we face the possibility of violence? I suggest that the time for talk is over and the time for action has arrived.
The fifth annual review of the Economic Council shows that the life expectancy of the average Indian woman in Canada is 25 years, compared with 64 years for the rest of our population. Most Indians in Canada enjoy incomes of less than $3,000 a year and half our Indians enjoy incomes below $2,000 a year. Many Indians in this country live in poverty, and not much help is being extended to them. All these facts are well known.
Although it is important for us to know of the activities of the Indian Claims Commission, it is more important for us to know whether the government will act to help our Indians. Will it eliminate or reduce the bureaucracy which has directed every facet of Indian life here for more than 100 years? Will it allow Indians to decide what is good
March 6, 1969
6306	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians for them and what programs ought to be introduced for their benefit?
The minister has been making all the right speeches. Although he insists that the reorganization of the department was only an internal, administration reorganization-I see he shakes his head in agreement-the Indians did not see it in that light. I have travelled extensively in this country and am aware of many Indian problems. I know Indian leaders in Manitoba, Alberta and in northwestern Ontario. Almost universally, they consider the reorganization of the department to be an attempt on the part of the bureaucracy within the department to grab more power.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the opinion of Indians with whom I have talked, the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is the pawn of the bureaucracy. They believe that the person who urged an extension of democracy for Indians and urged a policy whereby Indians would be given more and more say in deciding their destiny, was the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras). They believe that in the struggle for power which took place the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) opted for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and for a further extension of this bureaucracy. Since those charges were made last October, the minister has repeatedly said they were not true. It really does not matter what the minister or I say, Mr. Speaker, because the time for talking is rapidly disappearing. In the next month or two the minister must cut down on the bureaucracy and give the Indians more say with regard to their educational problems, welfare and economic development matters. Unless the minister does this, Indians and other people in Canada will know that bureaucracy has won again, as it has for more than one hundred years.
There is no use in just talking, the minister must act. This is not the first attempt to permit Indians to have more say in their own affairs. It is only a matter of three or four years since the cabinet, on the recommendation of a minister who I think was the best that department ever had-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


David Orlikow: -the late Hon. Guy Favreau -approved a bold new program. I could read statements made by Mr. Favreau and other representatives of the government at that time regarding the program of community development whereby people trained in

social work, anthropology and social science would be employed by the department to live with the Indians and determine their needs. We were told this would be the salvation of the Indian people of Canada. Where is that community development program? It is gone. It is dead. There are still a few community development officers, but the program is dead because once these officers put into words the desires and demands of the Indian people the bureaucracy in Ottawa said, these officers are trouble-makers and must go. The minister can say that is not true, but they went.
To demonstrate the truth of what I am saying, I want to quote from a letter written to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson on January 4, 1968 by the then President of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada. I will quote a few paragraphs of that letter to prove the points I have been making. I read from this letter:
For more than a year, the concern of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada over the low attainment and apparent decline of the government's community development program in Indian reserve communities has continued to mount.
It goes on to say:
Our own assessment of the gross under-achievement of this program has been reinforced by repeated appeals from Indian persons and community development personnel in the field, both federal and provincial, urging the I.E.A. to seek a thoroughgoing appraisal of the program and its revitalization.
The letter goes on to say:
We take this course believing that the present program of community development is subsiding towards failure. While there may be many contributing causes, such as the costly failure to co-ordinate the scattered federal resources now being expended on community development, the program's real problems seem rooted in inappropriate administrative and management structures and methods and inadequate resources.
It later states:
Piecemeal measures or the pouring of additional funds into existing structures and programs will not, in our opinion, reverse or significantly change present trends. These trends lead to increasing dependence on welfare, high incidence of conflict with the law, low levels of economic capability and serious family and social breakdown.
It later goes on to say:
To bring the energy and intelligence of the Indian people into the struggle for standards of life equal to that of most other citizens will require a substantially new approach.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there are some recommendations in the letter:
In summary, we recommend:
That the principal developmental functions now housed in the Indian Affairs Branch be invested
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
in an Indian Development Corporation as described in the attached report.
When the President of the Indian-Eskimo Association wrote that letter he suggested that the program of economic development should be a separate program. I continue reading from the letter:
This Indian Development Corporation would serve as an intermediary device through which services of federal and provincial agencies would be made available in a co-ordinated way to native communities in response to community initiatives stimulated by community development activity.
The letter further states:
That a task force be appointed and charged with conducting throughout Canada an immediate examination of the present community development program. The task force should hold intensive discussions with Indian communities and organizations, provincial authorities, community development personnel and others-
In addition to the appointment of a task force for Indian Affairs with particular reference to community development, we respectfully recommend an on-going series of discussions between federal and provincial ministers, including talks between the Prime Minister and provincial premiers, aimed at co-ordinating and adapting federal and provincial services and programs to fit the needs of Indian and Metis communities and persons.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Who wrote that letter? It was none other than the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who was not then a member of parliament but president of the Indian Eskimo Association. I submit everything in that letter written by him was true when it was written, and that basically nothing has changed. I submit that nothing the minister has said today, or any other day, has indicated that the department has any other intention but to continue to tell the Indians what they need to do if they are to get the help which they must have.
I want to suggest to the minister that if he wants to get a basic understanding of the problems of Indians he should look at the decision the United States Supreme Court made more than ten years ago. At that time the Court was asked to deal with the constitutionality of the laws in the American southern states which provided for what were called equal but separate schools. In other words, it was legal in the American south to have two school systems, one for the white young people and another for the black young people, so long as both provided the same kind and quality of education.
The United States Supreme Court brought down an historic decision. It said that even if
DEBATES	6307
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians the educational facilities provided for the Negro people of the southern states were equal in quality to those provided for the white people, and even if the same amount of money were spent for their education as for the education of the white people-that was not true, but even if it were true-their education would not be equal because they were segregated.
I think the minister would like to do the right thing. I suggest to him that until he and the government make up their minds that they have to ignore the recommendations of the top officials of the department, who will for the next 100 years, if we permit it, find reasons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired unless by unanimous consent he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


David Orlikow: I conclude by saying that the bureaucrats of the department will find reasons and excuses why the time will never be ripe to permit the Indians to become full fledged citizens able to manage their own affairs, able to make their own decisions, able not just to make the right decisions but, like the rest of us, to make the wrong decisions and to learn from them.
Until the minister realizes that, until he becomes the real director of the department, until he stops taking the day to day advice of his officials who have been wrong for 100 years and will be wrong for the next 100 years if we allow them, the problems of the Indian people-it is even wrong to talk about it in this way-the problems of a group of Canadians will never be solved.
I began by saying that the minister said some very good things, and I close by saying that we members of parliament, and more so the Indian people of Canada, have had enough of the fine speeches. What we want is some action.


Jean Marchand: (Kamloops-Cariboo):
Mr. Speaker, it is almost six o'clock. I wish to make a few remarks on this subject and I would like to have some continuity to them. Therefore, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 6, 1969
6308	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged, Denial of Rights of Native Indians



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Science Services- Ministerial responsibility for policy; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)- Regional Disparities; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-Mail Rate-Non-profit publications.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Howard):
That in the opinion of this House the government, in spite of successive admissions of its failure to deal adequately with the various social and economic problems confronting our native Indian people, is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
["As it is now past ten o'clock, I must inform the house that pursuant to standing order 58 (11) this debate is deemed to be closed.\nAccordingly, the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning."]
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks in this debate about the native peoples. I should also like to commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for introducing this motion. It is a good indication of the concern that all members of parliament have about the plight of the Indian peoples. I should say too that Canadians in all walks of life have never been more concerned about them. This is a good thing because, as has been generally known, the native peoples face some very great difficulties. The standard of living of too many of the Indian people in respect of income, health, housing, and other factors is much lower than is acceptable to the Canadian people. It would be useless, however, to dwell at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard),]
great length on all things that are wrong. I think many of the wrongs have been pointed out pretty adequately today by hon. members on both sides of the house.
The Minister of Indian Affairs, and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) gave an excellent address today. I think he presented a balanced picture of what the situation is today and what the government is trying to do to alleviate the conditions under which many of the Indian people are living. There are many, many good things the Indians are doing in addition to the many things that are wrong. I think the minister pointed this out as well in his remarks.
I should like to deal with a few of the remarks that were made today by some hon. members. The hon. member for Skeena referred to the problem as a fungus growth that is still growing and getting worse all the time, indicating that no progress has been made. I reject his suggestion that the Indian people are a fungus growth.


Mr. Howard (Slceena):: Then, why did you
not listen to what I said?


Len Marchand: I did. I know the hon. member did not mean that some of us are fungi, but nevertheless the inference is there.


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Len Marchand: It is a
ridiculous statement and I reject it. The department is dealing with Indians. I think the hon. member should perhaps consider his choice of words. Under any circumstances, I reject the statement.


Frank Howard: I rise on a matter of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. gentleman wants to be truthful and correct. He is not being so in this instance. I do not want to become involved in a dialogue with him about it. What I said was that when, in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation decided that Indians on the land reserved for Indians should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament they started a program of paternalism. It is that paternalism that is the fungus growth which is still growing. I reject any implication on the part of the hon. member that I said otherwise.


Len Marchand: I also reject the suggestion that we are not making any progress. Indians today are on the move as they have never been before. They are participating more and more in Canadian life
March 6, 1969

than they have ever done before. This is a good thing. We must participate as people in all aspects of Canadian life, economic, social and political. I should like to point out some examples of the progress the Indian people are making. These are not propaganda items from the Department of Indian affairs, as has been suggested by some hon. members. These are things the Indians are doing themselves. I have a clipping from the Financial Post dated August 10, 1968. The headline reads "Squamish Indians' enterprise transforms wasteland into profitable trailer park". The article goes on to say:
While some Indians across Canada are campaigning without much success for aboriginal land rights or seeking special concessions and compensation, Dan Baker, member of the council of the Squamish Indian tribe, has found that self-help and free enterprise can be far more satisfying-and profitable.
Dan, whose brother Simon is chief of the tribe, was inspired two years ago with what seemed at the time to be an almost impossible idea. The Squamish band for many years has held a strip of waterfront land facing Burrard Inlet, opposite Vancouver, some of which is now under lease to the municipalities of West Vancouver and North Vancouver.
At a point where the Capilano River, which rises in the North Shore mountains, meets tidewater near the Lions Gate bridge, there was a strip of timbered flat land undeveloped and apparently unwanted.
To Dan Baker the situation spelled opportunity. Wouldn't this be a wonderful location for a trailer park? The more he thought about it, the more he was impressed with the possibilities.
The land lies just across the Capilano River from the prestigious Park Royal area with its complex of high-rise apartments, shopping centres, specialty shops, theatres.
When Baker, with some encouragement from the federal Indian Affairs Department, made a modest start in clearing a part of the land for his trailer park, discriminating residents of West Vancouver, including members of the municipal council, were slightly aghast.
All that was several months ago. Today, it is obvious that Dan Baker's Capilano Mobile Park is an asset instead of any eyesore. Baker himself, his fellow tribe members and North Shore municipal officials are happy.
Because of the exacting standards set for intending residents-individual trailers cost from $8,000 to more than $20,000-the community has appealed only to people of means, many of them retired or semi-retired, who like the idea of living beside the river, in a dwelling free from the discomforts of apartment life and the inconvenience and high cost of maintaining conventional homes.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The land is leased by Baker and his partner, Roger Battryn, from the Capilano band on a three-year renewable permit, and the band receives 10 per cent of the gross revenue from the project, which represents a total investment of about $100,000.
2918C-4001
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians Occupants of the trailers, which are surrounded by carefully maintained lawns and park-like environment, pay $65 a month for parking. About 40 such homes occupy the ground now, with room for about 35 more.
In so far as education is concerned, more Indians are being educated than ever before, and more and more of them want to be educated. They want to be educated along with other Canadians, and this is being done.
I remember that when I went to university there were only three or four of us attending the University of British Columbia. That was in 1955. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are some sixty members of various Indian bands in British Columbia attending the University of British Columbia. I think this is progress. The hon. member for Skeena says that nothing is being done, that no progress is being made. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Indian people are on the move today as they have never been before.
I am not going to sing the praises of the government for its treatment of the Indian peoples. Successive governments have failed to do the job that was required of them. But I do not want always to dwell on the things that have been wrong in the past. We must address ourselves resolutely to the future.
I paid tribute in my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for giving the Indians the vote. This was one of the great decisions that the right hon. gentleman made during his time as Prime Minister. I also said, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to repeat, that more was done for the Indian people by the government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson than was done at any other time in our history. I would like to just list a few of those things to refresh the memories of hon. members on the other side.
Mr. Pearson's government announced a $112 million housing program. Loans from C.M.H.C. were made available for Indians to build houses on the reserves. An off-reserve housing program was introduced. I spoke to many, many Indians about this in various parts of the country, especially in British Columbia where this program was welcomed and has helped them a great deal to find a new life in the cities where other Canadians are living.
Federal spending in the years 1962-63 on Indian affairs was about $51 million. Federal spending in the years 1968-69 is almost $140 million. I think this is progress. I think it indicates the government's concern about the
March 6. 1969
6310	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians native peoples and its desire to do something to help them to help themselves. I agree with many hon. members who have said that the objective of all members must be to work for the minister of Indian affairs in order to see that he works himself out of a job. It is basically wrong that there should be a department of government devoted to a particular race of people.
I would welcome the abolition of the department of Indian affairs and the Indian Act. There should not be special status in Canada for any group of people. There should not have to be special laws saying that I am an Indian. We are all Canadians.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unrealistic that we should expect the Indian Act to be abolished right now. This is not the wish of the Indian people. The impression that I get from them is that they would like to see progressive options made available in the Indian Act until they can get on their feet, do many things for themselves and function as communities on the same basis as many other communities.
The hon. member for Skeena talked about consultations and meeting the wishes of the Indian people. At another point he said that the government should abolish the department of Indian affairs. I am not sure what he means, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this type of language. The minister of Indian Affairs made it pretty clear that we are consulting the Indian people as widely as possible on the changes that they want in the Indian Act. This is a good thing and I welcome it. Never before in history have such wide consultations been held to amend a portion of the Indian Act or the Indian Act in total. The Indian people have been very concerned that everything was coming from the top, being fed down to them and handed to them as a fait accompli. I am glad to say that this is no longer the case. I am confident that when the new policy on Indian Affairs is announced, the new act is introduced and the claims bill is introduced, the wishes of the Indian people will be reflected therein.
The hon. member for Skeena also quoted several figures in regard to average age at death, and in the same breath was talking about life expectancy. If the figures that the hon. member was using are true, I should be almost dead. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I still have a few years left.


David Lewis: If not, the average would be still lower.


Len Marchand: To
clarify the record, average age at death reflects the age at which a certain number of persons die. Life expectancy reflects the average number of years of life for those who are still living. For example, if one person of 80 and a one year old baby die, the average age at death is about 40. If an 80 year old person and two one year old twins die, the average age at death is roughly 27. To clarify the record further, Mr. Speaker, the life expectancy of Indian men is 59.61 years at birth; life expectancy of non-Indian men at birth is 63.35 years. Life expectancy of Indian women at birth is 63.23 years; life expectancy of nonIndian women at birth is 74.17.


David Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to ask him a question if he would not object.


Len Marchand: When I am finished. Statistics can often be misleading, and I am sorry to say that misleading statistics have often been used against the department of Indian affairs when it has been convenient for hon. members to suggest how bad things are. When the report on Indians and the law came out there was a story in one newspaper to the effect that 100 per cent of the women in the Kamloops jail were Indians. I was very alarmed at this statistic and I phoned Mr. Gus Godfriedson, an old friend in Kamloops, to ask what was going on and whether this was a true figure. He said, "Not that I am aware of. I know of one woman who has been in jail in Kamloops from time to time. If you call that 100 per cent, I guess the figure is correct."
With the best intentions in the world, members wound the Indian people when they use such figures. We are a proud people and there are many things that work against us. But most of them are not intentional, and we would hate to feel that they are.
As I have said before, the Indians have many accomplishments of which they can justly be proud. Most of us know that from time to time the department is a help. On the other hand, from time to time the department is not as helpful as we would like it to be. In our emotional moments many of us may blame the department for many things. But if we are to debate the future of the Indian people on an adequate basis, we will have to recognize that many things are being done by the Indian people. Many things are being done by various agencies of government, including the Indian Affairs branch. Still more things
March 6, 1969

remain to be done. But most Indian people today know that things are very different from what they were. Those who read the record of this debate will surely feel that members on all sides of the house want to do a better job for them.
et (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate very much the statement of the hon. member who spoke before me, but nevertheless we much understand that within his party the hon. member may feel a little too bound to defend party policy. Certainly he is right to rejoice over the fact that we now appear willing to give a final solution to the Indian problem.
But if we consider the present situation that was permitted to develop for many years, not to say centuries, we should wonder what will be the results of the new government policy. Why? Because the situation has become so serious that one wonders if it might not be too late for a solution.
I would now like to make a comparison between the fate of as important a minority as the French Canadians and that of the Canadian Indians. We French Canadians have been fighting since 1760 against complete assimilation, against the loss of our rights and prerogatives. We are in a position to understand the problems of a race doomed to extinction, judging by the views which have been prevailing for a long time in this government.
So I can well understand the Indian problem. The principle according to which everyone should be allowed to remain himself is so true and enriching in a country like Canada that every effort should have been made in the past to make sure that the Indians, the first and most important inhabitants of our country, remain themselves.
The government is now trying to correct the situation and if the Indians themselves believe that this will be successful, I am the first to be delighted about it.
I doubt it, but this day may have helped in finding a real and definite solution to the problem.
I would also like to speak about the problems of the Eskimos, especially those living in northern Quebec. Even if it is now possible to give them the means to be independent, we should not prevent them from leading a fuller
DEBATES	6311
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians and richer life. I know that, in Northern Quebec, the Eskimo Association carries out the contracts granted by the government in that region. So, if the Eskimos are ready to look after their own affairs, to invest their profits to their advantage in their own region, that could be a partial solution to the problem.
Consequently, foreign companies, and more particularly American companies, should not be allowed to take over the implementation of those contracts, to make profits and invest them in the States or in a country other than Canada, above all when Eskimos can run their business by themselves to their own profit. Apart from being an incentive for employment in those areas, the implementation of those contracts would enable the Eskimos to make money, as the Americans have always done. That would make them more independent, freer, for they would no longer have to make do with the welfare allowances that they get at the present time.
All those problems should therefore be considered in a very open way and we should not give with one hand what we take with the other. If we really want the Indians or the Eskimos to enrich our national heritage, we should let them have their own way and facilitate their self-determination, by all possible means.


Mr. Paul Si-Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a portion of the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That in the opinion of this house the government-
Then, I omit some words,
[DOT]-is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
When I read the motion of the hon. member, it seemed to me that he was being unnecessarily pessimistic, negative and totally uninspiring. It did not sound like him. The hon. gentleman is from a riding neighbouring mine. I know that his interest in the Indian people is genuine, deep, and of every long standing. Listening to him tonight, I did not find that his language matched the slightly intemperate tone of the motion itself. I found him generally non-partisan, very fair for the
6312	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians most part and, again, speaking out of a considerable body of knowledge on a subject that has interested him for a long time.
He is one of the people in this house who took an interest in what has come to be called the Indian problem while numerous other Canadians, who at times now take a somewhat noisy interest in the matter, were quite silent and indifferent. If I start on a slightly critical note in reviewing what the hon. member for Skeena said, it is because I am leading up to a point. I should like to refer to one section of his remarks in which he was criticizing the booklet "Choosing a Path" which was distributed to the consultative groups as they met across Canada. The hon. member referred to the section which asked the Indians what they thought of the Indian liquor legislation. He went on to ask: Isn't this ridiculous? How many times have they been asked this question? Could they be blamed if they looked upon it as an insult to their intelligence?
Can we really say this, Mr. Speaker? It is true that they have been asked this question many times. It is true also that they have given many different answers. This does not apply only to Indians. The white people of Canada have, for many generations, asked this question about liquor control. They have given many different answers. They are continuing to give different answers.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In my own province of British Columbia, the provincial government has recently set up another royal commission to investigate the problem of drinking in the province. So, I do not really think that it is an insult to the intelligence of Indians to ask them the question once again, or if it is, it is at least no more insulting than referring the question to yet another royal commission on behalf of the white community. I am not bringing this up to niggle on a small point but to lead to a point which I think is important, and it is this: There is disagreement among the white community in this nation on many issues, and there is disagreement among the Indian community on many issues. It is a good thing that there is. Occasionally, during the course of this debate I have heard mention of this figure called "the Indian" as though every Indian in Canada were somehow merged into a single recognizable entity. This mythical figure we call "the Indian" expresses the unanimous collective thoughts of all the Indians in Canada. This is a false premise and as

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
long as we persist in it in our handling of the important matters of Indian administration, administration by Indians themselves or by the Indian department, we cannot be right. There is no such man as "the Indian" in Canada. Indians are people of immense variety, and there is no reason why they should not disagree. It is true that, for instance, in most of the provinces of Canada there is a single Indian organization. Speaking in terms of fairly large organizations, there are at least four different Indian organizations in British Columbia which have slightly different views on what the course of their people should be. Occasionally these organizations are viewed somewhat critically by the white community. They say: "Why don't you people combine? Why can't you speak for British Columbian Indians with a single voice?"
Some of the people who ask this question sit in this house where there happen to be four political parties, not one of which is in total agreement with any other party. If it is right for us, then it is also right for the Indian, and this leads us a little further. It leads to the question of consultation with the Indians. Let us, and let the minister, recognize the fact that we cannot consult with the Indians of Canada and get one, single, cohesive answer as to what they want. In fact, it is almost an insult to suggest that we can go to the Indians from one side of this nation to the other asking: "Tell us what you want" and assuming that they are all going to tell us the same thing, therefore, it is merely a matter of meeting their requests in greater or lesser degree. This is not to happen. There are great variations even within a single area in my own riding of Coast-Chilcotin. I made a rough calculation a short time ago and I found that there were over 30 reserves in my riding. Many of the people cannot converse with one another except through the medium of the English language because their own languages are of such a vastly different nature.
In the course of the consultation meetings, how many points of view have been put forward on how the Indians feel as to their role as citizens of Canada, citizens of the province, citizens of North America and citizens of what might be called a pan-Indian society? In each case there are at least four distinct views held by the Indians. I should like to quote one from a publication called the "Indian Magazine" which I am sure many hon. members who are interested in this subject
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
receive. Let us see what Chief Max Gros-Louis of Huron Village near Quebec city had to say:
X can't see the Indians belonging to the provinces, because there's going to be another separation among Indians. We are already separated by the United States. Now if we start separating by provinces, that's going to be the end of the Indian.
That is one man's view. The consultative group has heard from Indians who positively want to be citizens of the province in which they reside. They feel that this is of prime importance to them. They feel that in many provinces of Canada they are being deprived, in greater or lesser degree, of basic rights as provincial citizens. There is a third view among Indians which is that the international border is an artificial line; that it is one which should not apply to them and that the Indian society is not of the nation of Canada nor of the nation of the United States but is a loosely connected society of a single group based on a single culture whose home is North America. There is yet a fourth view held that within Canada the Indian people are not Canadians but are allies of the British Crown; that they are a nation separate within Canada and that their true connection is to the Royal House of Britain.
I am not going to suggest which of these views predominates amongst Indians. I have some ideas, but I do not know whether it is up to me to suggest them at this time. However, I would point out that every one of these views has some legitimacy and every one of them has some followers in Canada. Therefore, whenever I hear that any man, particularly a white man but also an Indian, claims that he knows what all the Indian people of Canada really want, my faith in his knowledge and judgment is diminished. I bring this point forward in connection with the delays in bringing forth the new Indian act and the legislation for an Indian claims commission.
There is one difference between the present administration of the Indian department and those which preceded it. I think it is that we are attempting consultation with the Indian. As the hon. member for Skeena said, we have always claimed we were consulting them, but did we really do it? I can quote a good friend of mine in this regard, Chief Dan George of the Burrard No. 3 reserve. I recall him saying once: "Oh yes, the white man is always coming around and he says to us 'what do you want' but he never waits for us to answer".
DEBATES	6313
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I hope that perhaps one time we will wait for the Indian to answer, and we will receive a multitude of replies. Those replies are going to come slowly but surely if we are committed to asking questions and waiting for answers. Then, we cannot arbitrarily say: "Sorry, you are too long in giving your answer. We do not have the time to wait. Here is the new Indian act, take it or leave it". Such a course would be a denial of the fundamental principle, as I understand the minister's remarks, underlying the policy that this department wishes to follow. There are a great many features in it, and I must pass over most of them. It would be ludicrous for me to attempt to review the situation of the Indian in Canada, either historically or at present.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would not pretend to criticize the record of Canadian white governments in their handling of Indian affairs but at the same time, though speaking from less experience because the period of my close association as a member of parliament has been briefer, I would not attempt to defend all the actions of the present Indian Affairs branch. Like the hon. member for Skeena I have the feeling that it is shot through with a very strong degree of paternalism, and this cannot be good; it must go. I certainly agree that the earlier the Indian Affairs branch can bring about conditions in which it is no longer required, the better it will be for the Indians. There is, however, a point on which I am not clear, though I listened carefully to the hon. member for Skeena in this respect. He was speaking of the Indian Act and it was not clear to me whether or not he was recommending that the Act be abolished. I would be delighted if he would interrupt me and tell me whether or not he advocates the abolition of the Indian Act.


Frank Howard: Yes.


Paul St. Pierre: I wish I could understand his position; I am sure he will answer me on some occasion. I cannot understand it, now. I, too, would like to see the Indian Act abolished but we must realize that we have certain obligations to the Indians of this country by treaty. Some of these treaties we have bent, and others we have broken. Then, as hon. members are aware, there are Indians in British Columbia with whom we have never signed treaties of any kind. Nevertheless, since we have signed treaties and assumed responsibilities to these people, how are these
March S, 1969
6314	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians responsibilities to be discharged except through an Indian Act-call it by another name, if you wish. I think the Indian people must themselves surrender these special rights voluntarily. We have no right unilaterally to push aside these agreements and wipe this legislation off the books. It seems to me that whether we call it an Indian Act or something else, we must keep legislation respecting the special rights of the Indian people on the law books of this country until and unless they themselves choose to ask that it be removed.


Frank Howard: Right again. Yes.


Paul St. Pierre: Am I to understand that the hon. member would be satisfied with a change in the name of the act?


Frank Howard: I would say, "no" to that one.


Paul St. Pierre: There is one other point I should like to raise, and I feel it involves a moral responsibility on the part of the white majority in this country. There are many Indians who wish to leave the reserves, move into white society and integrate completely, losing their Indian identity. This should be their right. Since in most cases they are disadvantaged people, I believe we have a duty to give them special help in this regard. But what of the Indians who wish to remain Indians, who wish to live on their reserves and lead the traditional lives of their people? Is this not also their right? Do they not have the right, if they choose, to continue to exist as a separate, non-integrated group in Canadian society? It seems to me that both by treaty and in terms of ordinary justice the Indians who choose to remain Indians have the right to do so. Does this necessarily place them in the position of being second class citizens? I believe that throughout most of our history this has been the effect. By choosing to live on the reserves, by choosing to retain the old ways, they have tended to become second class citizens. Surely, the Canadian nation can find some way of guaranteeing that these people can live different lives without obliging them to be poor for the most part, as they are, or poorly educated, or discriminated against in any real way because they are Indians.
Surely, out of our present examination of the Indian Act the most important thing we can bring forward is a recognition on the part of the government, on the part of civil servants and on the part of the ordinary people

of Canada that when we meet an Indian we are meeting a person, one individual. And there is every bit as much variety among people of Indian ancestry as there is among people of any other race.
Before I close, I should like to comment on one point made by the hon. member for Skeena. I should like to give my fullest support to his plea for the early setting up of an Indian claims commission. Let us not fool ourselves. The government of this country has neglected to sign treaties such as the Jay Treaty and Treaties 8 and 11 in the north. We have made treaties and broken them. We have failed to make treaties in British Columbia west of the rockies, and in other parts of the north with the Eskimos. This record of doubtful faith, and in some cases of bad and broken faith, is a festering sore in this country. Let us not delay any longer than is necessary before forming an Indian claims commission to review these old disagreements, to patch up old difference and to start us in the 1970s with some of the old hatred and bitterness wiped away. I thank the house for its attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: In the past several years, Mr. Speaker, certain changes have taken place in the attitude of Canadians toward the Indian population of this country. Public opinion has been aroused. It has been noticed, perhaps as a result of some publicity, that the Indian people are living in conditions which are not comparable with those experienced by non-Indian Canadians. There is an obvious disparity in their means of living in all aspects-a disparity in housing, in economic status, in opportunities for education, and in opportunities to seek the better things which this country has to offer.
As a result of this change in public opinion under the pressure which has been building during the past couple of years, the Indian affairs branch has decided to take a closer look at the Indian Act in its various aspects and to establish whether some of the difficulties which the Indian people experience today may not be correlated with certain aspects of this legislation. I think it is fair to say that public opinion has become aroused because our Indian population in general is becoming more educated. The more educated Indians have become outspoken and have brought their problems to the attention of the Canadian public.
March 6. 1969

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It might be said of the consultations that were begun last fall and completed in January that that was the first occasion on which Indians had the opportunity to meet a minister of the government and express their views to him directly, instead of letting him know their views through the medium of letters sent by mail. Those consultations led many Indians to believe that there is now hope for them to achieve a status enjoyed by the rest of the population. I had the pleasure of attending a couple of those consultations, one in Nanaimo and one in Edmonton, and was impressed by the fact that the complaints of Indians of different areas were very similar. They also expressed a common fear that the results of those consultations would not live up to their expectations. In other words they felt that, as too often in the past, they might be disappointed.
Speaking to the House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said on November 19, 1968, that Indians-
-must have the same degree of self-governing local institutions as other Canadians. They must have access to the same institutions and programs of government as other Canadians. They must have the opportunities to achieve for themselves their own aspirations.
That statement, at least, holds out hope to our Indians that their lives will improve. I hope the fear Indians have expressed that the consultations will come to nothing are unfounded.
It may be well to examine the most serious problems confronting our Indian peoples. The Indian Act, now being reassessed, generally speaking is too paternalistic and restrictive to allow our Indians to develop properly in our society. As other speakers have said, most Indians are poor, only 25 per cent of employed Indians making more than $2,000 a year. Average per capita income for Indians is $500 a year, compared with $2,500 for other Canadians.
What are the reasons for this disparity? First, because many of our Indians live in isolated communities, they have inadequate opportunities to become educated. Psychologically and sociologically, their education is often inadequate. Also, they do not attain skills necessary to earn a good living. This afternoon the minister said that hon. members should not criticize the government for past inactivity without making constructive
DEBATES	6315
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians suggestions for future programs. I have one or two suggestions for the employment of Indians. My suggestions do not apply to all Indians of this country, but mainly to those of northern Alberta. I am glad the Minister without Portfolio is here to listen to my remarks in this regard.
In the northwestern section of Alberta a new town to be known as Grande Cache will be built within the next couple of years, for the purpose of mining coal. It would seem logical that Indians living in the area should be trained and prepared for employment in the building of this town. They could then be employed in coal mining, once the town has been built up. Possibly such training and retraining may entail co-operation between the Departments of Indian Affairs, Manpower and Regional Development.
As I said a moment ago, lack of education has constituted a serious problem for Indians. The minister has said that Indians must have access to the same sorts of institutions that other Canadians have. May I point out that the community of Fort Chipewyan in the northern part of Alberta, with a population of about 1,500 people, has no high school. The population is largely Indian. How then can the minister say that those Indians should have access to institutions similar to those enjoyed by other Canadians when there is not even a high school for them to attend?
Because many Indians live in isolated areas lack of health services has become a problem. In the north, we have many fairly small settlements, few of which could support a physician. Most of them are serviced by public health nurses or by what are known as nursing stations. A couple of years ago a group of Australians had a song on the Hit Parade. They sang about some sort of flying doctor who was knocked out of the sky by a boomerang. The flying doctor idea is very good, I think. We ought to set up some sort of mobile medical air service to provide improved medical services for Indians in isolated areas. Although the nursing stations can handle many problems, a physicians' help is often invaluable. During my election campaign I visited seme of these northern areas with my campaign manager, who introduced me as a physician. It did not take long for me to be surrounded by people complaining of all sorts of illnesses. Eventually I told my manager not to introduce me as a doctor, because I could not look after the medical problems of these people anyway. I did not take my medical
6316	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians bag with me. The point is that by no stretch of the imagination does our Indian community have adequate health services.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) spoke about the problem of Indians and the law. He seemed rather upset by a statement of a previous speaker that all the inmates of one institution in Kamloops consisted of Indians, and refuted that statement. In my hand I hold the booklet entitled, "Indians and The Law" prepared by the Canadian Corrections Association, in August, 1967. Table VII on page 45 indicates that during April, 1966, of 11 females admitted to the Kamloops female section of the western provincial correctional institution, 11 were Indians and Metis. At that time, in that particular institution, 100 per cent of the inmates were Indian or Metis. I do not say this to criticize the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) for trying to minimize the problem Indians are having with the law. It is certainly a major problem.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think it is fair to say that in most western correctional institutions more than 50 per cent of the inmates are of Indian extraction. This would indicate there is something wrong with our laws which deal with Indians and their particular crimes. A recommendation in this report indicates that the people who prepared it are very concerned about the problem of Indians and the law. The recommendation, in part, reads as follows:
Provision of special services in magistrates and justices of the peace courts to ensure that Indian and Eskimo people understand and exercise their rights. At present, most do not understand the nature of the charge against them, the type of implication of plea they may enter, court procedures and terminology, the right to speak on their own behalf or to request legal counsel.
This is one area in which we as a society have failed miserably. We have not taken time to examine the problem sufficiently. Something must be done to prevent Indian and Metis people being sent to jail or prison simply because they do not understand their rights, the courts and how they can defend themselves. This situation must be corrected as soon as possible. Translation services, legal counsel and all facilities required to ensure that justice is properly carried out must be offered to Indian people when they appear in court to face charges of various types.
Indians in the province of Alberta feel they are being unjustly treated with regard to

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
mineral rights. I want to put this on record, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to Indians with whom I am familiar. Many Indian reserves are being explored for oil. Licences are being issued to exploration companies by the government without any consultation with the Indian people. Indians should be entitled to the same royalties as a white farmer. The farmer is able to negotiate an agreement by which he can profit from oil being removed from under his land. The same right does not apply to Indians or Metis living in Metis colonies. This matter must be investigated, and whatever injustice may exist must be corrected.
The problem of poverty is not easy to solve. It is fair to say that poverty has been with man since history was first recorded. Only time can tell if poverty will ever be completely eradicated. Possibly the largest contributing factor to poverty conditions among Indian and Metis people is the fact that they have extremely large families. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the average earning per capita of Indian and Metis people in Canada is approximately $500 a year. I do not have the exact figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, but I think that it is fair to say the average Indian or Metis family consists of five to ten children.
Trying to support five to ten children, send them to school, feed, clothe and provide them with shelter is almost an impossible task. A task of this magnitude would lead the head of a family to despair and discouragement. With the limited skill most of them have, even by working 24 hours a day he could not earn enough to support a family of that size.
In consultations with the Indians, I would suggest it might be appropriate to ask them if they would like to have family planning information distributed to their people. If they are interested, a vigorous program should be instituted. If not, I would suggest the matter be dropped.
I am anxiously awaiting the report of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) which he hopes to discuss at the next consultation meeting to be held in Ottawa. I hope that the Indian people will not be disappointed and that their expectations will be satisfied, at least in part. I hope also after these consultations1 these people will be made to feel they are part of our country, enjoy the same status as the rest of our citizens and1 can look forward to a great future.
March 6, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: I would be remiss in commencing this speech, Mr. Speaker, if I did not congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) not only for the contribution which he has made to this debate, but the contribution so happily made to his family unit about a week ago.
One misconception regarding mineral rights on Indian reserves should be clarified. The hon. member suggested that Indians do not benefit from their mineral rights to the same extent as farmers. Mineral rights under reservations are the property of the band who own or occupy the reservation. They are approximately in the same position as farmers who own their mineral rights. This is a considerably better position than the bulk of the farmers who have surface rights only.
In participating in this debate, I do not present myself as any sort of an expert, although it has been my experience to have employed a large number of Indians on construction projects in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, to have participated with the Musqueam band of Vancouver in the development of their property, and to have enjoyed a more casual relationship with numerous prairie Indians.
The most significant lesson I have learned is that in speaking of Indians we are not considering a homogeneous group, identically motivated and moving as one at the same pace toward universally shared objectives. It should not be surprising that they are as diverse in their capacities, their orientations and their objectives as any other similar sized sampling of people.
The present statute enacted in 1951 contains some very strange provisions. I will refer to one of them. It is section 119:
o (9:10 p.m.)
An Indian child who
(a)	is expelled or suspended from school, or
(b)	refuses or fails to attend school regularly, shall be deemed to be a juvenile delinquent within the meaning of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
There we have it; no indictment, no trial, no judge, no jury, just a criminal record. However, in keeping with the non-partisan character of this debate I wish to report in fairness that when that section was enacted in 1951 no spokesman from any party-and all parties today represented in the house were represented then-objected to that section. Today it is a great commentary on the advance in our thinking that obviously no representative of any party in the house
DEBATES	6317
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians would permit a provision such as that to go forward without very serious challenge indeed.
It seems to me that in this approach to Indians as a unit, the fallacy in our entire policy of the past lies. The fatal flaw of our Indian legislation since its inception has been this idea of considering Indians as a unit, rather than people the same as the rest of us. We are fundamentally wrong when we try, in a particular piece of legislation, to deal with all Indians as though they were a homogenous group, because we attempt to identify an average Indian to whom we can relate the legislation when there is really no such thing.
Having done that, we compound the felony, motivated I am sure, by compassion rather than colonialism, by reducing that average Indian to some sort of lowest common denominator to be sure that we do not treat any unjustly in a material sense, and in the process we treat almost all Indians unjustly in the spiritual sense.
The philosophical dilemma is far from new. I will refer here to the House of Commons debates in 1880, volume 2 at page 1990 and 1991. On the one side of the debate Mr. White of East Hastings said in part:
We are making them believe that the country will support them, and putting them in a position in which they have no credit or standing in the community. We should no longer treat the Indians as children. Something should be done to put them in a position to make them know and feel that they were responsible to themselves and to the country.
On the other side of the debate, Sir John A. Macdonald said:
You cannot make an agriculturalist of the Indian. All we can hope for is to wean them, by slow degrees, from their nomadic habits, which have almost become an instinct, and by slow degrees absorb them or settle them on the land. Meantime they must be fairly protected.
That was in 1880. Today, almost 90 years later, the same points of view exist.
The fact remains that Indians are now what is fashionably called, "a visible minority". Policies carried on by governments since the first Indian Act was enacted by the United Provinces of Canada in 1865 have made them basically welfare cases. Because they are a visible minority they are visible welfare cases. There is a stigma to that status, and whether or not we are or should still be obsessed by the guilt that was expressed in the debates of 1880, it seems we must now redirect the legislation and the policy behind it. We must abandon paternalism no matter how
March 6, 1969
6318	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians strong the humanitarian impulse is to retain it. We must instead embrace social and economic integration as our objective, recognizing that a transition period of at least two generations will probably be needed to effect the policy in a substantial way.
Above all, we must orient our policy and the administration of it to individuals, to people, not to norms or averages, because when you deal with human beings there are really no norms or averages. The typical or average Indian is a fiction, a creation of administrative convenience. Continuation of the concept will invalidate any policy, however well conceived in its other dimensions.
I am heartened that even with the handicaps of the existing legislation the present minister and his department appear to have taken a human and a personal view towards the Indians, towards their responsibility. I have every confidence that in the new legislation coming before us as a result of the consultations that are going on today our policy for the Indians will be based on compassion and not paternalism, consultation not direction, and participation not dictation.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: however, to call this meeting. When I complimented the minister I meant it quite sincerely; but if this situation continues much longer I will have to take a different view of things. As I mentioned, I was very happy to see the conditions when I visited the far North on my last trip. I found that the native population was increasing and that the school population was increasing. I believe there were some 230 persons in a nice new school which was well heated and well lighted. The children there were happy. I believe the grades carried on through grade 6 and possibly grade 7. When speaking to the people I learned that they objected very strenuously to having to send their children one thousand miles away for ten months of the year in order to continue their education after grade 6 or grade 7. The only answer in this regard that I have had from the department is that it is necessary to educate these people where the employment opportunities are. Quite frankly, I disagree with this. I agree with the native parents who want to have their children at home for a few more years.
I believe the department should consider this very carefully. Home ties are no different when we are speaking about the native people than they are for anyone else. The mothers, fathers and children are no different than I, my family and my children. The minister has gone forward with great strength with, shall I say, the foundation laid by previous governments. I must mention this because everyone in Canada knows the roads to resources and northern development programs came about under a previous government. I say again by way of emphasis that I appreciate the way the present minister is carrying out his duty. I should like to remind him, however, of one or two things to which I take exception. I am not in a position to advise a minister, but if I might use the word "advise" I would say that if children are to be educated where the opportunities are he will find difficulty in bringing people from the Arctic Ocean 1,000 miles away. When a native person is 1,000 miles away he is not at home.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Perhaps there should be further development, particularly in respect of transportation, to open up these communities. That is all that is needed. Perhaps we might call it an "icebreaker" to open the Arctic. Others have used submarines, but I would add a word of caution there. I think that with the energy of the present minister this development to which I have referred will not be long in
DEBATES	6319
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians coming, and I say this in spite of the fact that I sometimes wonder about certain policies of the government. Frankly, 1 see no point in transporting 200 or 300 children a distance of 1,000 miles when they can stay in a comfortable, warm, well lighted school for 9 months in the year. I sincerely trust this development will take place in the north before these children graduate.
There are many other things I wanted to talk about, but by agreement I am cutting my remarks short. May I compliment the mover of the motion in the same way as I complimented the minister in my opening remarks. I trust that my few points will be noted because they are sincere and heartfelt. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, may I start by apologizing to any members on the other side whom I may have displaced in rising. May I also join many previous speakers in expressing appreciation at the high tone of the debate that has taken place today. This has been one of the more constructive debates it has been my pleasure to hear in this house. There have been 12 or 13 speakers in the debate this afternoon and this evening, every one of whom I believe has added something constructive to the review and to the considerations we must give in formulating a new policy. I do not think I can cover all of the highlights of the speech of each hon. member, but I will attempt to reply in general and to answer quickly one or two questions.
The immediately preceding speaker, known as "Weasel Horse", the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock), expressed concern at the delay in the national consultation meeting. In the interests of saving time, may I simply refer him to the remarks of my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) earlier today, and also assure the hon. member that we are giving consideration to the question of the number of representatives from Alberta. Some difficult problems are posed but we are going to be very open minded and do all we can to satisfy all concerned. I am sure that, with good will on all sides, a reasonable solution will be found.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), pointed out one rather agonizing section of the Indian Act which by itself, if for no other reason, indicates the great need for change. The hon. member referred to the Indian child who misses school occasionally
March 6. 198S
6320	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians and is automatically labelled a juvenile delinquent without due process of law.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) had some worthwhile comments to make, though too many for me to refer to them all. He referred to the need for family planning. I was impressed by the way he put it, that we should ask the Indian people what they wanted, rather than in any sense imposing something upon them. He also referred to flying doctors. I think it is fairly well known that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has been negotiating with the Canadian Medical Association and with regional and provincial medical associations to see whether a voluntary roster system could be instituted that would bring better service to Indian communities in more remote areas.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) made reference to the various differences of opinion existing among Indian people from coast to coast. I hope to refer to his rather interesting comments later.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) made a very pertinent observation when he talked of the need for all of us to recognize the great progress that is being made by many Indian people. So often in watching television I am concerned that, while undeniably poverty among the Indian people is shown, and while unfortunately there is a high rate of alcoholism and a rising rate of crime among the Indian people, a balanced picture is not presented. The other side of the coin, is not shown indicating the great progress that has been made by more and more of our Indian people. I think it is important that we give a balanced picture, and certainly that was one of the many contributions the hon. member made in his remarks.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made several constructive suggestions with which I cannot deal in detail. One of them was the thought-a thought that we are considering-that there should be established Indian development corporations; that there is a general need for decentralization and for economic development as a whole. I also join with the hon. member in expressing my distaste of what I saw on the television program "The Public Eye" to which he referred, when a rather prominent citizen made such a bigoted comment about Indians, their blood content, and their difficulties with alcohol. I think this program made all of us

who are at all sensitive to the situation cringe.
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and others referred to the need for a higher priority to be given by the government in meeting the problems of our native Indian people.
Hon. members will probably be surprised to hear me say that the motion that began this debate is a good one. I think the wording is appropriate and set the tone of the debate, which has stayed on a fairly high plane.
The corollary to this motion is for the government, I hope helped by the opposition, to not pursue a course, whether innocently, mistakenly or deliberately, that will meet the objectives and cause the results that are inherent in the words contained in the motion. We must, of course, remove and eliminate the destructive effects of paternalism by removing paternalism. We must eliminate discrimination, and discrimination there is in this country. In our course of action, we must restore human dignity, respect, pride and self-confidence to a group of people who have been alienated by many factors, not the least of which have been the policies of the past.
In his elaboration the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) went back-and this is what has impressed me most of all in this debate-to examine the basic assumptions upon which our policy should be founded. He questioned those basic assumptions in the comments or partial solutions that he offered.
Specifically the criticism that is inherent in the motion before us today is contained in an expression of cynicism as to whether the government is going to take action. All I would say about that is that personally I am absolutely convinced that it will not be very long before action is taken and that there will be a constructive change in policy. I appreciate the fact-and many people have made this point today-that it is no longer a time for sweet words and speeches; it is a time for action.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The other inherent criticism in the motion, referred to by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and others, was the delay in announcing policy. I, and I know my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other colleagues in the cabinet, are also impatient to take the necessary action and to move on this whole situation. When my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) discussed with me the assignment to work with them in identifying the problems and to recommend to them and the cabinet possible avenues for change, I felt it was necessary to charge out because, in the first place, one of the more specific matters to accomplish was the immediate revision of the Indian Act.
The first meeting which I attended, in Yellowknife last July, taught me very quickly that perhaps speed was required but haste was not a good idea. There were many aspects of this whole situation that had to be examined in depth after consultation with and listening to the views of Indian people. I think the real point is that we must move on a timetable that is acceptable to the Indian people. We must not try to meet some artificial deadline that might be suggested, and in the process fail to apply the wisdom that the situation needs after 300 years of neglect and incorrect policies.
I think it would be presumptuous of us as a government if, after seven months of consultation with Indian people across this country and an exchange of views such as we had in the consultations ending only four or five weeks ago, we had presented immediately to this house, the Indian people and the nation a package policy. If we had done that, I think it would have indicated to all concerned that we had made up our minds long ahead of time and were not really listening to the recommendations and points of view expressed during the 17 consultation meetings just ended. We had to have time and we must continue to take the time, to digest all the views and opinions expressed in the last eight months. I cannot see the wisdom or value to anybody in proceeding with a new policy without the input that is necessary from all these consultation meetings.
There has been criticism of the consultation meetings. I think the degree of criticism is in many ways far from justified. These meetings were far from perfect, but we should not go to the other side of the spectrum and say they were hopeless, useless or, as some have said, a facade. They were open meetings. It may have been specifically said that the purpose of the consultation meetings was simply to examine the proposed revisions of the Indian Act. But from the very first meeting, and in every subsequent meeting, there was no attempt on anybody's part, whether he was a minister or not, to suppress any point of view expressed about any matter bothering the Indian delegates who attended.
DEBATES	6321
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
These meetings covered the whole range of local problems, regional problems, national problems, the Indian's suspicion of government, their cynicism, treaty rights' and aboriginal rights; in fact, the whole gamut and range of frustrations and grievances that has built up over the centuries in respect of the non-Indian, Indian relationship. So, there was no suppression. Although these meetings may not have reached all the objectives we might have had in mind, I think it was a very valuable exercise and within a short time there will be in the policies that will be announced some indication of the value that came from those meetings.
As most hon. members know, there were 17 meetings. I believe all but one of them was attended by a minister, either my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or myself. Of the 17 meetings I know my colleague was at eight, and I was at ten. There was only one, in Prince George, which we regret we did not attend. This was due to circumstances which arose very suddenly and could not be avoided.
There are in this country 558 Indian bands, and in those 17 consultation meetings 530 were represented. I think that is a pretty good representation. This brings to mind one of the problems we face and with which we must deal. We must have understanding in this respect, and perhaps some adjustment from the Indian people themselves. The hon. member for Kcnora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) referred to the fact that Indian people do not view representation, the delegation of authority and the appointment of spokesmen, in the same manner as non-Indians. I have learned during the last few months that there is a tendency in the Indian community to seek consensus and unanimity. Often no one person is designated as the spokesman for a group of people. Often at these consultation meetings an Indian delegate would rise right at the beginning, to make it clear, and say: I speak for myself. In their gentle, effusive and humble way they would indicate that they were not taking unto themselves the authority to speak on behalf of other people.
There were many things wrong with the consultation meetings. There was insufficient opportunity for the Indians to consult amongst themselves beforehand, I think we have learned a great deal from that. At the same time, I think it was an exercise in consultation the like of which has never before been conducted by any government with any group of people in this country.
March 6, 1969
6322	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
We are embarking upon new policies. New policies will succeed, obviously, only if we insist in seeking the right answers with clarity and consistency in both the definition of the objectives we are seeking and the selection of the means of realizing them. In this process we must all ask ourselves certain basic, fundamental questions. Then, we have to try and answer those questions. Hopefully, from the questions and the answers will come enlightened policy. Some of these questions are: In what way are Indians excluded from our society? In what ways have they been disadvantaged? How did they come to be that way? What obstacles stand in the way of their achieving equal citizenship and full participation? Then the obvious question is: What actions and measures can be expected to overcome these obstacles?
I think in answering these questions it is important to examine the jurisdictional, legal, administrative, social and economic factors which shape the present status of Indian people and native peoples in our society. We must look at the special legal status of these people. We must recognize and consider the poverty aspects involved, their alienation, cynicism, mistrust of government and obvious isolation from the larger society.
The hon. member for Skeena referred this afternoon to the supposed basis for federal government acceptance of responsibility in this field. He referred to section 91, paragraph 24, of the British North America Act, which assigns the making of laws, of legislation respecting "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" to the jurisdiction of the federal government. I do not know that this, to the exclusion of change, means that it has to be totally, utterly and exclusively the responsibility of the federal government and under its jurisdiction.
Anyway, on that assumption many years ago, and as a consequence, the Indian Act was passed, an administrative structure was created and special policies were developed for this particular ethnic group. Further, the federal government became involved in the provision of a complex set of services for Indians which other Canadians receive from provincial and local governments.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The basic source for defining the policy of the federal government has been the Indian Act. As hon. members know, it is a comprehensive act which defines who shall be considered an Indian and how one can give up
[Mr. Andras.l

Indian status. In so doing, it establishes a special legal category defining certain rights and imposing certain restrictions. It contains provisions1 dealing with the reserve system, a system of local government, and special sections relating to taxation, liquor, inheritance and education. Although the federal administrative structure, the department of Indian affairs, stems from the Indian Act, a growing number of important departmental programs are marginal or peripheral to the Indian Act: welfare, health, community development, economic development, manpower programs etc.
This has been referred to before as well today, and I will bring it up again. The fact is that the treaties signed with Indians add another dimension to Indian-government relations. Almost all Indians express strong resentment at the failure of the government to honour and fulfill treaty and other obligations and promises. The most important of these pertain to hunting, fishing and trapping, and to the provision of land.
Hon. members have made reference today to the fact that most social and economic indicators show that the majority of Indians live in sub-marginal conditions and that relative to the rest of the population the gap in income levels, health care, educational achievements and occupational skills, while improving, is actually growing wider between the Indians and the non-Indian society. There is a significant factor explaining poverty among native peoples in Indian communities, and that is their geographical dispersion and, in many cases, the remoteness of native communities. In addition, their limited mobility has contributed to making employment and participation in the economy difficult. As a consequence, Indians have been isolated and excluded from the larger society, and the exercise of their basic human rights is seriously restricted.
We have to recognize also that cultural barriers and the insensitivity of the non-Indian society to the heritage and values of Indian life have played and continue to play a major role in excluding native peoples from the mainstream of Canadian life.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired, unless there is unanimous agreement to let the minister continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would like to give the minister additional time. Perhaps before it is
March 6. 1969

ten o'clock I might also indicate we believe there is general agreement to allow the house to sit an extra hour tonight so that two or three more members might take part in this important debate. I mention it now so that in case there is not unanimous consent we could do it by way of a motion. However, perhaps there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement for the house to sit until eleven o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. I believe the order should include a reference to the adjournment proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They can be deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to thank the hon. members for their courtesy in letting me go over my time. I was wound up, and I had no idea the clock was moving that quickly.
I was commenting on the fact that I think we also have to take into consideration, in the evolution of the new policy, the fact that there is an insensitivity of the non-Indian society to the values of Indian life and that this has been a factor in excluding Indians from the mainstream. These barriers are most easily observed at two crucial points. If they could be overcome we could go a long way to correcting the situation.
These two points are where Indians come into contact with our industrial society, in educational institutions and in the labour market. Many native students enter the school system with obviously different cultural orientations and often limited or no knowledge of English or French. The educational process, one of the major instruments of socialization in any society, proves to be for the majority of Indians a maladaptive experience. In terms of getting a job, in many ways the traditional Indian way of life has not prepared the individual for occupational roles in the Canadian labour market. The new demands that they have to face-and so often they face them with a lack of understanding on the part of the people with whom they are mixing-are hard to adapt to and frequently force the Indian person into accepting sporadic, low skill employment instead of a career oriented occupational role.
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I believe, and I know my colleague joins me, that in the past Indians have not been adequately consulted nor has their point of view been sufficiently considered in the formulation of policy and the application of programs affecting their lives. Regardless of the type of program, such paternalism and noninvolvement only encourages apathy and reduces the effectiveness of any measure because there is a resulting lack of acceptance.
This is a brief expose of the tangled web of jurisdictions, constitutional problems and contradictory objectives. That web must be untangled. I doubt there is any one single group of actions that will provide instant solutions to the deep social problem that we face with regard to our native people. However, one fact is clear. There must be change, and change there will be. Again I congratulate the hon. member for Skeena and I agree with him that in order to provide meaningful change we must go back to the basic assumptions.
The alternatives'-and I just throw these out without commitment because, as hon. members know, we are not in a position to delineate or define our policy-will obviously range from a tremendous increase in the existing structure with more budget applied to it and more people to do more of those kind of things on the one hand, to an alternative similar to the one implied by the hon. member for Skeena, or perhaps some alternatives in between these two. But whatever decision is made as to the basic objective, we must be very careful in analysing, and seeing with all the wisdom that we possess, the consequences that will flow once we have identified the objective we want to pursue. Whatever that solution will be, it must take into account the fact of the poverty among the Indian people. It must given consideration to treaties and rights and the views and attitudes of Indians toward treaties and rights. It must take into consideration and counteract the deeply rooted alienation that exists among the Indian people.
The other point which we must take into account and which has been mentioned by many hon. members is that because of the diversity of opinions and diversity of problems-which incidentally are similar to those found in almost any comparable sized group in Canada, whatever their origin or their racial background-we must be very flexible in our solutions. I do not think we can have one single approach to this.
March 6- 19S9
6324	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
In conclusion, let me say with all the conviction I can that whatever the solution may be it cannot be unilaterally imposed upon the Indian people. We must take every precaution to ensure that there is consultation and joint effort of the Indian people and the governmental people, whatever level of government is involved. There must be consultation every step of the way. We are fortunate now, as perhaps we would never have been five, ten or fifteen years ago, to recognize that there is great Indian leadership emerging in the Indian community. It is coming from the youth, but all the Indian people are awakening, and through consultation, through their own efforts, through conversations, they are becoming aware of the disparities between their lives and those of the rest of Canadian society. And they want to do something about them. We do have time to make meaningful changes and move along with them. I am encouraged by this debate to feel that this approach will be a non-partisan approach and I think, this, plus all the actions which have been taken by government, will yield solutions which will at least start us along the right path.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I think the step taken by the house a few minutes ago in extending this debate is a measure of the concern which is felt about this subject by members in all parts of the house. I am pleased that the debate was extended in order to provide further opportunity for discussion of this important matter.
I wish to say also that I listened with great interest to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). I think he demonstrated an understanding in depth of the problems with which we are grappling in this area. I express the hope tonight that the understanding he demonstrated will be translated into legislative action and government programs and also that these will be followed by adequate implementation. Certainly, such measures will have the full support of members in this quarter of the house.
I think there is no denying that in the past there has been a significant shortfall as between plans and programs with respect to Indians and the achievements which have resulted from them. The same applies to programs and plans with respect to our Eskimo population. I could go into a lengthy analysis of this aspect, but whatever the reasons I


think this failure must also be taken into account when we are considering future programs and policies. It is a sad thing for Canadians that this house should find itself today in a position where the social and economic situation of a group of people identified by their race has deteriorated to the point at which some hon. members have found it necessary to draw special attention to it by way of the motion now before us. It is a fact that the situation of the Indian people in Canada today is a national disgrace. The problems faced by Indians were underlined forcibly by the Economic Council in its most recent annual report. As set out on page 121 the Council stated:
No discussion of poverty in Canada can avoid making special reference to the Indian, Eskimo and Metis members of our society. A few simple statistics tell a brutal story. One is that the average life expectancy of an Indian woman in Canada is 25 years. Another is that the infant mortality rate among Eskimos is about 293 deaths per thousand live births, more than ten times the infant death rate for the population as a whole.
These are not my figures; these are the figures of the Economic Council of Canada which is certainly a reputable organization with the necessary technical skills to produce accurate figures.
I might also draw attention to what is contained in a brief prepared for submission to the national Indian advisory board some three years ago. This is a statement by the Indian affairs branch submitted to the federal-provincial conference on poverty. It dealt with the health of the Indian people and we find that the average age at death of Indian males in 1963 was 33.31 years, and of Indian females, 34.71 years. The document goes on to tell us that the national average ages at death in 1963 were 60.5 for males and 64.1 for females. I might also draw attention to the summary of conclusions reached by the Economic Council, because I think these words are worth putting on record. The council recognized it did not have full capability to cover this field completely through its own operations but, it drew on the experience of many organizations which have given much study to this question.
On this basis, the council came to some conclusions to be drawn in connection with the problems we have been discussing tonight. The Economic Council's report reads, on page 123:
(1)	Indians and Eskimos are treated too much as a special group in ways which exclude them from many of the ordinary provisions of public policy-
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
(2)	Particular efforts will be required to help those Indians, Eskimos, and Metis who are striving to integrate themselves into the larger society-
(3)	A third major area of consensus is the need for a "community development" approach to the problems of education, individual development, adaptation to the larger environment, and community organization-*
(4)	It is clear that however much can be done to develop economic activity on reservations and in other places where significant groups of native peoples live, a continuing substantial migration to urban areas must be expected, notably in Western Canada-
(5)	It would also appear useful to initiate an immediate study of federal and provincial legislation and administration practices affecting native peoples.
As has been noted, the standard of debate has been high. We must compliment the hon. member for Skeena for his part in it. He is a recognized authority on matters we have been discussing tonight. I think, nevertheless, it is clear that a common dialogue is developing on this matter. We have had fine speeches this afternoon and this evening but, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) said, we need action, not words. We must be careful to define what we mean by action. It is not just a case of spending money or of invoking special programs for this group. It is not just doing things for our Indian, Eskimo and Metis peoples. Our actions involve an intricate, subtle and highly complex process of interaction and development. The federal government is the agency on the spot, holding the ball. In developing its policies it must take into account the history of the conflict of white and Indian peoples, the history of the established branch of government dealing with Indians; its traditions, patterns of operation and so on, as well as the fact that there is segregation in many parts of Canada. The Government must also consider the many economic and social changes taking place in our society.
We cannot blame the federal government as such for our past history in this regard. It is a millstone which must be borne by all in Canada. The federal government has a basic constitutional responsibility to deal with these problems and, in reality, the provinces must also enter the picture.
Why did the hon. member for Skeena introduce the motion before the house, Mr. Speaker? The purpose is not to go over past history. We need to figure out where we are going. We must formulate policies that will lead to advances in this field. We need to avoid the fallacy of just measuring advances on their own merits. It is not a question of whether more people are receiving specified
DEBATES	6325
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians levels of education. The question is whether these advances are keeping pace with the change in times. The problem does not involve money alone. A great deal of money is being spent, and is bringing about great improvements in certain aspects of our population. The question we must ask ourselves is, are we doing an adequate job. Are we serving the short run and long run aspirations of our Indian peoples?
Obviously, many members of the department concerned are competent, dedicated, and are trying to do a good job. But they operate within an institutional framework which stifles any efforts towards fundamental change. The motion has been brought before the house because many of us feel disturbed about what has been happening during the past year. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of his party raised the expectation of our Indians when they said the Indian Act would be reviewed and that consultations might take place. Preparations for these consultations were undertaken and a booklet containing 34 questions was prepared. Incidentally, I believe all these questions were prepared for the department by the Indian Advisory Board. As I understand the situation, this is true. All the questions which were placed before the consultation meetings did originate with the particular body, but I would like to know if all the questions requested by the Indian advisory group were included. My information is that they were not, and that some of the exclusions made a significant difference. The approach to these questions was disturbing because it involved a detailed examination. The approach involved simply making revisions and slight changes to the status quo. Consultations were held with varying degrees of success. I want to commend the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) for his effective and very hard work in this regard. He assured the Indian people no changes would be made in matters affecting them without adequate consultations. I fully believe the minister said this in good faith.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Late last fall the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) announced an administrative reorganization. It became obvious there had been no consultation. Protests were made by representatives of Indian organizations. The Minister without Portfolio was put on the spot. He made some rather strong public statements regarding the government and what had happened. I will not at this point say whether he used the best
March 6. 1969
6326	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians possible judgment with regard to the specific words he used, but nevertheless the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development replied once more that these were only administrative changes. It became obvious from sources such as the press that the minister was called on the carpet. Eventually, there was an announcement that the lines of authority were clear, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in charge and would be the one to decide what changes would be made to the Indian Act.
I suggest this was more than an administrative change announced by the minister. It involved community development programs. There was a reshuffling of the administrative structure. As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) previous to that the Indian-Eskimo Association had requested that community development programs be turned over to Indian people and Indian organizations. This is a policy matter and would be a fundamental break with the past. There are responsible Indian organizations in Canada today, with capable leaders, who have a rapidly developing capacity. I suggest the first step which should be taken should be to give these organizations the opportunity to manage programs of this sort and to make decisions on these programs. The fundamental principle involved is that of selfdetermination. With respect to the Indian Act, there is a possible question of semantics involved.
There is no suggestion that treaty, legal and moral obligations made by Canada in the past must be honoured. This must be provided in the legislative framework, under whatever name the particular legislative measure might assume. A fundamental change in approach is needed and the paternalism evident in the past must be dropped. There appears to be more support for this view in all corners of this house. We need to make sure that self-determination is made possible for people of Indian ancestry. This could lead to various patterns in programs and activity. It does not mean that all Indian people will lead the same sort of lives. Involved with this principle of self-determination is the fact that people can live the type of lives they want. This is a fundamental principle to recognize. Furthermore, we need to remove the legal disabilities under which Indian people have to live at the present time.
The fundamental points we have to keep in mind are, first, it must be recognized that Indian people have the right of self-determination. The implications of this principle are


that not only does it give Indian people the full right of integration into the community and society as we know it, but also that it gives them the right to live as they wish to live. The right to make their own decision must be recognized.
Second, we must recognize commitments made by Canada as a nation to Indian people. This involves full recognition of commitments regarding land, health and other services. These rights need to be honoured as long as the Indian people collectively or individually wish to retain them.
Third, we need to get away from the centralized control of administration which has for too long featured our Indian affairs programs. Many hon. members will be aware of some of the incredible stories involved in the centralized control and bureaucracy which Indian people encounter at every turn and in almost every day of their lives.
Fourth, we need to ensure that there is integration with the community at large. For too long and under too many jurisdictions, the basic approach has been one of having special programs designed for Indian and Eskimo people. In some instances this cannot be changed overnight, but certainly we do need to adopt a fundamentally new approach.
In my own province of Saskatchewan, there are some 40,000 people of Indian ancestry who are regarded as treaty Indians. There are nearly 40,000 others of mixed ancestry, some of them referred to as Indian people and some as Metis people. There are eight Indian reserves in my own constituency, and a large number of Indians living in the city of Kegina. In the past, they lived largely on
In some parts of the province there are still treaty obligations which have not been honoured. In southern Saskatchwam the reserves are largely on agricultural land. The people have lived in a basically rural atmosphere which provided a fairly stable form of existence for some years. The economic instability of the 1930's and the 1940's the political instability and in fact some of the social upheavals of this' period, produced great changes. From that time on it became increasingly difficult for people of Indian ancestry to cope with the problems they encountered.
On our reserves we have agricultural land that has not been developed. I can cite many instances and examples where this could be considered to be solely due to the smothering paternalism that has been a feature of public policy in the past. Much of this land is rented
March 6, 1969

out to people off the reserves who have made arrangements with the Indian affairs branch, and with very little consultation with the Indian people themselves. They are the ones who are now using this land.
It is true that some development projects have been carried out. There are a couple of projects in my own constituency at the present time involving community pastures on the Muskowekwan and Gordon Indian reserves. I have some details which I obtained from the government on this matter and I find that Indian people do not have the necessary resources to make full use of this pasture at the present time. Indians will be given first claim to the use of this pasture, but the answer to my question also stated that Indians do not now have sufficient cattle to fully stock the pastures and so the remaining capacity will be made available to people of non-Indian ancestry. What will happen to Indian people when they do wish and are able to make use of these community pastures? These facilities will then be used under contractual arrangements made with people outside the Indian reserve. It is also clear that these pastures will be managed by other than Indian people. They will be managed by government departments and agencies. Again, I say this is the type of thing that is still going on for which there is no need. This is another reason we felt we had to bring this motion before the house.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In conclusion, therefore, I suggest that we do need fundamental changes in our approach to the Indian Act. A meaningful program involving a new approach of self-determination for the Indian people should be started now. Tonight we are not dealing with personalities, but we are dealing with the welfare of people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to conclude my remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there general
agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: If the achievement in the future falls short of the objective, I believe the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must examine all aspects of the situation fully. I have been very closely involved in Indian matters and matters of
DEBATES	6327
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians concern to the Indian people. I sincerely hope effective action will be taken to deal with these problems in the very near future.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening. I should like to express my appreciation to the members of the house for extending the sitting. I am sure members will excuse me if I do not make any preliminary remarks because I should like to raise one particular issue. I know there are other speakers who wish to follow. Before I get into that issue, however, I should like to say I believe what the Indian people are saying to us today is that in their view the basic policy objective must be full and equal citizenship. There are many obstacles in the path to that objective. The one to which I should like to draw the attention of the members this evening has already been mentioned. It is the role of the provinces in assisting Indians to lead contemporary lives as Canadian citizens.
I think one of the most serious obstacles of all to a contemporary life for Indians is our misconception of the role of the province; that is, it is commonly thought Indians are the sole responsibility of the federal government. This misconception of the direct role and responsibility of the province is shown by governments themselves, by most Indian people and by the general public. It results in a special intense relationship of the Indian people with the federal government and a severely attenuated relationship with the provinces. This I think is an indefensible and discriminatory arrangement which denies equality, is a bar to integration and, I believe, is without foundation in the constitution. It results from historical reasons and is reinforced by current political pressures on the federal government to do more. The more Ottawa does-and I am one of those who thinks it should do a great deal more-the more it tends to lock Indian citizens into an unequal and separate existence.
My argument is that this unacceptable division of federal-provincial functions is neither required nor justified by the constitution or by Indian treaties. It should neither be tolerated by Indians nor by the general public. A more complete statement of the legal basis of the argument than I can give can be found in the Hawthorn-Tremblay report of 1960 and particularly the writings of Dr. Kenneth Lysyk of the Faculty of Law of the University of British Columbia. When one looks at the constitution one finds there is no doubt at all
March 6. 1969
6328	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians that under the British North America Act, section 91 paragraph 24, it is the federal parliament that has the exclusive authority to legislate for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. It should be noted that this section does not read "Indians on lands reserved for Indians" but by its wording indicates that parliament may legislate for Indians whether reserve based or not, as well as for lands reserved for Indians.
I want to discuss in the short time available Indians only, since Indian lands are in a different and special category, being singled out in a way that health, education and other matters are not singled out. It has been forcefully argued, and I think correctly, that whereas the provinces cannot legislate specifically for Indians as such, there is nothing in the constitution that says that provincial laws of general application-for example, in the field of health which is normally a provincial responsibility-should not apply to Indian persons as to all other provincial residents. It is only that kind of legislation that is clearly for Indians that is reserved to Ottawa. When the federal parliament legislates specifically for Indians, it can and does intrude on fields normally reserved for the provinces, though at the expense of perpetuating a specialized monopoly of services to a separated class of Canadians identified on ethnic and cultural grounds.
Even in this latter case, when the federal government does legislate it is not mandatory for it to do so; it is simply permissive for it to legislate in order to implement federal policies in Indian affairs. The Indian Act and its regulations is such a piece of federal legislation which only the federal government can pass under the constitution, since it is directed specifically and only to Indians as defined under the act. A province could not pass an Indian Act, but the general laws of a province and its programs and policies can none the less apply to Indians in the province within limits.
Therefore, I think it is important to question where those limits lie and how flexible and responsive they can be to Indian needs. It is important to an Indian future for Indians to determine to what extent it would be in their interest to alter the federal-provincial balance or to mix it. This federal-provincial balance may be altered, for example, more in the direction of the province, as is happening in several provinces under Indian pressure, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Some significant flexibility does appear available so far as the constitution is concerned, except in respect of Indian lands. This is an exclusive federal responsibility. Firm limitations on provincial legislative competence do exist, however, in two sources other than in the constitution. These are found in the treaties and the Indian Act. An example of the conflict of provincial law with treaty provisions is found in the fact that the provincial game laws do not apply. Nor are provincial laws applicable if they conflict with the Indian Act or its regulations; that is, whenever the federal parliament has already occupied a given field with Indian legislation.
These limitations on provincial competence are thus significant, but they relate largely to the extent to which the federal government has already occupied a field which might already be under provincial jurisdiction by devising its own Indian policy in that field. Therefore, in many cases, except with respect to treaty provisions, the removal of some of the limitations on provincial legislative competence rests with the federal government by way of change in the Indian Act. Perhaps, therefore, new options will become available to Indians and governments as a result of current consultations with the Indians with respect to amendments to the Indian Act.
When a consensus is reached on changes in the act, it may well be-and I suspect this will be the case-that substantially greater automomy will devolve upon Indian band governments. They may then choose, under the less confining provisions of a revised Indian Act, to relate themselves more directly to provincial laws and services. They may gradually relinquish or modify the special services provided exclusively by the federal government.
Indians will properly ask whether a shift in federal-provincial patterns of responsibility can take place to their advantage without adversely affecting rights that they regard as theirs. I believe the answer is yes. They will ask whether the federal constitutional responsibility would thereby be reduced. I believe the answer is no; there would be no change.
s (10:30 p.m.)
At this point I would like to say two things, Mr. Speaker. I think, first, the federal government can be faulted for a failing to clarify the true constitutional position to the public and to conduct intensive discussions of the problems and options with Indians and the provinces. In the absence of consultation,
March 6. 1969

Indian communities are left vaguely uneasy about changes they find it difficult to discern. If I had had time earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would have stressed the very important role of a task force in developing a new consensus and a new policy orientation.
I would refer again to the need, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reminded us this afternoon, of high level federal-provincial conferences to activate, with Indian consent, the unfulfilled responsibilities of the provinces. In addition, I think it was never more important than now to clarify Indian rights under treaties, and aboriginal rights where there are no treaties, for example with respect to hunting and fishing rights and with respect to claims to title or interest in lands. It is essential to restore rights that have been abridged, and to meet obligations that have been unfulfilled.
The time is overdue for settling outstanding claims, whether aboriginal or treaty, through either direct negotiation, which has much to commend it, through development of agreements or a claims commission, with compensation where appropriate. It seems to me, moreover, that if the consultative process is to be comprehensive, flexible and genuine, the question of how to settle past grievances and claims, including the technique of the proposed claims commission, should be part of that consultation process, since only by consultation on these methods can the claims and needs of the future be related to the claims of the past. Only in this way, I think, can a developmental momentum be generated and maintained.
Consultation concerning treaty rights should be part of the discussions concerning the role of the provinces, and both should be part of the consultations concerning development programs for a new future. I am stressing that the consultation process must be comprehensive if all of the options open to Indians1 and government are to be usefully examined.
I think it is fair to conclude that the federal government, with Indian consent, has considerable freedom to determine the kind and scope of responsibilities it will assume under the grant of constitutional power in section 91 of the British North America Act and under the resulting Indian Act. It is evident, I think, that only if the provinces, under Indian and public pressures, change their attitude and expand their legitimate functions will it be possible to talk of successful participation
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians by Indian citizens in contemporary Canadian life at all levels.
Reserve communities should not remain federal islands within provincial boundaries, frustrating a people in search of equality through development. If and when a province extends its general programs and services to Indian residents, whether on or off reserves, it does not assume a responsibility that constitutionally belongs to another government and consequently should not be paid for doing so. It is simply fulfilling its own responsibilities. No doubt a case can be made for cost-sharing on historical grounds or grounds other than constitutional.
It seems possible to resolve the question of a more federal-provincial mix of functions and services on utilitarian grounds, because treaty and constitutional barriers are slight. The particular mix in any given case at any given time is a matter of policy and agreement, not a matter of the constitution. The choice in altering the governmental balance lies largely with the Indian people.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members here for agreeing to extend this sitting tonight so that those of us who wanted to say something about the Indian people of Canada would have the opportunity of doing so.
At the outset, I would like to say something about the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras). I think that as a result of the approach of both these ministers to Indian affairs, to consultation with the Indian people of Canada and to the relationship between the Indian people and the government of Canada, we have entered a new era in this field. I believe that both these ministers have taken upon themselves a heavy responsibility, as we realized today when we listened to members on all sides of this house, each with his own idea, his own theories and his own approach to this very perplexing matter and to how it should be resolved within our confederation. I think both these ministers have shown a great deal of courage, a number of new ideas and a lot of strength.
Having followed the discussions in this chamber today, as a member of parliament I have the feeling that those of us who sit in the House of Commons as Canadians, many of us representing the Indian people, are, like many other Canadians, concerned about our first citizens. But I think that with a little
March 6, 1969
6330	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians fear and trepidation, many of us ask ourselves whether or not we are able to offer much that is constructive. I listened with bewilderment to some of the suggested solutions to our problems with respect to the Indians. We can look back to our history and see that all has not been well and that many of the policies adopted have been based on a concept that is not acceptable in today's society. I could not help but feel again today that we who represent many people offer solutions which are not really solutions which the Indian people themselves want. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who said that there is not just one solution, there are many.
I listened to others who suggested that in their own areas there were particular problems which were not necessarily part of a national problem. May I suggest for a moment that one of the things that we have to do as legislators in Canada is to recognize that we cannot offer the solutions, that we must look to the Indian people themselves to come up with their own ideas and thoughts, and that it is not an easy thing for us to be able to do this. I think that if we suggest for one minute that the Indian Act is not something that we can amend, we will look like people who know not what they say. For example, I think of the problems of treaties No. 8 and 11 in the north on which the Indian people have many ideas. I think also of the concern that people have about the treaties which were signed by their forefathers only 45 or 47 years ago, and whether they have had any real effect on their lives.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
The fact that the federal authority has not implemented certain aspects of these treaties has I believe destroyed some of the faith which the Indian people have in the great white father. In this process of communicating with the Indian people and establishing good faith I believe it is incumbent on us as politicians to identify these problems positively. But in the name of Heaven let us not use them for the sake of political advantage. I cannot but be concerned when I listen to continued attacks on a particular administration. I am thinking in terms of the Akaitcho Hall affair which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has raised in this house on several occasions. I respect the hon. member for having brought this up in the first instance but I am not persuaded he should continue to play on it when those of us who are acquainted with this situation know there


are forces at work within the community to change it. Let us take this kind of situation out of the public domain. Let us not play on the feelings of the Indian people or of the Eskimo people or of the Metis people or of any other group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: How would you change things, then?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I have lived in Yellowknife, the location of this institution. Maybe all is not well. As I said, I respect the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the house, but I believe the administration of the hostel felt they could handle the situation once it had been brought out into the open.
In line with what I was saying a minute ago, I do not wish to pursue this subject. There are other areas going beyond the Indian Act and an Indian claims commission where a dialogue could be established with the Indian people. We could help achieve this by doing things, by building homes, educating the young people and developing the economic potential of the reserves, something which is extremely important. I believe the minister is aware of this. I believe he wants to do these things. I suggest to him, to the department and to this house that with the continuing goodwill shown by this assembly toward the Indian people of Canada we can accomplish something realistic, beyond partisan considerations, beyond the politics with which many of us are so familiar.
There are many other things which I am sure all of us would like to say. One area which is most important in terms of the goodwill which must be established between the Indian people and the other people of Canada involves enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention. The Indian people, in accordance with their treaties, believed in their hearts and minds that they had the right to hunt and shoot the animals and birds of the land and the sky. They felt they had this right for as long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west-they thought of it in such terms. I know there are many who would say that the Migratory Birds Convention should not be amended because to do so would not be in the interests of conservation. I suggest to the minister that shooting the few additional birds which otherwise might not be shot will have little effect on the bird population of this country. I also believe that if the Indian people of this country are given responsibility
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
in this field and authority to shoot those birds they feel it is necessary to shoot, they will prove fully responsible and will behave as we expect them to.
It has been suggested that we should abolish the department of Indian affairs, take the money now spent on the department and use it to improve the living standards of Indian families. I suggest instead that we should examine how much it costs to educate our young Indian people. As Canadians we all want our Indian people to take their full part in our Canadian way of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there is a gentleman's agreement for two hon. members to share the last ten minutes available. On that basis, I think it would be fair to all hon. members if I were to recognize at this time the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall leave most of the remaining time to the other hon. member who wishes to speak. I wish to make three brief statements.
I make no apology for having continued to pursue the Akaitcho Hall incident. I would not have done so if the minister, on the first occasion I raised the question, had said, "I know about it; it is wrong and I intend to correct it." He did not say that but spoke of other matters with which I will not deal. In such situations, the only way to bring about change is by having the courage of one's convictions and by continuing to insist that the change ought to take place. That is the only way we shall bring about changes to this act.
Secondly, we introduced this general subject because, in the view of our party and many members of the house, the sort of discussion that has take nplace today was long overdue. It was necessary to obtain from the minister the kinds of statements we have heard from him. Having introduced the motion, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) set a high level of debate. He introduced debate at that high level precisely because we wanted an earnest discussion of the issues involved. We did not want, as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has suggested in connection with the question of Akaitcho Hall, to make this merely a political debate. It was nothing of the sort.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say on behalf of my colleagues that I do not blame the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 29180-401
DEBATES	6331
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) for not being very specific about policies they are not yet ready to enunciate. I say to them on behalf of my colleagues and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of the house, that we heard with interest and anticipation their statements that they intend to end the era of paternalism; that they intend to recognize the basic human rights involved in this issue; and that they intend to listen to our Indians and pursue policies that will embody the wishes of those people. This is what they said and we shall hold them to their statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I hope the legislation they will bring down in a few weeks, not in a few years, will fulfil in toto those promises to the Indian people of this country. I hope it will recognize their right and really enable them to integrate themselves into our society as Canadians. On behalf of my colleagues I say to the minister and the government, we will accept nothing less when the legislation comes.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: The trip to the Northwest Territories and Yukon taken by members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the end of January this year allowed us to visit five Indian and one Eskimo communities. The trip was taken at the end of January so that members could experience northern living conditions during the Arctic winter season.
Among the objectives was a look at northern housing and employment conditons, particularly as they affected Indian and Eskimo peoples. We were exposed to a representative cross-section of the problems which affect our Indian people across Canada by visiting those two communities.
Some of the housing conditions we encountered at Copper-mine on the shores of the Bering Sea were much better than I expected. Almost all the residents of this village live in homes built during the past three or four years. On the other hand, some of the worst housing I have seen anywhere was on the outskirts of Whitehorse in a slum area inhabited by whites and Indians. This slum section, referred to locally as Sleepy Hollow, is much worse than the local Indian village.
The physical progress in the north in the form of new housing and new school facilities is encouraging. I travelled across the north in
March 6, 1969
6332	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians 1966 as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Northern Affairs. This physical progress was undeniably obvious. There was a hopeful sign in the attitude of people in the local communities toward the problems of their fellow citizens of Indian origin. In 1966, it appeared to me that the white communities were interested only in their own problems. In 1969, there were signs of genuine interest on the part of the average white northerner in helping native people to full participation within the modern economy which is developing so rapidly in these northern communities.
I have spoken so far of progress and hope, but that is far from the whole story in the north. Last autumn the standing committee studied the employment situation of our native Indian and Eskimo people and found it to be generally deplorable. The unemployment rate for employable adult Indian males is in the 40 per cent to 50 per cent range. For a portion of the year at least that percentage of adult Indian males is unemployed. This was confirmed by our visit to the north. Coppermine appears to be a prosperous community, yet almost the entire male population was unemployed at the time of our visit.
Even though mining exploration was in progress last summer in the Coppermine River area, only 40 or 59 miles away, very few of the local residents were employed on those projects. Something is radically wrong with a system when southern labour must be brought from thousands of miles away to work in an area that has a native labour surplus. We had public meetings at each place which we visited. At our public meeting in Coppermine we asked the young men present how many of them would be interested in working on mine drilling rigs and we got a substantial response. We found out that within the last six months to a year the department instituted a number of new programs which will quickly lead to a great many more of our young Indian and Eskimo people being trained for positions in northern based industry.

In 1965 I wrote a letter to the then minister of northern affairs in which I suggested that one method to absorb more of our native northern people into the labour force would be to convene a conference of representatives of northern based industry, northern based labour unions and other parties, including representatives of provincial departments of labour, the federal department of indian affairs and, of course, representatives of the Indian people themselves.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I don't think we have a quorum in the house at the present time on this important question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member calling for a count?


Barry Mather: Yes, sir, I am.
And the count being made, more that 20 members were declared to be present.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) is in error. There is a quorum.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take another minute to complete my remarks. I urge the minister to consider again convening a conference of people with experience in this field to attack this labour problem. I also give notice, as chairman of the committee, that we intend to call before the committee representatives of northern based industry that is not employing sufficient numbers of native people, and representatives of northern based labour unions that are not contributing sufficiently to the employment of native personnel in the north.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is now past ten o'clock, I must inform the house that pursuant to standing order 58 (11) this debate is deemed to be closed.
Accordingly, the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 7, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in French and English- Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Will the minister say if postal workers in Vancouver are being threatened with dismissal if they adhere to the article in their labour contract respecting wash-up time?


Eric William Kierans: Postal workers across the country are expected to adhere to the instructions laid down in accordance with the contract, and they are expected to obey instructions of the government. A decision has been made in the department which will eliminate an additional sorting between one o'clock and two o'clock p.m., because we did not consider this was justified. If workers wish to appeal this, they can institute a grievance procedure. We will proceed as quickly as possible to adjudication as we are quite anxious for a third party to pronounce on who is actually running the Post Office.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to convene a meeting of his senior management staff and the negotiators of the postal unions as recommended to him
today as the best means of avoiding an explosion with regard to the postal service in Vancouver?


Eric William Kierans: I have been meeting, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the Post Office Department, Mr. Speaker, is there anything in the nature of a slowdown taking place in the transhipment or sending of mail? I ask that because I sent a letter marked first class mail to Mr. George Cloakey, 720 Earl Grey Crescent S.W., Calgary, Alberta, which left Ottawa on February 20 and was received in Calgary February 26. What is the reason for mail being held up like this? Will the minister look into this, because it is another flagrant-


Eric William Kierans: I am sure the letter is very important, Mr. Speaker, and I will be glad to look into the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that
observation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. member rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes I am. That observation was totally uncalled for. All mail is important, even that which comes from members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General regarding the wire he has received from the postal workers in Vancouver. Has the Postmaster General been advised by the postal workers that the management has threatened suspension and dismissal of members who are merely insisting that the terms of the contract under which they operate shall be carried out? Will the minister assure the house that there will be no dismissals until the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement has been thoroughly explored?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just brought up exactly the same question. As I have replied, the best
March 6. 1963

Inquiries of the Ministry way to resolve this problem is to proceed by way of grievance and to go to adjudication. We would certainly waive the preliminary steps and ask for a third party decision as quickly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the Postmaster General did not get the import of my question. I am asking the Postmaster General if during the time that discussions are being held regarding the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement he can assure the house that there will be no suspensions or dismissals as have been threatened by management?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, when the two sides decide to go to adjudication on these issues I imagine that neither side will want to test its strength, or at least should not want to, and meanwhile all people working for the Post Office are expected to obey the legitimate directives of the administration of the Post Office.


George Harris Hees: As one of the main bones of contention between the postal union and the minister and his department, as to the provision for wash-up facilities and the right to use those facilities when needed, does not the minister consider it would be cheaper and far more preferable to allow the postal workers to return to their stations at noon instead of providing these portable wash-up facilities to follow them around their routes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



EFFECT OF RATE CHANGES IN NON-PROFIT PUBLICATIONS

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary or related question to the Postmaster General. Having in mind the continued volume of protests coming from the non-profit publications of Canada would he not take a second look at that situation and give further consideration to those mailing rates.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, my definition of a non-profit publication is a publication that does not make a profit; but the majority of non-profit publications seem to think the definition is that they should make considerable losses and

that these should be chargeable to one government department or another. In my opinion a non-profit organization is an organization that makes neither losses nor profits. If a non-profit organization is suffering and needs subsidies from the government to continue with its own purposes and objectives, I think that it should apply openly to the government department from which it needs assistance and that such assistance should not be hidden in the mail rates that are paid by the taxes of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we could go on to the next subject. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mine was a supplementary to the original question, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will no -doubt recall that on February 19 last I asked him whether he had seen the report of a three year Study in Alberta which pointed out the monopolistic control large oil companies have over service stations. The report is alleged to state that this situation arises in all parts of Canada. I asked him whether he had seen the report and what steps he intended to take with regard to the revelations in its. At that time he said he had only had reports about it. Perhaps now he has studied it and could answer my question.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, copies of the report have now been received from Alberta, and have been referred to the research division of the Combines Investigation Branch. The report, consisting of some 700 pages, is receiving very close analysis by that division. As the report contains some 700 pages the analysis will take some time but the study is continuing. I have also referred copies of the report to the Economic Council of Canada, in that the Alberta report appears to deal with many of the same aspects of that particular industry that were dealt with by the Restrictive Trade Practices T.B.A. report. The report was also referred specifically by the government to the Economic Council, because it was felt that there would be value
March 6, 1969

in the Economic Council having the Alberta report.


David Lewis: I am very glad to hear about the steps that have been taken. I should like to ask the minister, in view of the possibility that the present act will not permit action against the companies in certain respects, whether the revelations in the Alberta report make changes in the present act even more necessary, and whether his department is giving careful consideration to this.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I have said we are giving very careful consideration to the report itself. In so far as the report may indicate that the present Combines Investigation Act should be amended, we will consider that situation. I have made it clear however in the past, as did my predecessor, that we do not anticipate amendments to the Combines Investigation Act until such time as the Economic Council reports on competition policy, at which time I would hope to be able to bring in a complete revision of the act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister say whether it will be the intention of his department to consider seriously some of the specific recommendations of the inquiry, such as a bill of rights for operators, more favourable lease arrangements and the right of operators to determine their own hours of business.


Stanley Ronald Basford: All of those aspects of the report are being examined by the research division which I mentioned earlier.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the future Minister of Economic Regional Development.
Could he tell the house whether his program intended to abolish regional disparities will be amended in such a way that the Sherbrooke area and some neighbouring areas will be considered as special areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Is not the hon. member aware that the scope of his question is somewhat too broad and is calling for a statement of principle from the minister? Therefore it cannot be
Inquiries of the Ministry accepted at the moment, but should the hon. member deem it urgent, he could give me notice of it and we could discuss it on the adjournment motion.



P.E.I.-DESIRABILITY OF COMMITTEE REPORT BEFORE CAUSEWAY REJECTION STATEMENT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he now practise in this house the principle of dialogue and discussion which he so glowingly referred to last night when addressing a group which I shall refer to as a group decorated for having skirmished successfully with the war on poverty. Would the right hon. gentleman agree there is a benefit to be derived from securing the opinions of standing committees before irrevocable decisions are made such as that contained in the announcement he made yesterday with regard to Prince Edward Island, without having sought the views of the Standing Committee on Transport which visited the Island and was in the process of completing a report which undoubtedly would have dealt with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is not acceptable. It is a question asking the Prime Minister to express his opinion about the value of decisions made before reports are given by a committee. The question is academic, philosophical and rhetorical.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what happened, does not the Prime Minister consider it would have been advisable to have waited?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister send the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to interview a person who called his office this week to object to the federal medical assistance plan.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that there was a gentleman who
6276	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry came to my office to make certain threats against my person. As a result, an initiative was taken by my office to report the matter to the R.C.M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are going to be busy.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADIAN MEDALLISTS IN MEXICO OLYMPIC GAMES

John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I wonder whether I might acknowledge the presence in the gallery of seven of the eight persons who won medals for Canada in the Mexico Olympic games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Where are the horses?


John Carr Munro: The horses are outside.


George Harris Hees: Are they on the payroll?


John Carr Munro: If I might make a few comments: The Prime Minister, as the house knows, immediately following the games expressed the thanks of Canada to these fine athletes for their performance at Mexico. However, since that time the government has not taken the opportunity to show some expression of gratitude for the magnificent efforts of these athletes. I am pleased to say that we will be rectifying this situation tonight, when I will have the privilege of hosting a banquet in their honour on behalf of the Canadian government. They have contributed a great deal to national unity and provided tremendous incentive to sports throughout the country. I am sure all members of the house join with us in honouring them today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question. In rising might I take the opportunity of joining with the minister in his greetings to these very eminent sportsmen from Canada. The minister

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
was rather fortunate to have a pleasant announcement to make in answer to a question I put to him which was rather unpleasant. Therefore, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister undertake to the house to give a report as soon as possible on the circumstances surrounding the investigation of the person who made a complaint to his office in connection with the federal medicare plan, and will the minister explain why the same day the mounted police were sent to interview this person?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure this is a matter of urgency. I do not want to cut off the inquiries being directed to the minister by the hon. member but I doubt whether thus is the type of matter about which a question can be asked at this time. However, the first question having been allowed, I should allow the minister to answer the supplementary question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is simply referring to a person who has indicated in the past-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Order. You have been ruled out on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will allow me, I indicated that the first question having been allowed, perhaps the minister might be permitted to reply to the supplementary.


John Carr Munro: There is a long history concerning this person's unhappiness with the federal medicare plan.


An hon. Member:: He is not the only one.


John Carr Munro: He expressed his dissatisfaction, and in the course of so doing made some threats against me that he said he was going to carry out. This is what was reported to me. My executive assistant felt it incumbent upon him to report this matter to the R.C.M.P., which he did. They called and questioned the man, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. What did this man say he was going to do?


John Carr Munro: Oh, he said he was going to kill me-or something.


George Harris Hees: That is not enough!
March 6. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka feel that the matter should be carried further? I really have some doubts as to the propriety of pursuing this question further.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question to another minister, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to ask the Solicitor General this question but, although he is supposed to be here, he is not. I therefore ask the Minister of Justice whether he has been asked to investigate the particular matter I have just raised.


John Napier Turner: have not, Mr. Speaker, but I am always willing to protect the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka resume his seat. With great deference to the hon. member, I have serious doubts as to whether this is the kind of question that can be asked at this time. Only very few minutes are allowed hon. members in which to direct questions to the ministry. The hon. member has asked three questions on the subject. If he feels this matter should be pursued further, I wonder whether he might not put it down for discussion at the time of adjournment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In connection with the answer of the Minister of Justice, do I understand the minister to say that he has at this moment no knowledge of this matter?


John Napier Turner: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The R.C.M.P. report to my colleague the Solicitor General, and he has not mentioned it to me.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the contents of the conciliation board report, which in effect asks the C.B.C. not to hide behind so-called federal government guide lines and virtually invites the ARTEC union to take a strike vote, would the minister advise the house what steps he has taken to bring the two parties together, and has he made any representations to the C.B.C. or his deskmate?
29180-398J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to interfere with the free collective bargaining process. The conciliation board report was tabled in my department, and released. Both parties are free to have recourse to the law; that is, the unions are free to go on strike on March 12. The Minister of Labour has at this moment no intention of interfering, whether the union stays on strike for three or four months or whether the C.B.C. decides to lock out the unions for three or four months. This is the purpose of the act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be willing to use his good offices to prevent a strike occurring in our national broadcasting network?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think such action is necessary. Both sides have complied with the law. They have gone through the conciliation board stage. They have had long and extensive hearings before the conciliation board, chaired by a very competent chairman who made a very impressive and far-reaching report. It is now up to both sides to resume bargaining directly with each other.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question concerning negotiations that have been going on for a few days about the situation in the port of Montreal.
Could the minister tell us where the negotiations stand in the dispute between ship owners and the dockers of the port of Montreal?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the negotiating team of the Shipping Federation and the longshoremen will be resuming negotiations tomorrow before the conciliation board, chaired by Judge Gold.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, has the minister held conversations within the last few days with the two parties involved in this dispute?
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have had many conversations in the last few days with individuals connected with the shipping industry, directly or indirectly.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The Montreal Gazette does not say that.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence, I direct it to the Prime Minister.
Last night at about 2 a.m., people in the township of Nepean were awakened by aircraft noise, and as the Nepean police reported after an investigation that it was caused by jet aircraft from the Bagotville Air Force Base making supersonic flights over the Ottawa area, I ask the Prime Minister if, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, he would investigate and see that this does not happen again?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representation and should consider that the responsible minister has taken it as notice.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the President of the Privy Council. Since the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he would have no objection to a full disclosure of the facts regarding the Prince Edward Island causeway studies, and the facts upon which the cancellation of this project was based, can the minister indicate by what means and when this subject will be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am prepared to discuss this with my colleagues. As the hon. member probably knows, after today four opposition days will remain until the 26th day of this month. If the hon. member and others would like to discuss this, it may well be that we could use one of the opposition days for this purpose.



P.E.I.-EFFECT OF CAUSEWAY REJECTION ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Melvin James McQuaid: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether the government assessed the effects which the abandonment of the causeway project would have on the successful implementation of the comprehensive development plan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said yesterday, the government had a very difficult decision to make. We do not have sufficient funds to proceed at the same time with the causeway and with the FRED program, and in assessing both projects we decided that funds were more urgently needed for the FRED program than for the causeway.
I might add while I am on my feet that I understand there has been some misunderstanding as to whether the decision was taken in conjunction with the government of Prince Edward Island. I thought I had made it quite clear in my statement when I said we had consulted the government of the province, as we are always exhorted to do by all sides of this house, but that the decision was ours. We are the ones who decided not to proceed with the causeway. In this connection I am sure there will be an opportunity at some time or other, as suggested by the house leader, to look into the facts and figures.
In making this decision we assessed the future over the next 60 years or more and we considered whether the causeway was feasible or whether it could be paid for in any terms comparable to the cost of a ferry service. We reached the conclusion that the ferry service was considerably cheaper than building a causeway. That was the basis of our decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The "oh" I hear from over there will perhaps be changed to "ah" when the hon. members have an opportunity to look at the figures.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since he and his government have abandoned the causeway and consigned the people of Prince Edward Island to 60 years of ferry service, will he assure the house that the Canadian National Railways current proposal for a 50 per cent increase on those ferry rates will also be abandoned?
March 6, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member obviously misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said. When we speak of 60 years we speak about the possible length of time during which a causeway would be serviceable, and we used a costing process over a period of 60 years to compare the capital investments required for one type of crossing as opposed to the other. It is this comparison which led us to base our calculations on a period of 60 years. We assume that any causeway which would be built would last approximately 60 years.
Does the hon. member have a problem?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are opposed on both sides of the house.



P.E.I.-COMMUNICATION FROM PREMIER ASKING REVIEW OF CROSSING PROJECT

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this project which was acknowledged earlier by two previous governments to the people of Prince Edward Island, has the Prime Minister received today an urgent communication from the premier of Prince Edward Island asking for an immediate personal review of the decision to scrap the crossing project? If he has received this communication, could he indicate the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such communication, but if I had received one-and this is hypothetical-I can tell the house what my reply would have been. I think no one in this house or in Prince Edward Island thinks that we prefer not to build the causeway and that we prefer to make the people cross by ferry. The decision is based on the matter of cost. There is no hidden preference on our side for seafaring vessels as opposed to wheeled vehicles. We chose the cheaper method of crossing, because this is what the country can afford at this time. This is how I would answer any such hypothetical communication.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. In view of what seems to be some disagreement on facts between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island, and the importance of having a full discussion and disclosure, as the Prime Minister agreed yesterday, of all the facts of the situation, would the Prime Minister not agree that the place for such a review would not be in Committee of the Whole or in the house
Inquiries of the Ministry where there could only be a very limited debate, but rather in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works? Would the Prime Minister indicate when this matter might be placed before the committee so that a complete and satisfactory discussion could take place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will let the house leader discuss with the leaders of the other parties what place would be the most appropriate to present this information and to allow for a full dialogue.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question for the minister of regional economic expansion. WilL the government announce a development program for eastern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the near future and will such agreements be made despite the fact that these provinces do not have trading stamps in the form of causeways?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, some arrangements have already been signed with Quebec and New Brunswick, and we do not intend to sign any other.


David Walter Groos: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of the people of Vancouver Island who have been consigned to a permanent situation of being dependent on the ferry service and who will be required to pay in part for the FRED program, and will do so willingly I am sure, if he will assure hon. members opposite that ferry services can be quite adequate.


An hon. Member:: You will get your medal for that.
Another hon. Member: You turned state evidence.



P.E.I.-REJECTION OF CAUSEWAY-AVAILABILITY OF REPORT OF MARITIME HEARINGS OF COMMITTEE

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister-When the matter of the causeway is discussed either in this house or before some committee would he ask the house leader to make sure that the evidence taken before the Transport and Communications Committee on its recent trip to Prince Edward Island for this purpose is available?
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that that would he quite easy to arrange and I think there would be no difficulty in giving such an undertaking. However, I think that if we want to have full information on this matter by way of comparative costs we might ask the opposition to come forth with the figures they have in mind when they suggest we build a tunnel between Newfoundland and Labrador.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative opposition has never-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister made a deliberate misrepresentation here today. He has made similar misrepresentations in the past and I challenge him to produce the slightest evidence that this party ever made a commitment to build a causeway between Newfoundland and the mainland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a further point of order but I wonder whether he should go on with the subject much longer. I see a number of hon. members who want to ask supplementary questions on this point. If hon. members think that the rest of the question period should be devoted to this question, I have no objection but I have some doubts that this is the will of all members of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish to speak on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused of deliberate misrepresentation and I would like to tell the house that I am sorry, I thought they spoke about a tunnel, but I understand now that they meant a causeway.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is a serious matter, because this is the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't think so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say again that this party has never made any such commitment to build a tunnel, a causeway or any other form of such crossing and that this assertion by the Prime Minister is a deliberate misrepresentation.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that the debate on points of order and associated questions is perhaps getting somewhat out of hand, and we are beginning to use rather strong language. I do not think there is really any purpose in pursuing the matter much further, because we have reached a point where the situation is possibly getting a bit out of control. I think we might drop the issue for the moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with Your Honour precisely, and for that reason I want to make this remark. Your Honour quite properly refuses to allow questions which are out of order when members of opposition parties ask them. Equally, Your Honour should direct spokesmen on the government benches and the Prime Minister to be responsive to questions which are asked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the question which was put to me.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw your remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I should tell the house that when I suggested that the opposition come foreword with figures as to the cost of either a tunnel or a causeway, as the Leader of the Opposition now says, I was being facetious. I do not really insist that the opposition come forward with those figures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The answer given by the Prime Minister seems to confirm my view that we are not achieving very much by pursuing points of order, the question of privilege, or the discussion which was raised originally by the hon. member for Malpeque. Perhaps hon. members will agree that I should call upon the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate says he has a sensible supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask his sensible supplementary question briefly; hon. members at the other end of
March 6, 1969

the chamber have been anxious to put questions and I think I should be allowed to call them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have neither a sensible supplementary nor an explosive question, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to rise on a point of order to set the record straight and to tell the government and the Prime Minister that their friend the Premier of Newfoundland has undertaken such a study as to the feasibility of a tunnel across the strait to Bell Isle. I suggest the right hon. gentleman should consult with his friend in Newfoundland as to the feasibility of the project.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that that is not a point of order but a matter of debate. We may shortly have to call on the Olympic team to come into the house and see that order is maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Later:}


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this is the sensible supplementary I was promising. It is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he give the house an undertaking to hold discussions with Premier Joseph R. Smallwood in connection with this causeway to check the feasibility of the project, possibly using his own skin-diving techniques to investigate it at first hand before the seal hunt finishes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot agree with the hon. member's appreciation of his question.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: This question is not an explosive one, Mr. Speaker, but it is of interest to more people in this country than even the causeway. It is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some time ago I learned from the department that a study was to be made on the subject of hearing aids,


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is a good thing this is funny to a lot of members in this house, because it is not funny to many people across this country. I understood the report would
Inquiries of the Ministry be available early in 1969. I should like to ask the minister today when the report will be available and whether the public will be able to have access to the facts contained in that report.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not heard recently from my officials with regard to this report.


An hon. Member:: Louder, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I know they are working very hard on this examination of the manufacture and distribution of hearing aids, and I hope to have a report very soon. I share the hon. member's concern about this problem and agree as to its importance. When I receive the report I shall have to examine it, as I told the hon. member previously, to determine what portions of it may be made public. I would hope to make as much of it public as possible.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May we hear about it soon.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I refer to a statement made by the minister yesterday and to previous statements made by him concerning an exchange of letters between Quebec and France on the subject of co-operation in the field of satellite communication. Since the position of the Government of Canada is that no agreement of this question can exist between Quebec and France which has international status, will the minister say whether the federal government intends to take action to prevent the implementation of this aspect of the letters and, if so, what action does the government plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is sufficient to say that this is not an international agreement in that sense, and everything flows from that statement.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: My question arises out of the participation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a kind of trialogue on Ten Million Questions.
March 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Twenty million.


John George Diefenbaker: Twenty million?


An hon. Member:: What's ten million?


John George Diefenbaker: I halved the number. The minister was in great difficulty during the course of the discussion. Among other things he said it was the intention of the government to bring about an exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Vatican. Then he went on to point out that he was greatly surprised by the large volume of objection to such a proposal. I now ask the hon. gentleman, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister when the subject came up originally-I asked him about it and suggested that four prime ministers had contributed to dividing the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the right hon. gentleman would come to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been led astray today by the Prime Minister-by the manner in which he wandered so far afield. May I ask the minister now whether, in view of this very large volume of objection which comes from all the provinces and all religious faiths, the government has decided not to go ahead with the exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Vatican.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. gentleman of something else I said on that program, when I referred to the large volume of adverse mail in connection with the proposal to approve a new Canadian flag. It might have pleased him at that time, but the rest of us were inclined to believe that the mail then did not really represent the views of the people of Canada. And today we have a new Canadian flag of which we are very proud.
To answer the specific question, no final decision has yet been made as to whether we will proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can read from the record what the minister said. I ask him now, is the government giving consideration to departing from its original plan to bring about an exchange of diplomatic r epr es entatives ?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman will no doubt remember, the Prime Minister, when he announced he had

discussed this matter with His Holiness the Pope, said he hoped there would be some discussion of the matter and that the government would then take a decision. That decision has not yet been finally taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that, unfortunately, the question period expired some minutes ago. I regret very much that some hon. members who wished to ask questions did not have the opportunity to do so. I have a mental note of them and will give them priority on future occasions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council rising on a point of order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be helpful if I could make my weekly announcement of the business for the coming week.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Somebody is being facetious over there. One should not be facetious in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe it has become a custom and almost a rule of the house that on Thursdays the opposition house leader rises to ask a member of the government to make an announcement of the business to be considered during the ensuing week, after which an announcement of forthcoming business is made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But today there is no
agreement.	.


Mr. Speaker:: That has been my understanding of the rules. But if there is objection to the minister's announcement I doubt whether the Chair can override that objection. I hoped hon. members would agree to having the announcement made, because I suggest it is to the advantage of all hon. members to hear forthcoming business announced.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 6, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as announced a week ago today, the business for tomorrow will be item 25 on the order paper, Bill C-138, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. That is to be followed by item 43, Bill C-157. Then we shall take item 7, Bill C-112.
On Monday and Tuesday of next week we will call again the government reorganization bill, to completion. On Wednesday and Thursday of next week we will call the drug prices bill, that is, the amendments to the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, to completion. On Friday next we will call first the bill with respect to the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act for second reading, notice of which is being given today, to be followed by Bill S-15, for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the bill to amend the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act will be introduced and given first reading early in the week, so thait we may see the contents of the bill and be prepared to debate it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that bill will come forward for first reading on Monday next, unless hon. members wish to abridge the rules so that it can be given first reading tomorrow. Normally, first reading would take place on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Frank Howard: That in the opinion of this House the government, in spite of successive admissions of its failure to deal adequately with the various social and economic problems confronting our native Indian people, is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Indian affairs is being promoted mainly because it has been a number of years since
DEBATES	6283
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians parliament has had a reasonably full opportunity to express its views about the entire matter of Indian affairs and government activity in that field. Because of general elections and manoeuvring that has taken place from time to time between various levels of government and the committee of the house interested in Indian affairs, a number of obstacles prevented our committee from examining in full various aspects of Indian affairs which ought to have been examined. Although members of that committee wished to visit Indian communities and see for themselves how Indian people lived, they were frustrated in their hopes and the expected visits did not materialize. Members of that committee wish to examine matters affecting our Indian peoples in detail. Many of them feel that various levels of government have interfered with the operation of the committee and we therefore welcome the opportunity for the present debate. We hope to have on record a clear announcement of government policy with respect to many areas of activity involving our Indian peoples, and the views of hon. members of this house on this extremely important subject.
It may be well to take a brief look at the history of the treatment we have accorded our native Indians. From the time of Confederation, the British North America Act decreed that land preserved for our Indians would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. That provision was a mistake. It drew a political line between our Indian population and the rest of Canada. In so many words it recognized that in this country there were two classes of people, the native Indians, to whom one standard of law applied, and the rest of the population, to whom another standard applied. Our native Indians were relegated to the status of second class citizens, and the basis for the discrimination which has persisted over the years was established.
I am sure that those who are aware of our history in this regard are ashamed. I know that deep in his heart the minister is ashamed of our history, although I hasten to say that in no way is he nor any hon. member here, personally responsible for what has happened. That does not alter the fact that Canadian society as a whole has discriminated against our Indians on an ethnic and cultural basis.
I hope the minister will realize that what I am about to say is not meant unkindly. I am sure he would be among the first to rebel if the situation that applied to our Indians were to apply to our French speaking peoples. He
6284	COMMONS DEBATES	March 6. 1969
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians would object to a "French Act" setting the French speaking peoples of our country apart from the rest. Not only the minister but all others of his cultural and linguistic group would have rebelled a long time ago against the provisions of any such "French Act", particularly if, for argument's sake, to take the situation in reverse, it were administered by Indians. Instead we have an Indian Act administered by non-Indians.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The Indian Act gave birth in 1867 to a system of paternalism which has been like a fungus growth that unfortunately is still with us today and still growing. We need more than the pious declarations and fine speeches which have been made in recent times about the necessity of cutting out this and eliminating that. As the minister knows, words come easy. I have listened to statements by the minister and have read statements by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). I have listened to the late Guy Favreau, to Senator Tremblay when he was the minister and to Mr. Nicholson, the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, when he was minister. They have all said the same thing, but what we need is action.
As long as we have an Indian Act, a special law relating to people with a different cultural inheritance from everybody else, and as long as we have a separate department, we will have discrimination and denials of fundamental human rights. We will have interference with the mutual esteem and selfrespect which people need to have for one another. Our society must have as its foundation respect for the quality of life and the dignity of the Indian. Every Indian must be able to have self-respect and to feel proud of himself and his culture. Is this not what our social order and society are all about? If so, what is this government doing to attain this objective?
We in this party have suggested for a long time that the objective of the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be self-destruction of the department and the minister's position. The minister must seek to work himself out of a job and become unemployed as a minister in charge of a department which provides support and special status to a group of people. This is what the minister and the government must do. I hope the minister accomplishes this objective. Predecessors of the minister stated they had this objective, but in recent

years a number of them by the inflation of their own competence have become senators, a Lieutenant Governor and even Minister of Public Works. None of them accomplished in the slightest way even a minor step toward the major objective of equity of position and rights for all people in Canada.
Quite frankly I do not know whether the objective will be attained during the present minister's time in charge of the department. All indications so far are that he will not suceed. I and many other people read with interest the minister's speeches as they are ground out by his department, but so far I have not read any announcement of government policy regarding this objective. There have been platitudes and concern expressed with a feeling of emotion in these speeches but no declaration of policy or intention. I am sure the minister and the government have had ample time to come to a conclusion on this fundamental matter.
I am sure the minister knows personally of empire builders within his department. He would not be worth his salt as a human being if he did not know they exist. There is a Parkinson's law concept in the department in the perpetuation of an administrative structure for no other purpose than that the administrators can maintain their comfortable positions and pretend to be doing a great deal while accomplishing nothing in a meaningful sense so far as native Canadian Indians are concerned.
The growth of the Indian affairs branch in recent years has been almost phenomenal. The minister provided me with information for April of 1962. At that time, just six years ago, the staff of the branch numbered 2,325. Today it is 3,175, an increase of more than 800 people. In the fiscal year 1962-63 the department had an expenditure of approximately $51 million. In 1967-68, the last full year for which I have figures, the amount was $122 million, more than double. What does this mean in terms of per capita expenditure by the department in relation to the native Indian people who have status under the Indian Act? I am not relating it to the total number of native people because that is a much higher number. In 1962 the government expended $250 per native Indian per year. In 1967 that figure had risen to $530 per year per man, woman and child. In a family of six, father, mother and four children, the expenditure made by the department per year on that basis would be $3,180.
March 6. 1969

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This growth in expenditure has been lauded by the government. We remember how the previous minister, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), used to gloat about how much money was being spent, as though that was the most commendable thing that had ever happened. He never said anything about what was accomplished. He never talked in terms of value received by the native people, and I have not heard the present minister deal much in those terms either.
There is no virtue in building a bigger bureaucracy. There is no virtue in being one of the last of the big-time spenders in terms of public funds. If the Indian people do not care what you spend they are concerned about what you accomplish. This is what society is concerned about too, and it is what this parliament is concerned about. When I talk about what is being accomplished I am thinking in terms of accomplishment not as the department has considered it, doing things for the Indian people, but rather accomplishment in getting out of the business of doing things for these people, getting out of the business of interfering with them because you have done too much already and most of it has been bad.
Again we have only a few statistics to which we can refer. These are official statistics from the Indian Affairs Branch. There may be later ones but if there are I do not think the situation has changed very much in the interim. Here is what has been accomplished. I am trying to explain how the native people themselves view the situation, how they live, what they feel, what they go through, what they know from their very existence to be the case although they probably cannot put it in statistical form but rather know it because they have lived through and have died under this system.
In the field of health, for instance, not too many years ago, in 1963, the average age of death of native Indian men was 33 years. For non-Indian men it was 60J years, almost double the life expectancy of Indians. For native Indian women the average life expectancy in 1963 was 34 years and for non-Indian women it was 64 years. Again the ratio is almost double. Most of the deaths of native Indian people arose from causes which were preventable such as colds, pneumonia, bronchial afflictions and accidents. Their deaths were caused by their environment, by much
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians poorer housing conditions, much poorer sanitation conditions, much poorer health measures, and fewer of the amenities of life that the rest of us have.
Their income is a pretty sad picture too, as the minister will admit. Again these are 1963 statistics. There may be later ones but I do not think they will show a much different situation in terms of the total picture. In 1963, 50 per cent of the native Indian families in this nation earned less than $1,000 a year and 75 per cent earned less than $2,000 a year. Of a total of 31,300 families the average income was $1,600 a year. Yet the government spends almost twice that much per family in expenditures by the Indian Affairs Branch.
The government could very easily wipe out the Indian Affairs Branch. Of course it would throw all those people out of work, but I am sure some other government department might be able to absorb them. Some of them might even have to go to work, which I realize might be a traumatic experience for them. Nevertheless, we could wipe out the Indian Affairs Branch today and give every native person $530 a year, every man, woman and child, which would mean that Indian famines would receive almost twice the amount they receive today. I only use this as an example of what might be done.
Quite frankly, I say again, Mr. Minister, that the sooner you get out of this business the better. I do not mean out of the government because you may have a great capabilities in some other department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair. I assume the remarks he has just made were not addressed to the Chair.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I got so carried away that I bypassed the Chair for the moment. My remarks are always through you, sir, to others. The sooner that the minister gets out of this business, the better off our native Indian people will be.
The services that exist in Indian communities are terribly shocking. The Indians suffer from a tremendous lack of electricity, water, sewage facilities, plumbing, streets, roads, street lights and all the other facilities and social services that exist in the rest of Canada. By and large, to a tremendous extent these are denied our native Indian people. This is a national disgrace, as I am sure the minister will agree. It is a shocking thing to have to listen to and to read about. It is even more shocking to visit Indian people in their
March 6, 1969
6286	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians own homes and see the terribly depressing and horrible conditions under which they live in this day and age, at a time when the government is squandering almost $3,000 per native Indian family per year. The native people know this and they wonder what is happening. They wonder why the money being spent by the department does not trickle down and show up in the quality of their daily lives. Surely we should be concerned and incensed about this.
The other night the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) addressed a meeting in one of the public buildings in Ottawa. Regretfully, I was not able to attend as I had another commitment, but I read in the newspapers what he said. Generally speaking, he pointed out that there are a couple of obstacles to the betterment of life for Indians. One is that the provincial governments have not involved themselves in this field as much as they should. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member on that point. He said the other obstacle was the indecisiveness of the native people themselves. To say the least that was a slighting comment, because it tends to blame the Indian people for their own environment, and the hon. member knows that this is not so.
I would be surprised if the minister does not say, as he has already said, that everything is going to change now, that things are going to be different, that soon a new day will dawn. I hope he means this and that he will be able to accomplish it. The native people will then be able to go through that door which has been closed to them for so long. It will open up and they will be admitted into the just society, or whatever other phrase the departmental propagandists think is catchy at the time. But you cannot do by propaganda what you cannot accomplish by action. From recent articles in some newspapers I believe that the newspapers have been taken in by the propagandists in the minister's department. I do not know what structure the minister has for the distribution of information, in terms of the department's expenditures and the like, but it is fairly massive. It grinds out public relations and press information in somewhat the same way a factory would grind out fertilizer. That is about as imaginative a simile as I can think of for this situation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And it is appropriate.


Frank Howard: It is appropriate because much of it is simply fertilizer and I mean in the old-fashioned natural form. Probably the greatest single thing that has been done-and in a sense this is commendable-is the introduction of the so-called consultation process in which the government is involved. Of course, this was not something conceived by the minister. His predecessor developed it and started it off more than a year ago. This is something we have advocated for many years. In fact, it is something that many of us have personally put into effect. We have engaged in consultation and meetings with the native people in an attempt to obtain a fuller understanding of their feelings and needs.
Regrettably, even though in essence the consultation program is good, as a general program I do not think it has met the expectations of or been accepted by the native Indian people because it reflects again the bureaucracy of the department to a large extent. The questions were prepared here in Ottawa by someone somewhere in the department. The questions contained in the publication, "Choosing a Path", and the methods followed primarily revolve around the concept of keeping the Indian Act and the department in existence. The suggested questions and discussion contained within that booklet all revolve around the principle of changing the act, making amendments to it, altering it and adjusting it, but retaining it even though the name may be changed. In other words, the intention is to keep an apartheid type law on our statute books.
If that is still the objective of the minister it is one that is fraught with danger for the native Indian people because they can only look forward to further interference in their daily lives by people in the department who really do not have too much concern about human needs and human values. If it is to be the policy of government to maintain a separate law and separate act, this will interfere with the dignity of the individual. The native Indian people for 100 years have been trying to get out from under the thumb of a government or department set up particularly on a special cultural base.
The booklet, "Choosing a Path", which is the foundation of the discussion at the consultation conferences, regrettably seems to lean in the direction of the perpetuation of the system. Fortunately, as the minister is aware, at many of the conferences the native Indian delegates had a little more concern than the
March 6, 1969

[DOT]department had about their own affairs and in some cases brushed aside the booklet and took the position that they would deal with it later if there should be time but that at that moment they would deal with other problems and choose the subjects. If the departmental officials or the minister had been able to go to these consultation conferences with the attitude that they had nothing to suggest and had asked the Indians to tell them, I suggest we would have been much better off.
Many native Indian people were insulted by the booklet, "Choosing a Path." Many of them were also amused. But the native Indian people were too polite to exhibit their amusement at what was presented to them. They would not express their amusement by laughing because they are seriously concerned about coping with serious problems. They did not mind giving the department and the government another chance, even though they had been saying these things for many years and even though they had been asking questions for years. Even though the Indians were sure in their own minds that no one had been listening to them over the years, they answered the questions again. Surely the questions about the liquor sections of the act have been answered so many times that it is almost laughable to think that they should even be asked them again. Surely the questions about the sale of farm produce on the prairies or the operation of farms by the minister have been answered so many times by the native Indian people that to present those same questions to them again in a booklet was virtually an insult to these people who have been declaring themselves about these matters for many years. Surely the question about classifying a child as a juvenile delinquent if he does not attend school regularly is undignified and an interference with free people. But other matters such as the Indian Claims Commission and education either were not mentioned or were glossed over in that document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member has agreement of the house to continue beyond his allotted time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell it the way it is.
DEBATES	6287
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to transgress upon the generosity of the house.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have my time.


Frank Howard: I shall curtail as much as I can what I think needs to be said. Many of the things I am saying are the same things the Indian people are saying. I am only trying to reflect in this forum the views the native people have about their own involvement in their own affairs. In the matter of education, to give an indication of how many native people have looked upon the consultation conferences and upon the government, many of them think this government is being deceitful in this regard. At the same time the consultation process was taking place and at the same time the minister and the departmental officials were sitting down asking for the views of the native Indian people about these things, the very important matter of education was being negotiated secretly with the provincial governments.
I do not know exactly when but some time last fall this house passed nine motions I introduced asking for the production of correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments about educational matters. We have seen neither hide nor hair of it since. The native people continually ask me where the correspondence is that I was going to get. I have to reply that I do not know where it is. Then they say they would certainly like to know before the whole consultation process is over so that they will be in a position to express their views about something as fundamental as education. This situation has existed for some time. This information has been denied to them at the same time the consultation processes were being carried on.
The departmental reorganization program which the minister inherited from his predecessor was put into effect at the very same time a continuing consultation conference was being carried on with the Indian people. It is not possible to have two standards. The government is not credible when this is done. On the one hand they say they want to consult about something and on the other hand say they are not going to consult about it.
As the minister knows, the native Indian people have raised objection to the new construction within the department. They see in it a reversal of the trend toward decentralization. Surely this is something which should have been discussed with the native Indian
March 6. 1969
6288	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians people while the consultations were going on instead of being imposed upon them. They ask questions about the double standard approach in respect of the involvement of the government in native Indian affairs. The situation is so silly that there is even a directive within the department to Indian superintendents and Indian agents in the field to the effect that they are forbidden to communicate with Members of Parliament and M.L.A.'s.
[DOT] (3:30 p.ra.)
The minister shakes his head. Let us suppose that a native Indian person writes to me about a problem at home. I am here, 3,000 miles away. In many cases I write to the Indian agent on the spot and ask him to do something about the problem or to tell me what it is all about. Do I get an answer from the Indian agent? No, I do not. I get an answer from Commissioner Boys, who used to be the commissioner at Vancouver, and he is about 1,000 miles away from the complainant and does not know what it is all about.
I ask the minister to look at this sort of situation. What happens is that Mr. Boys does not write the letter that I receive; the Indian agent writes it. The Indian agent leaves the signature blank, puts the letter in an envelope, mails it to Vancouver, Mr. Boys appends his signature and then sends it to me. This sort of thing is a pretty picayune and miserable reflection on the attitude of the department which refuses to treat people like adults and human beings. I do not care that the Indian agent does not write to me because I can talk to him on the telephone, but surely the native Indian who has a problem with Indian Affairs is entitled to something better than a runaround through the mails. Whether this problem exists in other provinces, I do not know, but it certainly does in British Columbia and the situation is resented by the native Indian people.
I have to explain to individuals with problems that Mr. Boys in Vancouver has told me this and told me that, and they reply in language I cannot repeat here. Well, I could, but I expect Hansard would dress it up so that it would not be recognizable. The complainant asks me what Mr. Boys knows about the particular problem; he tells me Mr. Boys does not know anything about it. Mr. Boys would admit this because he is ensconced in an office 500 miles or more distant from the particular situation in question. There have been


innumerable examples of this sort of thing but I have mentioned that one to indicate that a narrow view is taken by the department in such cases.
Our native Indian people are also concerned about economic activities and the lack of job opportunities which prevent their earning a decent living. They do not want welfare programs. They appreciate that it is destructive of human dignity to be asked to exist on the dole. Yet nothing else is offered. The department has not involved itself in any real way to provide opportunities for our native Indian people.
For example, in Prince Rupert this summer 1,000 to 1,500 workers in fish canneries will be put out of work because the canneries are closing down. Most of these workers are Indians. The minister heard about this when he was in Terrace for the wind-up of the consultation conference, and this was the first time the matter was brought to public light. So far we have not had a meeting of officials from Indian Affairs, the Department of Fisheries and the department of Manpower to try to do something for the individuals who will be put out of work this summer. These people are concerned about this situation, as they should be.
So far there has been almost absolute silence in regard to economic development programs. Many people have expressed the thought that, although action is taken in regard to cultural questions and individual problems, unless individuals and families are given the opportunity to earn a decent wage and do something meaningful in terms of work so they can earn a decent living their dignity will be destroyed. This is what we have been doing as far as the Indians are concerned for the last 100 years.
What has been taking place is nothing more than an invasion of the fundamental human rights of individuals. This has simply got to stop and it is the minister who must stop it. The native Indian people are not interested any longer in listening to fine speeches; they want something done now.
The native Indian people were very upset by what the minister did not long ago in regard to the summit conference, that was supposed to be held in Ottawa some time in January following the consultation conferences. Then it was to be some time in February. Then the date was set for today, March 6.


David Orlikow: Next year.


Frank Howard: No, today, and then that was cancelled. Why? The minister said
March 6. 1969

that some of the people objected to it being held at this time, that they wanted it held over so they could examine what had been presented, and so on.
The native Indian people are also concerned about the Indian Claims Commission bill, and I should like to tie that into my remarks at this point. They consider that there is an element of deceit and falsehood on the part of the government. Last October the government put on the order paper a notice indicating it was going to introduce the Indian Claims Commission bill; I forget the exact date of the notice. Having been questioned about the Indian Claims Commission bill, the minister rose in the house and said he had taken the bill back. It had been hidden to start with. It was not given to the people at the consultation conferences. In any event, the bill was taken back for revision as a result of some of the views expressed and representations made at the consultation conferences.
Withdrawing the bill is fine, but it was accidental. Nobody at the consultation conferences had seen the Indian Claims Commission bill. They did not know what was in the government's mind but they accidentally hit upon some of the weaknesses in it. I should like to know how many more weaknesses are in the bill. Today the consultation conference in Ottawa was supposed to meet and we have not seen the bill yet. The minister shakes his head. Did the minister delay the conference because the bill was faulty? The minister indicates no. When is the bill going to be ready? The minister says soon.
My mother had a saying about "soon" which was related to a cat that we had. She called the cat a "sooner". It would sooner stay inside and perform the natural functions than go outside on a cold day. Soon does not mean anything, and I am sure the minister would not want to be classified as a sooner. The native Indian people want to know where the blazes this bill is. Is the minister having trouble getting it through cabinet, or with his associate minister? Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not agree with what has been presented in the bill? These are serious questions to which our native people want an answer.
I have talked with some of the people who were delegates to the conference that was supposed to have been held today. Two of them told me they may not even bother to come when it is held because they are so fed up with all the delay and procrastination.
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians They have seen what has gone on at the consultation conferences and want no further involvement.
I was going to make some mention of housing which is a pretty serious problem for our native Indian people. One of the communities in my constituency has 30 families on a priority list waiting for houses. If you go to practically any Indian village in Canada you will find two or three families living in the same house. In fact, the word "house" is a euphemism. You see six or seven little kiddies sleeping in the same bed, and the same thing in another bedroom. People have to sleep on couches in the living room. Students are unable to do any meaningful homework in that sort of environment because conditions are overcrowded and youngsters are wandering around, as well as grandparents and parents. Too many people are living in the same house. Where is the quality of life here?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
All these people are living in the same home for two reasons. The first is that the average income a few years ago was $1,600 per family. The second is that the government, through its departmental administrative structure, spends twice that much money per family which does not filter down to the people. Another problem is that these people do not have the opportunity to become meaningfully employed, to do some work and earn an income, because the government has failed miserably in its attempts to develop anything worth while in terms of job opportunities and economics.
The government says it is helping with its housing program and building homes for these people. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what kind of homes are being built for elderly citizens, some of whom have to live by themselves in two-room shacks? These elderly people have difficulty getting around at the best of times, but the houses for them are built without inside toilets or running water. These people have to take a bucket and walk outside to the seashore because they do not have a sewer system or the amenities of life that we believe standard in our society. This is disgraceful.
The propaganda machine in the department grinds out propaganda about the houses being built and the money being spent on this program, etc., etc. But this money does not reach the individual human beings who live in this sort of environment. It is no wonder that
March 6, 1969
6290	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians Ross Thatcher, the Premier of Saskatchewan, is reported to have said yesterday that a time bomb is ticking. That time bomb has been ticking for the last four or five years and its tick is getting stronger and stronger. So far neither I nor many native Indian people have seen any indication on the part of the government that it intends to do anything meaningful or worth while to cope with particular problems such as this.
The younger people are simply not content to go through the same sort of degrading and denigrating situation that their parents went through. They are no longer content to live in these places called reserves but which are nothing more than isolated economic concentration camps where there is no opportunity to realize the full benefits of our society. They are fed up with being treated and looked upon as a group apart from the rest of society. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) will tell the government this, as he undoubtedly has. Ask any person of native Indian origin, and he will tell you the same thing. He is not interested in having his problems dealt with from the point of view of his cultural background. There is within the concept of our social order and within the concept of the department too much looking upon this situation as an "Indian problem". I put the words "Indian problem" in quotation marks. It is not an Indian problem; it is a social problem that confronts native Indian people to a far stronger degree than it does anybody else.
Native Indian people are underprivileged Canadians, far more so than any other single ethnic group in this nation. Their problems have to be coped with on that basis, as problems confronting people, problems confronting human beings. We have to develop within the department, within the government structure, something more than has been developed before. The government has to head in the direction of getting out of the business of interfering in other people's lives. It must provide them with the opportunity to realize those values of human dignity and quality of life that promote self-respect and enable the individual to have a feeling of pride and respect for himself as a human being. The native Indian has not had this opportunity up to now.
The government must embark upon a program which will provide people with opportunities to develop human freedoms, economic freedom, economic opportunity, work and


not welfare. Only in this way can the native Indian have the advantage of the amenities of life and the services of our society. Only in this way can they appreciate these things and be on an equal basis with other Canadians.
The government has to deal with the human, fundamental rights of people on the basis that they are Canadians first and that the native Indian is confronted with social problems more serious than those of other people. There have been 100 years of repression and suppression of the rights and freedoms of the native Indian people. This fact must be counterbalanced in the shortest possible period of time. A century of wrongdoing will take a little while to undo. It has to be done by deliberate and conscious effort. It cannot be done by pious hopes or propaganda; it has to be done by accomplishment. The accomplishment has to be related to a period of time when there will no longer be a person at the head of a department that is set up to deal with the problems of people on an ethnic or cultural basis. That is discriminatory, wrong, and terribly shocking for people to have to accept. The minister should know this better than anybody.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I thank him for the reasonable tone in which he made the speech. The hon. member raised many of the fundamental questions that I, as Minister of Indian Affairs, have in mind. I thank him very sincerely for taking this approach to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we inherited years ago the problem facing us today with regard to the Indian people in Canada. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) claims that during the last century we built, within our own society, a separate group which is known as the Indians of Canada. Because of their ethnic origin and the colour of their skin, they are governed by a group of institutions other than those set up for the other Canadians citizens. This is a serious problem which the government is now looking into carefully.
In the last few months, we have had a series of consultations with the Indians of Canada. We have held 18 meetings across Canada and I am pleased to report to the house that we attended these consultations primarily to listen to the Indians.
March 6. 1969	COMMONS
It is true that we had given them in recent months a booklet entitled Choosing a Path outlining certain points to guide their discussion.
But when my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Ondras) and myself participated in those consultations, we discussed all the matters the Indians brought up. We listened to them and never did we try to impose our views upon them.

It is very clear at this moment that at these consultations the message of the Indians was loud and clear. They do not need any lawyers; they do not need anyone to speak for them. They have shown the people of Canada that they can speak for themselves. They spoke about their problems. It is very clear that they want to be full citizens of Canada; they want to share both the advantages and responsibilities of being Canadians.
I think we have understood them. They have spoken about their treaty rights and aboriginal rights. We have listened to them and will respond to them. They want more autonomy. They want to make decisions, at the band level, for themselves and by themselves. We have understood them, and when we come up with our new Indian policy they will see that we have understood that message.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think we made a lot of progress over the last seven months in our consultations and our dealings with the Indians. For the first time we have provided them with a genuine opportunity to talk to the people of Canada. It is being said that there are too many civil servants around, but you cannot operate a government department without having civil servants to do the job. One of the factors to be considered is that the way in which we have organized these consultations has provided the Indians with the occasion to speak not only amongst themselves but to the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) blamed us for having spent some money on public relations. It is true that we did so at these consultations but it was done with the purpose of providing the Indians with the opportunity to speak to the people of Canada. At these consultations we made sure that the press and television cameras were there. I will not apologize to anyone for having provided the Indians with that opportunity, and I
DEBATES	6291
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians think that these consultations have been profitable.
It is true that I have postponed the meeting we were supposed to have today. The reason is that the consultation was to terminate at the end of December but at the request of the hon. member for Skeena and of his constituents we held another meeting at the end of January in the riding of Skeena to listen once more to the Indians in that riding. I was there and so was the hon. member. I said almost nothing and the hon. member said nothing at all; all we did was to listen to the Indians. Their message was loud and clear.
We have put every word the Indians said on tape and it has been transcribed. All this takes time. We have not yet sent the report to all the delegates, and it would have been unfair to the people of Skeena to call them to Ottawa today when their views were not yet made known to the other Indians of Canada. I postponed the meeting because some of the Indians who want to come here and have a meaningful discussion with the authorities want to have more time to study the views of Indians from other parts of Canada.
The hon. member has accused us of not being ready with the Indian Claims Commission bill. There are many reasons for that. I gave a reason in December-because further representations were made at the consultations. I said that perhaps I will have to take another look at the bill. The hon. member for Skeena disappoints me because for months and years he has been speaking about the situation of Indians in Canada. I realize today that he is beginning to be out of touch with the people in his own riding.
The president of the Nishga tribal council, who is a member of the New Democratic Party and an Indian, Mr. Frank Calder called me to urge me not to proceed right away with the Indian Claims Commission bill because their case is before the court in British Columbia and they do not want it to be prejudiced. He is an M.L.A. out there and he asked the hon. member for Skeena to ask me to postpone the bill because they do not want me to jeopardize their case before the B.C. court. That is one of the reasons why we have not proceeded with it.
I am not too shy to respond to a reasonable request by the very Indians who perhaps in part vote for the hon. member for Skeena. Right now we are engaged in reviewing these consultations. We are studying them because we want to come up some time in the future-the hon. member for Skeena does not
March 6, 1969
6292	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians want me to use the word "soon"-with a positive policy which the hon. member will look at favourably because we think we will change many of the rules.
I have said many times in the house that it is true that the present Indian Act is too paternalistic. Out of the 135 clauses in the act there are 111 where it is said that the minister has to do this or that or should do this or that. I have spent hours in my office signing documents which permit Indians to borrow $3,000 or $4,000 from the C.M.H.C. I am ashamed at my age to appear to be the white father of the Indian population. I think we have to change many things but we cannot do this before completing the first round of consultations. The hon. member blames us for doing things without consulting the Indians and yet although we have not completed the consultations he rises in the house today to blame me for not proceeding with the claims commission bill. I hope that next month, although I cannot give a specific date today, I will be able to listen to the views of the representatives who have been chosen by the Indians. Following this I will come to the House of Commons and tell the members what the government plans to do to solve the problems of the Indian people of Canada.
I made speeches in which I said that one of the problems in Canada is that the provincial governments do not consider Indians to be citizens of the province. I say that Indians should be citizens of the province equal to any one of us because they are human beings like any one of us. The government is ready to try to find a solution to this difference in views.
As the hon. member said, we cannot solve all these problems overnight but there are some fundamental questions to which we must reply. I can assure the house that as soon as the consultations with the Indians are over the government will make up its mind on the new Indian policy to be adopted and will inform the house of it.

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we spoke repeatedly of the Indian problem. And the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself mentions it in all his speeches, on the rights of the citizens.
This government is extremely concerned with it, and that is why we have given it a priority it did not have before.
I could speak of what we have done in the past. We are accused of having spent too

much money on the Indians, of having increased the budget too rapidly in the last few years. It is true that we have spent a lot of money; still, one must be objective. We have more than tripled our expenditures for Indian affairs in the last few years, that is from 1962 to 1969, and we have produced some results. We may not have built enough houses, but we did build approximately 10,000 units since 1963. We have given better schooling to the Indians. Ten years ago, only 15 per cent of Indian children stayed in school after the 5th grade. Today, 95 per cent of the school age children in the Indian population of Canada have gone beyond the fifth grade.
We said that we wanted to give the Indians more autonomy. We have taken the necessary steps towards that end. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Manitoba Indians for this very purpose. As they are organized and as they have expressed the wish to administer their own affairs, we are ready to negotiate with them and with the provincial authorities towards an agreement giving them the opportunity to assume a greater share of the responsibilities.
After having criticized us freely, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will perhaps allow me to read the comments of the person who surely knows quite a bit about the problems of the Manitoba Indians, and I refer to Mr. David Courchene.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

Mr. David Courchene said:
-the meeting is possibly the biggest step forward in Indian-white relationships.
He attributed the new approach to Indian affairs to the valid demands of the Indians and a new federal minister of Indian Affairs who understands the problems the native people face.
We have really created a meaningful partnership with the government.
As I said previously, I do not feel very much at ease with a situation in which we have to decide every step of the lives of the Indians. They have now found spokesmen among themselves and on most occasions they express their views very well. And we have been listening to them. We have to give more authority to the Indians at the band level in order that they may decide their own priorities. We have to permit Indians to gain access to the same institutions as do other Canadians. Recently a measure was passed in this house, though little has been said about it,
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
giving Indian farmers the opportunity to borrow money from the same institutions as do white farmers. Because of the very nature of life on a reserve the Indian population often has no access to the same institutions as do their competitors.
We must develop new policies and new programs to permit Indians to enjoy these facilities. I cannot be specific today, for the reason that we have not yet completed our consultations with Indians. But we have understood what they have to say and we shall follow through with the necessary measures once we have completed these talks. I think we shall make them full citizens of Canada, because they want to be full citizens. We will give them more autonomy because they want more autonomy. In many instances they are able to conduct their own affairs. However, we ought to be objective about this question at all times. We should not be too partisan in the face of one of the most difficult social problems of our time. I am glad this debate is taking place today because it will focus the attention of the House of Commons on this question. I do not want to speak for too long because I know I shall be coming right back here with new policies on Indian Affairs after the consultation process has been completed.
The hon. member for Skeena would like me to drive myself out of a job. I would not mind that very much. I can probably do something other than Indian Affairs; at least I can look after the other part of my department. As I say, we should not be partisan about this. I think the hon. member for Skeena is to be complimented for keeping the level of the discussion so high.
We know there are many problems to be solved in the fields of housing and employment for Indians. We should not be helping these people because they are Indians but rather because they are poor or because they lack sufficient education. It is a kind of discrimination when one recognizes, within a society, a group because of its colour. I think we should deal with this issue because it is a social problem, because these people need more education, better housing accommodation, better economic opportunities, and so on.
We have really done a great deal in this direction during the past seven months. We have helped the Indians of Canada to form their own Indian association. They have held meetings in Ottawa. We have invited them here, we have paid their expenses, we have
DEBATES	6293
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians provided them with opportunities to talk with me, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and with the officials of the department. They were in Ottawa for a week during December during which we helped them form the association. Since then we have made sure that the National Indian Brotherhood was represented whenever we held consultations. I think we have achieved a lot in the way of co-operation with the Indian Brotherhood.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell the house today what the new Indian program is to be. We have been obliged to postpone some of the things I was very anxious to do because I felt it was my duty to listen to the requests of the Indians themselves. We should not rush forward when they are not ready. The consultations we were to have held today have been postponed at the request of the Indians themselves and because we have extended the first round of consultations following special representations by the Indians of Ontario and of the Skeena riding.
I do not wish to take up much time today. I merely want to say it is somewhat unfair to suggest we have made no progress in relations with our Indian population. The emergence of the Indians will come about from within themselves. There are some within this community who can show that we have made a lot of progress in many fields. Our role is not to be paternalistic toward them, though we could be paternalistic in many ways. Sometimes we can be more paternalistic in agitation than we can be in administration. We must be very careful not to make this a political balloon. We ought to make sure that the Indians have the opportunity to express themselves and solve their own problems. In the new policy formed pursuant to the present consultations we shall show we have decided to agree that they should be full citizens of Canada and give them access to the same institutions as are available to other Canadians.
I am sure many hon. members would like to express their own views on this subject today. I welcome positive suggestions and I should like hon. members to put forward their ideas as to possible new programs and approaches so as to help us bring in the policy we shall soon be announcing, making the Indians of Canada equal to any other citizens in our country.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the debate which the house is conducting today is certainly most timely. In fact, it is long overdue. As the hon. member for Skeena
March 6. 1969
6294	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians (Mr. Howard) said, it is a considerable time since the house has had an opportunity to discuss this important subject, and I do not doubt that all hon. members will realize that it is, indeed, an important subject. I say this because should we, as legislators or as Canadians, fail to attack this problem in a meaningful way and do our best to enable our Indian people to become equal partners in society, it will be increasingly hard for future generations to do so.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Skeena spoke of those subjects which concern our Indian peoples today. He spoke of the necessity of maintaining human dignity, cultural identity, and the desire of the Indians to take their full part in Canadian society. I was pleased to hear the minister say the government was anxious to attack these problems as quickly as possible. I notice he said that the government had inherited its problems. That is quite right. Similar problems have faced other governments. It is gratifying to find that Canadians now think present difficulties in this field should be cured quickly.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that there had been consultations where representatives of the government met representatives of our Indian peoples. It will be agreed, I think, that members of all parties have insisted on such consultation over the years. When one speaks of consultation one must ask, to what extent is it being carried on? One must remember that when governments plan new legislation affecting our Indian peoples much time is spent by so-called experts and legal advisers in preparing and planning it. Such planning can go on for many months. After all that work the minister and some of his officials may go to the Indian people, outline the proposed program in one or two brief meetings and expect the Indians to digest the program and say which parts are acceptable and which are not. We speak of consultation, and we must remember that our Indian people need time and all the assistance we can give them if they are to examine plans that the government proposes in an adequate manner.
The present attitude of the government which has led to consultations being held with the Indian people is a far cry from the attitude that prevailed not too many mears ago. Hon. members will no doubt recall that the actions of Liberal ministers were severely criticized when health services to our native


peoples were to be cut back. Without prior notice being given to the heads of our Indian communities, regional directors of health services were informed that health services to Indian peoples would be curtailed. Hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and members of other opposition parties took great exception at that time to what was happening. It is therefore gratifying to see that the government has now adopted a different attitude and is willing to consult our Indian peoples before presenting legislation to the house.
The hon. member for Skeena said that the minister should be working toward the abolition of his department and portfolio. I am sure the minister realizes the hon. member was not being critical but was expressing a hope. He was trying to say that not only the minister but all officials of the department ought to try to eliminate the problems confronting our Indian peoples, thereby doing away with the necessity for the department. I support that suggestion.
I have good friends in the department, and I learned something which those outside the department may not know but which is common knowledge within the department. It is epitomized in a reported conversation between two older members of the department. One said to the other, "Do you not find it strange that junior members of the department have not come forward with suggestions to alleviate some of the problems facing our Indians?" The reply was, "These juniors are acting as we acted 20 years ago when we were younger. They are afraid that if they bring forward too many suggestions and solve problems they may find themselves without jobs before retirement age." This story is not to be taken in a jocular manner because it exemplifies the feeling of some officials in the department. I do not criticize civil servants in general. In the Department of Indian Affairs we have some diligent, hard-working men, and excellent field men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Simpson: I could mention names but I will not. Yet it can be said, as the minister himself suggested, that many in the department adopt a paternalistic attitude to our Indian peoples. I think the hon. member for Skeena had all these matters in mind when he suggested that the minister ought to work toward abolishing his own ministry.
I was also pleased to hear the minister say that as a result of meetings he has attended
March 6. 1969	COMMONS
with Indian peoples he has concluded they are capable of speaking for themselves. That fact was proven conclusively during a meeting not long ago in Ottawa of the Indian Affairs Committee. It will be remembered that representatives of the Indian Brotherhood came to Ottawa for the sole purpose of forming a national Indian brotherhood, and they attended our committee meeting. I do not know whether the minister was there. The deputy minister, 1 believe, was there on that occasion, and with him were eight, nine or ten experts from the department. Those representatives questioned the deputy minister, and Members of Parliament on the committee directed questions at all the experts for about two hours.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Before the meeting concluded the chairman asked the representatives of the Indian Brotherhood if they would like to say a few words. I recall the words of Isaac Beaulieu who was representing the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood on that occasion. He stated he had heard a number of questions directed to the officials of the Indian Affairs Branch and heard a number of answers to the effect the department had been considering these problems but had been unable to arrive at an adequate solution.
Mr. Beaulieu was curious about the fact that the people in the Indian Affairs Branch had not been able to arrive at solutions and had not consulted with the officials of the Indian Brotherhood who represent the Indian people of Canada. Mr. Beaulieu's remarks were very timely and very much in line with what is taking place today. In many cases Indian problems are not being dealt with in the proper manner and not as quickly as they should be.
As the hon. member who initiated this debate rightfully said, we in the opposition parties have been asking the government for some time to set up the Indian Claims Commission. The minister is aware by this attendance at some of the consultation meetings in regard to changes in the Indian Act that the Indian people, including those representing Indian bands in Manitoba, have requested direct Indian representation on that claims commission. I do not know whether the minister has given the matter the consideration it deserves and has been able to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that Indian representation is desirable on the claims commission when it is set up.
DEBATES	6295
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I want to go on record as saying that it is not only desirable but imperative that there be equal or majority representation of our native people on the Indian Claims Commission. The minister has stated today that the Indian people can speak for themselves. I assure the minister that we in the official opposition are not attacking the motives of the government, but we maintain that the government is not attacking the problems of the Indian people in a manner acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians or the Indian people concerned. I assume that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) are sincere.
During the last election campaign I told the Indian people I would not criticize the previous government except for the course it took in relation to health services. I told them I would not criticize the sincerity of the government in regard to wanting to help the Indian people. As the minister mentioned, there is no doubt that those who speak today will give him some very frank ideas as to what should and can be done. We in the official opposition believe there is a genuine desire on the part of the government to improve the position of the Indian people of Canada, although I hasten to add that the government is not adopting the proper course. I accept that this is a most difficult problem. It is not our purpose to make it more difficult but to force the government to act as progressively as they have been talking. We expect the government to practise what they preach.
The minister stated that some delay has occurred in the continuation of the consultation meetings with respect to changes or amendments of the Indian Act and the setting up of the Indian Claims Commission. He stated that these delays were at the request of the Indian people. I accept that because I feel that the Indian people must be given an adequate length of time to digest thoroughly the plans of the government. In view of the fact the government and its predecessors for several years have said that an Indian Claims Commission would be set up, we feel this should be done as quickly as possible. The government is not being effective in Indian policy. There is disturbing evidence the government is not giving this matter priority. It should be near the top of the list of priorities. I will not get into a discussion at this time regarding the two constitutional conferences held during the last two years.
March 6. 1969
6296	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member for Churchill may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to be brief.
e (4:30 p.m.)
It is amazing to me that we can have discussions from one end of Canada to the other on subjects such as bilingualism and bicul-turalism, which I know are tremendously important, but how much importance has this house placed on the questions we have raised from time to time about the abrogation of Indian treaty rights? On occasion we have raised the abrogation of rights granted to our native Indian people by treaties entered into with them by the government of Canada. When we mention such matters we do not get much response from the government, and we do not get much attention from the news media. But just mention bilingualism or biculturalism and everyone plays it up. On the one hand, we are violating treaties; on the other hand, some people are trying to institute bilingualism across Canada. Without criticizing them I say we pay more attention to the desirability of bringing in something new than we do to the fact that the government has actually welshed on its agreements with the Indians. Let no one again use the phrase "just society" in Canada until the government gets around to correcting the situation that stems from the abrogation of Indian rights.
One of the principal examples is the abrogation of Indian hunting rights. The fact that certain conservationists feel that the Indian people should not have special privileges has nothing to do with the case. The Indians have treaty rights. Two Indians from my constituency had their cases taken right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on a five to four decision of the nine judges the Migratory Birds Convention Act was ruled to take precedence over Indian treaty rights. Regardless of which way the decision went, there were four judges who felt that the government was wrong in what it had done in relation to these treaty rights.

When the minister points out that the government is endeavouring to straighten out this very difficult problem I reply that these things can be straightened out provided he meets with the other authorities concerned. For the past four years I have been requesting that ministers sit down with their counterparts in the United States and renegotiate the Migratory Birds Convention so that Canada may be able to live up to its commitments to its Indian people. Many people will say that repeated mention of this problem takes up a lot of parliament's time, but I am sure Canada's reputation in the world at large would not be too good if we abrogated treaties with other countries. Let us show we have the desire to solve the problems of our native people by beginning immediately to solve this problem.
A little while ago the minister announced postponement of a major consultation conference scheduled for Ottawa, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena. We hope it is a postponement and not a cancellation. The reason given for cancelling the meeting was that more time was needed to consider the material that had been presented. But many people believe this is not a valid reason. Some Indian people were highly critical of the representation they were granted at the conference, and indeed some spokesmen for the Indians of Alberta were so disturbed that they threatened to boycott the conference. Some meetings have already been held at various points across Canada, and we can only hope that after the final meeting the government will decide what changes it will propose in the Indian Act.
The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood has stated that one fact emerges most clearly from the meetings that have been held, namely, that the Indian people need and demand legislation that will change their present status from so-called protected wards of the government to equal citizenship with all other Canadians. Therefore they say that the Indian Act in its present form must be abolished because it is merely a catalogue of restrictions, and whatever the new legislation is called it must be more than a mere revision of the old act. The Indian people demand the destruction of all the old barriers and the provision of enlightened government action to provide opportunities whereby Indians, controlling their own destiny, can take their proper place in the Canadian mosaic. We in the official opposition will be anxiously awaiting an announcement from the minister that
March 6. 1969

the government is prepared to take the proper action.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is not able to be in the house at this time. I know he is busy having meetings with regard to a subject which I brought to his attention within the last few days.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to make some remarks on health services my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), told me he will be back in the house soon. He is having a meeting in his own office with Indians from Manitoba.


Robert Simpson: I thank the minister. I am sure he realizes I was not criticizing the Minister of National Health and Welfare for not being here. In fact I assumed he was having a meeting with Chief Gordon Lathlin of The Pas Indian Band, who is in Ottawa today. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will make a statement in the house later today with respect to two requests which the members of The Pas Indian band have made to him.
e (4:40 p.m.)
This matter is another instance of lack of consultation. It does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but under the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the past four or five days the Indians of The Pas band have found it necessary in their own good judgment to set up a picket line in front of the Indian health clinic at The Pas. They have demanded that they have full control over the community health worker program. This would include wages, transportation costs and the administrative expenses for the program. Second, they have asked that a federal employee whom I shall not name at this time be removed from the Indian health clinic at The Pas. I have discussed this matter over the telephone with the chief. These people have very diligently laid out their reasons for these two requests. They have laid out quite plainly for the minister several reasons why they wish the removal of this employee.
The minister and members of his staff no doubt will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter with the chief at the meeting today. The minister advised me in the house that he thought he would have the answer in one or two days. So when he comes into the house later this afternoon I hope he will be able to make a statement and advise the
DEBATES	6297
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians house whether the two requests made by the Indian people at The Pas can be granted or whether, to use his words, the Indian people will have to go on picketing until doomsday. I am not being critical. I really hate to put this on the record when the minister is not in the house. If he were here I would say the same thing, because one of the complaints of the people is that they were told they could picket until doomsday but that the minister would give them his answer when he was ready. I am taking this information from a press release put out under the authority of the chief of the Indian band at The Pas. As I say, I regret very much that the minister is not in the house at this time. I am sure he received a copy of this press release. I hope he will be able to clear up the situation to the satisfaction of the Indian people.
In conclusion I should like to remind the minister that we were very pleased to hear he feels that the Indian people have many problems. We were also very pleased to hear that he feels they are capable of speaking for themselves. We were equally pleased to hear that the government will at all times have full consultation with the Indian people before adopting new policies. This is what the Indian people want and this is what they are entitled to. Again I remind the minister that the evidence we will have to go by will be the results in respect of certain things such as whether or not the Indian people have proper representation on the Indian Claims Commission when it is set up and whether the Indian people are given full opportunity to examine the many changes which are to be made to the Indian Act. I further request that every effort be made by the departmental officials and the government to hasten the day when the Indian Act will become a thing of the past so that the Indian people will be able to take their rightful place in Canadian society.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is about a year since we have had the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the situation in respect of our native peoples. I believe it is only fair to say that the debate which has been going on so far today has been on the same non-partisan level which we have enjoyed in the past. I think we should also welcome the new minister to the list of ministers of this department. The Department of Indian Affairs has had more casualties than any other, I believe largely because of the inherent impossibility of the task the minister is given to perform.
March 6, 1969
6298	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I should like to speak briefly about one area in which I believe the Department of Indian Affairs should be moving. I have some statistics concerning the progress made in the field of education in terms of the number of students now taking courses at the various educational levels. For example, in 1957-58 there were 124 post-secondary students. For 1967-68 that number has gone up to 225. The number of children in high schools in the same period has increased from 1,900 to 5,900. The number attending at the elementary school level is 48,000 now compared with 31,000 in 1957-58. I think this indicates a very laudable improvement.
There is, however, one aspect of the problem which bothers me considerably. Once the students leave school the Department of Indian Affairs seems to have very few support programs to assist them in taking their rightful place in society. Once an Indian has received an education he cannot go back to the sterile existence that he would have on the reserve. He must go into a world very different from that which he knew while at school or on the reserve. When he does, the Department of Indian Affairs has practically no program of assistance. The only program it has is a rather minor one involving Indian friendship centres.
In the whole of Canada there are only 21 of these centres, all of which are in provinces west of the Ontario-Quebec border. There are none in Quebec or the maritimes. The information I have from the Indian Affairs office indicates that in Ontario there are four which are located at London, Toronto, Parry Sound and Port Arthur. I know there is a friendship centre in Kenora, Ontario. Perhaps the statistics of the Department of Indian Affairs are not always up to date. The centre in Kenora has been unable to obtain any meaningful assistance. Their facilities are overcrowded and yet there is no program for a capital grant.
The type of program the federal government has to assist Indian friendship centres is ridiculous, to say the least. In the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta there are federal provincial agreements providing grants in amounts varying from $20,000 to $30,000 annually to each of these three provinces. In order to receive these grants the province must pay 50 per cent of the costs under a cost-sharing plan. These grants are designed to pay only the administration costs of the friendship centres. They do not cover


capital costs, hostel costs or even court worker costs.
In Ontario and British Columbia the friendship centres make their own approaches to the citizenship branch in Ottawa which makes matching grants equal to the provincial grants. However, the provincial and federal matching grants meet only two-thirds of the annual administrative costs. Therefore one-third of the annual administrative costs must be raised locally by each individual friendship centre. It seems to me this is a totally inadequate way to deal with a very serious problem. The bureaucratic system is probably the best way we have found to deal with problems through government action, but when we get into a situation where bureaucracy works against bureaucracy changes must be made quickly.
Indians who leave their reserves to seek work need help. Just as immigrants who have come to Canada have adopted the church hall type of program to assist them in becoming integrated into Canadian life, so too the Indian people need help. The Indian people are on a different basis from immigrants and it seems to me they need special help. When one is organizing Indian friendship centres it is difficult to get assistance at all from the federal government. There are individuals in the Indian Affairs and Citizenship Branches who do give some assistance but their efforts are often stopped by the department itself.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I want to give a specific example of the problem I am speaking about. In one town in my constituency, Red Lake, there is employment for Indians. Consequently Indians have come from all over North Western Ontario, from the northern areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, I am told, even from Alberta, because there are jobs in the gold mines at Red Lake. There are not as many as before but there are some. A new iron mine in the area has made an effort to hire Indian labour.
The problem is that there is no housing and no organization to assist the Indians. There is nowhere they can go to receive help in integrating themselves into the new culture even though they are willing to do so. However, there is an organization there now called the Red Lake Indian Association which is trying to establish a friendship centre in the town of Red Lake where there is almost no serviced land. The township of Red Lake offered to provide serviced land to this organization at a cost of $1. A heating system has been offered
March G, 1969	COMMONS
by one of the local gold mines. Yet, there is no way in which either the federal government or the provincial government to this date can move and provide these people with the assistance they require.
In the new policy, which I hope the government will be announcing, I trust the tools that are required to enable the Indians to take their place in Canadian society will be provided. At the present time it seems to me that the educational program is adequate but the follow-up is simply lousy. A lot of work remains to be done and much imagination needs to be shown.
I should like to deal with some of the larger issues in what we term the Indian problem. My way of looking at it is to consider it not as an Indian problem but as a problem facing 230,000 people who have lived outside the mainstream of Canadian life and who are now trying to establish their place within the Canadian mainstream. It seems to me one of the primary things the federal government should do is to involve the provincial governments more deeply in Indian affairs. There are two reasons for this. First of all, there should be no distinction made between citizens of Canada. There should not be any necessity to provide separate services for Indians in, for example, the fields of education and medical services. However, the provinces will not be particularly willing to move into these areas, and one reason for this, I suggest, is the plight of the Metis.
If you begin to extend provincial services to the Metis it means that people, part Indian, part white, who for years have received no services from either the provincial government or the federal government, will receive provincial services. Therefore the cost to the provinces of these additional services for Indian people is not measured just by what the federal government pays in providing services to the Indian people, but also by the cost of extending such services to all these other people who have been ignored over a period of time. That, too, is part of the problem. It may well be that the federal government should look very carefully at this problem and integrate the Metis into programs that are designed for the Indian people. If the government does enter into negotiations with the provinces with a view to turning over these services and paying its share of the costs, it should also insist that the Metis be given their rightful share of fundamental rights that everybody in Canada enjoys and for which, incidentally, these people of Metis 29180-399
DEBATES	6299
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians descent are paying federal and provincial taxes.
I also favour the decentralization of Indian affairs because I do not believe that the federal government is the source of wisdom in all things, particularly Indian affairs. I think there is much more conventional wisdom, if I may use that phrase, among the people living in communities which contain both whites and Indians. Often a far better relationship exists between them than exists between the Indians and the department.
When we talk about new policies for the Indian people I think we have to realize that much of what has been said in this house today does not apply to the Indian people who reside in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, or in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. The people in my riding are not necessarily able to take advantage of all the programs available to them simply because they do not know how to cope with the white man's society. For example, it is only within the last ten years that roads have been built to some of the Indian communities that are close to white communities in my constituency. Only now are these people adjusting to the services that the Department of Indian Affairs and the provinces can now provide. Therefore it is absurd to assume that all Indian people are equally advanced and able to take advantage of all the opportunities we hope to provide to them. It seems to me that we require a far more flexible system that will offer a series of options and permit the Indians to opt in or opt out as they see fit. Perhaps it may be necessary for the government to set time limits, to establish quotas, to establish a timetable, so that when Indians at one level are prepared in order to move up to another level they can, but not to the disadvantage of others who many not be as advanced as they are.
Another aspect of the problem is that in my opinion there is a great deal of arrogance toward Indians in the House of Commons, and perhaps I am as guilty in this regard as anybody else. We seem to assume that we can formulate policies for our Indian people which they are going to follow. Although we pass the Indian Act it is the Indians themselves who should be deeply involved in the framing of its terms, even in its administration. It is the Indians who are affected by its provisions, not us. I detect a certain amount of arrogance in speeches that have been made on this subject that do not fit the facts, and I think we are all guilty of it.
March 6. 1969
6300	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I should like to give the house an illustration of the difficulties that we are going to have to face. In many areas there are going to be tremendous conflicts between the young people and the older generation. They will have to learn to govern themselves and resolve their own internal difficulties. The Indian Affairs Branch has been a very convenient scapegoat for many Indians. Because of the Indian Affairs Branch we have been unable to progress, say the Indians. Because of the Indian Affairs Branch, they say, we have not been able to govern ourselves.
If a new Indian Act is passed, as we hope it will be, this is going to mean that the Indians themselves will have to accept a great deal more responsibility for their own activities. Such a procedure will, I suggest, be difficult and slow. I do not think we can come up with any policy that is going to solve all the problems of the Indians in 100 years. I think that any government or legislative body that announces that it has a program to settle all Indian problems in 100 years flat is clearly not in touch with what is going on in the country and with what the Indian people are thinking. I sense this type of attitude among the members of the cabinet, though not so much on the part of the two ministers directly responsible. However, I get the feeling that the cabinet has decided that it is not going to do anything about solving the problems of the Indians until it is able to come up with a program that will solve the problems of the Indians in 100 years guaranteed. I think that is unrealistic.
I should like to see the Indian Act done away with because I believe it is an anachronism. Nevertheless, I understand that because of historic treaty rights and for other reasons we will have to have some form of Indian Act. We have to recognize that the original intention of the Indian Act was to provide protection for Indians. We have to continue to provide them with certain services. But the goal toward which we should work is that which the hon. member for Skeena suggested; the minister should work himself out of a job. But I think we have to face up to the realities of the situation.
I believe, that what the Department of Indian Affairs should be doing is helping the Indians to develop among themselves their own agencies that will work toward their own benefit. In the riding of Kenora-Rainy River there are a number of organizations, Indian corporations, that operate under an advisory body called the Amik Association. The Amik


Association has been receiving a grant of $15,000 from the provincial government, a sum shared jointly by the federal government. Because of the organization's success the grant has been upped to $24,000, again shared equally by the two governments.
The organization has prepared a very extensive and I think well thought-out brief for the Ford Foundation because it was not getting anywhere with the federal and provincial governments. It could get a little money to help meet administration costs but could not get the "seed" money it really required in order to go ahead with some of the projects it has in mind. So it submitted a brief to the Ford Foundation of America, which was accepted enthusiastically. The Ford Foundation wrote back and said: "We will put up $50,000 for a revolving loan fund for your area provided the federal and provincial governments will each put up $50,000." The money is to be used for "seed" projects.
0	(5:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that here is an example of a great initiative by a group of local people, some white, some Indian, working sometimes in concert with and at other times in opposition to the Department of Indian Affairs and the other do-gooder organizations that involve themselves in Indian affairs. They came up with a proposal which they submitted to the federal and provincial governments. I think the two governments are on trial. I do not think they have any choice but to go ahead and provide the money to this organization which has proven itself to be effective. It is completely independently controlled; it is autonomous; it is on its own. I think the minister should look into this matter as soon as possible with a view to approving the program.
I would like to say a word or two about the consultative process. Quite frankly, I have not been happy with the way it has been carried out, particularly with the way it has affected the Indian people of my area. The concept of the consultation process has been that the Indian, like the white man, is used to the operations of the white man's institutions.
1	think this is a false assumption. Basically, it has been my experience that there is no concept of representation, as we know it, on the Indian reserves. When I have consultations with the Indians, in the northern areas particularly, the chief will be telling me something and as he is speaking somebody, not a member of the band council necessarily, may interrupt him and make a correction or put
March 6, 1969

across another point of view. The chief will go back, reverse his stand, take that person's point of view into consideration, and go ahead. There is a sort of direct relationship here.
The consultation was imposed from the top down. The Indians were told to elect representatives and send them to the Lakehead or Toronto. They were taken out of their native areas and natural environment and put in a white man's situation. In this situation we expected them to provide us with proper information with regard to the Indians.
I admit that perhaps this is a little overdrawn, but I think the general idea is true. Far more work should have been carried out at the band level. There would have been far more understanding of the questions involved if this process had been carried out at the band level because the Indians would have known what matters were being raised. This is particularly true of Indians in rural and other areas where they are not in direct communication one with another. This was not done. To a large extent I think this was responsible for the first series of consultations not being as successful as we hoped they would be.
At this time I should single out the former minister of Indian Affairs, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), for his initiative in setting up this program and for the work he did. If anybody could be said to be the father of consultations, it would be the present Minister of Public Works. Mind you, it was not a very pleasant form of consultation at times; sometimes it resembled a shouting match. Nevertheless, he believed in consultation and dialogue and went ahead and set it up.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the situation was not the same in the district of the hon. member, but I would like to inform the House of Commons that in many provinces we provided money to the Indian associations so they could go into every reserve and discuss with the Indians there the forthcoming consultations. This happened in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and I think British Columbia. Perhaps that process did not occur in Ontario or in the northern part of that province. But we welcomed this initiative of the Indians and provided them with money in order to permit Indians who were aware of the situation to go to the reserves and discuss, ahead of time, with the local Indians the consultations that were forthcoming.
DEBATES	6301
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians


John Mercer Reid: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. All I say is that I was told by various band councils that they were not consulted and did not really know what was going to happen. There was a consultative process, which was the proper thing to do, but it brought out many surprises. For example, one of the chiefs told me that this was the first time he had ever known there was a basis behind the actions of the Department of Indian Affairs. He did not realize that there was an Indian Act. He always thought the department had acted in an arbitrary fashion and without any sense at all. I hope that when it comes to the second round of consultations the minister will take this into consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree to give more time to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just one brief point to make concerning the Indian Claims Commission. I understand there has been some talk among the government that before we proceed with the Indian Claims Commission the Indians must be fully consulted and made fully aware of all the implications involved. I further understand that the government has tied the Indian Claims Commission bill to general policy for Indians which the minister, we hope, will be introducing shortly.
If this be true-I have no way of knowing whether it is true; it happens to be rumour- I disagree completely with this view. I think it would be extremely foolish if the government were to tie the Indian Claims Commission bill to a general Indian policy. My reason for saying this is that there are many grievances which the Indian people have outstanding; they have taken, I think, the proper position and have insisted that their grievances be satisfied before they go on to other things. They, like us, are the victims of their own history. They have really no reason to trust the white man. I think we have an obligation to make proper restitution if restitution is necessary. All these grievances must be looked into and we must come up with a just settlement; otherwise how can they believe us?
6302	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
In my opinion the Indian Claims Commission has absolutely no relationship to a future Indian policy. It has a great deal to do with the abuses which the Indians have suffered over a period of time and it is very important that the government move quickly in this regard. I hope that when the minister meets with the National Indian Association next month he will be able 'to seriously discuss with them the terms of the bill, and that shortly after that meeting, should they concur, the bill will be presented to the house. I would oppose any attempt to hold back the bill on the ground of it not being integrated with an Indian policy for 100 years hence. This would be a travesty of justice and a misreading of the situation. I think the government has an obligation to press forward with this matter as soon as possible.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Finish what you were saying.


Erik Nielsen: Could I finish the sentence, Mr. Speaker? It the government does not wish to vote funds to provide counsel, at least it should instigate a policy under which someone will be present in court to advise Indian people what the proceedings are all about, before anyone is sent to jail.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying that the minister had some good things to say today, especially when he announced that in future less paternalism would be displayed towards our Indian population since Indians are now able to speak for themselves. Frankly, some of us would take the minister's statements more seriously if we had not heard similar statements so often in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, the present minister is the fifth minister to hold the Indian Affairs portfolio since 1963. Former ministers were, I think, Mr. Favreau, Mr. Nicholson, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) and the minister responsible for regional development (Mr. Marchand). I may not be entirely accurate about the ministers who held the portfolio; yet, I think all this minister's predecessors made a speech almost exactly the same as the one he made today. The Indians of Canada will believe in the government's good intentions when they see actions taking the place of words.
I did not think I would ever agree with anything the premier of Saskatchewan said, but I must confess I agree with his assertion made in the provincial legislature in Regina yesterday that, with respect to our Indians, we are sitting on a time bomb. The St. Regis Indians have blockaded the bridge crossing their reservation. There is trouble at the Pas where the Indians have been picketing a health centre because they believe the person running it is displaying discriminatory attitudes. Then, we have the disgrace of Akaitcho Hall, Yellowknife, where the students are living under conditions that would not be tolerated by any other student group in this country. There, students 19, 20 and 21 years of age, are being treated as second class citizens. They are not allowed out in the evening without a written pass. They cannot go from the hospital to the gymnasium in the school
DEBATES	6305
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians without obtaining a written pass and giving it back to their superiors when they return. They cannot smoke or drink, even where the law permits them to do so. In addition, they need a special permit to visit the old part of Yellowknife. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Other Indians live in the old part of town, and the students need special permission before going there. The minister has had sufficient time to investigate what is going on in Akaitcho Hall. The difficulties there continue because many in this country believe that Indians are not as good as the rest of us. When the minister allows the current situation there to continue, he helps to foster the kind of thinking prevalent among some sections of our community. No wonder our Indians are concerned about what is happening.
I am ashamed that a magistrate of my city who sees Indians in court every day, and deals with their alleged infractions of the law, saw fit to appear on the national television program the "Public Eye" and make the statement reported in a letter that Chief Courchene sent. According to the letter, Magistrate Rice said;
I have never come across a married Indian Couple... There is something in their blood, I don't know what it is but an Indian and alcohol just don't mix ... An Indian woman told me-I guess she was an Indian, I can't tell the difference between an Indian and a Metis-if abortions were allowed she would have to have an abortion every morning.
In view of statements like these, is it any wonder our Indians are becoming restless, that they are beginning to demonstrate and that we face the possibility of violence? I suggest that the time for talk is over and the time for action has arrived.
The fifth annual review of the Economic Council shows that the life expectancy of the average Indian woman in Canada is 25 years, compared with 64 years for the rest of our population. Most Indians in Canada enjoy incomes of less than $3,000 a year and half our Indians enjoy incomes below $2,000 a year. Many Indians in this country live in poverty, and not much help is being extended to them. All these facts are well known.
Although it is important for us to know of the activities of the Indian Claims Commission, it is more important for us to know whether the government will act to help our Indians. Will it eliminate or reduce the bureaucracy which has directed every facet of Indian life here for more than 100 years? Will it allow Indians to decide what is good
March 6, 1969
6306	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians for them and what programs ought to be introduced for their benefit?
The minister has been making all the right speeches. Although he insists that the reorganization of the department was only an internal, administration reorganization-I see he shakes his head in agreement-the Indians did not see it in that light. I have travelled extensively in this country and am aware of many Indian problems. I know Indian leaders in Manitoba, Alberta and in northwestern Ontario. Almost universally, they consider the reorganization of the department to be an attempt on the part of the bureaucracy within the department to grab more power.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the opinion of Indians with whom I have talked, the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is the pawn of the bureaucracy. They believe that the person who urged an extension of democracy for Indians and urged a policy whereby Indians would be given more and more say in deciding their destiny, was the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras). They believe that in the struggle for power which took place the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) opted for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and for a further extension of this bureaucracy. Since those charges were made last October, the minister has repeatedly said they were not true. It really does not matter what the minister or I say, Mr. Speaker, because the time for talking is rapidly disappearing. In the next month or two the minister must cut down on the bureaucracy and give the Indians more say with regard to their educational problems, welfare and economic development matters. Unless the minister does this, Indians and other people in Canada will know that bureaucracy has won again, as it has for more than one hundred years.
There is no use in just talking, the minister must act. This is not the first attempt to permit Indians to have more say in their own affairs. It is only a matter of three or four years since the cabinet, on the recommendation of a minister who I think was the best that department ever had-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


David Orlikow: -the late Hon. Guy Favreau -approved a bold new program. I could read statements made by Mr. Favreau and other representatives of the government at that time regarding the program of community development whereby people trained in

social work, anthropology and social science would be employed by the department to live with the Indians and determine their needs. We were told this would be the salvation of the Indian people of Canada. Where is that community development program? It is gone. It is dead. There are still a few community development officers, but the program is dead because once these officers put into words the desires and demands of the Indian people the bureaucracy in Ottawa said, these officers are trouble-makers and must go. The minister can say that is not true, but they went.
To demonstrate the truth of what I am saying, I want to quote from a letter written to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson on January 4, 1968 by the then President of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada. I will quote a few paragraphs of that letter to prove the points I have been making. I read from this letter:
For more than a year, the concern of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada over the low attainment and apparent decline of the government's community development program in Indian reserve communities has continued to mount.
It goes on to say:
Our own assessment of the gross under-achievement of this program has been reinforced by repeated appeals from Indian persons and community development personnel in the field, both federal and provincial, urging the I.E.A. to seek a thoroughgoing appraisal of the program and its revitalization.
The letter goes on to say:
We take this course believing that the present program of community development is subsiding towards failure. While there may be many contributing causes, such as the costly failure to co-ordinate the scattered federal resources now being expended on community development, the program's real problems seem rooted in inappropriate administrative and management structures and methods and inadequate resources.
It later states:
Piecemeal measures or the pouring of additional funds into existing structures and programs will not, in our opinion, reverse or significantly change present trends. These trends lead to increasing dependence on welfare, high incidence of conflict with the law, low levels of economic capability and serious family and social breakdown.
It later goes on to say:
To bring the energy and intelligence of the Indian people into the struggle for standards of life equal to that of most other citizens will require a substantially new approach.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there are some recommendations in the letter:
In summary, we recommend:
That the principal developmental functions now housed in the Indian Affairs Branch be invested
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
in an Indian Development Corporation as described in the attached report.
When the President of the Indian-Eskimo Association wrote that letter he suggested that the program of economic development should be a separate program. I continue reading from the letter:
This Indian Development Corporation would serve as an intermediary device through which services of federal and provincial agencies would be made available in a co-ordinated way to native communities in response to community initiatives stimulated by community development activity.
The letter further states:
That a task force be appointed and charged with conducting throughout Canada an immediate examination of the present community development program. The task force should hold intensive discussions with Indian communities and organizations, provincial authorities, community development personnel and others-
In addition to the appointment of a task force for Indian Affairs with particular reference to community development, we respectfully recommend an on-going series of discussions between federal and provincial ministers, including talks between the Prime Minister and provincial premiers, aimed at co-ordinating and adapting federal and provincial services and programs to fit the needs of Indian and Metis communities and persons.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Who wrote that letter? It was none other than the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who was not then a member of parliament but president of the Indian Eskimo Association. I submit everything in that letter written by him was true when it was written, and that basically nothing has changed. I submit that nothing the minister has said today, or any other day, has indicated that the department has any other intention but to continue to tell the Indians what they need to do if they are to get the help which they must have.
I want to suggest to the minister that if he wants to get a basic understanding of the problems of Indians he should look at the decision the United States Supreme Court made more than ten years ago. At that time the Court was asked to deal with the constitutionality of the laws in the American southern states which provided for what were called equal but separate schools. In other words, it was legal in the American south to have two school systems, one for the white young people and another for the black young people, so long as both provided the same kind and quality of education.
The United States Supreme Court brought down an historic decision. It said that even if
DEBATES	6307
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians the educational facilities provided for the Negro people of the southern states were equal in quality to those provided for the white people, and even if the same amount of money were spent for their education as for the education of the white people-that was not true, but even if it were true-their education would not be equal because they were segregated.
I think the minister would like to do the right thing. I suggest to him that until he and the government make up their minds that they have to ignore the recommendations of the top officials of the department, who will for the next 100 years, if we permit it, find reasons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired unless by unanimous consent he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


David Orlikow: I conclude by saying that the bureaucrats of the department will find reasons and excuses why the time will never be ripe to permit the Indians to become full fledged citizens able to manage their own affairs, able to make their own decisions, able not just to make the right decisions but, like the rest of us, to make the wrong decisions and to learn from them.
Until the minister realizes that, until he becomes the real director of the department, until he stops taking the day to day advice of his officials who have been wrong for 100 years and will be wrong for the next 100 years if we allow them, the problems of the Indian people-it is even wrong to talk about it in this way-the problems of a group of Canadians will never be solved.
I began by saying that the minister said some very good things, and I close by saying that we members of parliament, and more so the Indian people of Canada, have had enough of the fine speeches. What we want is some action.


Jean Marchand: (Kamloops-Cariboo):
Mr. Speaker, it is almost six o'clock. I wish to make a few remarks on this subject and I would like to have some continuity to them. Therefore, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 6, 1969
6308	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged, Denial of Rights of Native Indians



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Science Services- Ministerial responsibility for policy; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)- Regional Disparities; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-Mail Rate-Non-profit publications.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Howard):
That in the opinion of this House the government, in spite of successive admissions of its failure to deal adequately with the various social and economic problems confronting our native Indian people, is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks in this debate about the native peoples. I should also like to commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for introducing this motion. It is a good indication of the concern that all members of parliament have about the plight of the Indian peoples. I should say too that Canadians in all walks of life have never been more concerned about them. This is a good thing because, as has been generally known, the native peoples face some very great difficulties. The standard of living of too many of the Indian people in respect of income, health, housing, and other factors is much lower than is acceptable to the Canadian people. It would be useless, however, to dwell at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard),]
great length on all things that are wrong. I think many of the wrongs have been pointed out pretty adequately today by hon. members on both sides of the house.
The Minister of Indian Affairs, and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) gave an excellent address today. I think he presented a balanced picture of what the situation is today and what the government is trying to do to alleviate the conditions under which many of the Indian people are living. There are many, many good things the Indians are doing in addition to the many things that are wrong. I think the minister pointed this out as well in his remarks.
I should like to deal with a few of the remarks that were made today by some hon. members. The hon. member for Skeena referred to the problem as a fungus growth that is still growing and getting worse all the time, indicating that no progress has been made. I reject his suggestion that the Indian people are a fungus growth.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Then, why did you
not listen to what I said?


Len Marchand: I did. I know the hon. member did not mean that some of us are fungi, but nevertheless the inference is there.


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Len Marchand: It is a
ridiculous statement and I reject it. The department is dealing with Indians. I think the hon. member should perhaps consider his choice of words. Under any circumstances, I reject the statement.


Frank Howard: I rise on a matter of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. gentleman wants to be truthful and correct. He is not being so in this instance. I do not want to become involved in a dialogue with him about it. What I said was that when, in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation decided that Indians on the land reserved for Indians should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament they started a program of paternalism. It is that paternalism that is the fungus growth which is still growing. I reject any implication on the part of the hon. member that I said otherwise.


Len Marchand: I also reject the suggestion that we are not making any progress. Indians today are on the move as they have never been before. They are participating more and more in Canadian life
March 6, 1969

than they have ever done before. This is a good thing. We must participate as people in all aspects of Canadian life, economic, social and political. I should like to point out some examples of the progress the Indian people are making. These are not propaganda items from the Department of Indian affairs, as has been suggested by some hon. members. These are things the Indians are doing themselves. I have a clipping from the Financial Post dated August 10, 1968. The headline reads "Squamish Indians' enterprise transforms wasteland into profitable trailer park". The article goes on to say:
While some Indians across Canada are campaigning without much success for aboriginal land rights or seeking special concessions and compensation, Dan Baker, member of the council of the Squamish Indian tribe, has found that self-help and free enterprise can be far more satisfying-and profitable.
Dan, whose brother Simon is chief of the tribe, was inspired two years ago with what seemed at the time to be an almost impossible idea. The Squamish band for many years has held a strip of waterfront land facing Burrard Inlet, opposite Vancouver, some of which is now under lease to the municipalities of West Vancouver and North Vancouver.
At a point where the Capilano River, which rises in the North Shore mountains, meets tidewater near the Lions Gate bridge, there was a strip of timbered flat land undeveloped and apparently unwanted.
To Dan Baker the situation spelled opportunity. Wouldn't this be a wonderful location for a trailer park? The more he thought about it, the more he was impressed with the possibilities.
The land lies just across the Capilano River from the prestigious Park Royal area with its complex of high-rise apartments, shopping centres, specialty shops, theatres.
When Baker, with some encouragement from the federal Indian Affairs Department, made a modest start in clearing a part of the land for his trailer park, discriminating residents of West Vancouver, including members of the municipal council, were slightly aghast.
All that was several months ago. Today, it is obvious that Dan Baker's Capilano Mobile Park is an asset instead of any eyesore. Baker himself, his fellow tribe members and North Shore municipal officials are happy.
Because of the exacting standards set for intending residents-individual trailers cost from $8,000 to more than $20,000-the community has appealed only to people of means, many of them retired or semi-retired, who like the idea of living beside the river, in a dwelling free from the discomforts of apartment life and the inconvenience and high cost of maintaining conventional homes.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The land is leased by Baker and his partner, Roger Battryn, from the Capilano band on a three-year renewable permit, and the band receives 10 per cent of the gross revenue from the project, which represents a total investment of about $100,000.
2918C-4001
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians Occupants of the trailers, which are surrounded by carefully maintained lawns and park-like environment, pay $65 a month for parking. About 40 such homes occupy the ground now, with room for about 35 more.
In so far as education is concerned, more Indians are being educated than ever before, and more and more of them want to be educated. They want to be educated along with other Canadians, and this is being done.
I remember that when I went to university there were only three or four of us attending the University of British Columbia. That was in 1955. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are some sixty members of various Indian bands in British Columbia attending the University of British Columbia. I think this is progress. The hon. member for Skeena says that nothing is being done, that no progress is being made. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Indian people are on the move today as they have never been before.
I am not going to sing the praises of the government for its treatment of the Indian peoples. Successive governments have failed to do the job that was required of them. But I do not want always to dwell on the things that have been wrong in the past. We must address ourselves resolutely to the future.
I paid tribute in my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for giving the Indians the vote. This was one of the great decisions that the right hon. gentleman made during his time as Prime Minister. I also said, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to repeat, that more was done for the Indian people by the government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson than was done at any other time in our history. I would like to just list a few of those things to refresh the memories of hon. members on the other side.
Mr. Pearson's government announced a $112 million housing program. Loans from C.M.H.C. were made available for Indians to build houses on the reserves. An off-reserve housing program was introduced. I spoke to many, many Indians about this in various parts of the country, especially in British Columbia where this program was welcomed and has helped them a great deal to find a new life in the cities where other Canadians are living.
Federal spending in the years 1962-63 on Indian affairs was about $51 million. Federal spending in the years 1968-69 is almost $140 million. I think this is progress. I think it indicates the government's concern about the
March 6. 1969
6310	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians native peoples and its desire to do something to help them to help themselves. I agree with many hon. members who have said that the objective of all members must be to work for the minister of Indian affairs in order to see that he works himself out of a job. It is basically wrong that there should be a department of government devoted to a particular race of people.
I would welcome the abolition of the department of Indian affairs and the Indian Act. There should not be special status in Canada for any group of people. There should not have to be special laws saying that I am an Indian. We are all Canadians.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unrealistic that we should expect the Indian Act to be abolished right now. This is not the wish of the Indian people. The impression that I get from them is that they would like to see progressive options made available in the Indian Act until they can get on their feet, do many things for themselves and function as communities on the same basis as many other communities.
The hon. member for Skeena talked about consultations and meeting the wishes of the Indian people. At another point he said that the government should abolish the department of Indian affairs. I am not sure what he means, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this type of language. The minister of Indian Affairs made it pretty clear that we are consulting the Indian people as widely as possible on the changes that they want in the Indian Act. This is a good thing and I welcome it. Never before in history have such wide consultations been held to amend a portion of the Indian Act or the Indian Act in total. The Indian people have been very concerned that everything was coming from the top, being fed down to them and handed to them as a fait accompli. I am glad to say that this is no longer the case. I am confident that when the new policy on Indian Affairs is announced, the new act is introduced and the claims bill is introduced, the wishes of the Indian people will be reflected therein.
The hon. member for Skeena also quoted several figures in regard to average age at death, and in the same breath was talking about life expectancy. If the figures that the hon. member was using are true, I should be almost dead. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I still have a few years left.


David Lewis: If not, the average would be still lower.


Len Marchand: To
clarify the record, average age at death reflects the age at which a certain number of persons die. Life expectancy reflects the average number of years of life for those who are still living. For example, if one person of 80 and a one year old baby die, the average age at death is about 40. If an 80 year old person and two one year old twins die, the average age at death is roughly 27. To clarify the record further, Mr. Speaker, the life expectancy of Indian men is 59.61 years at birth; life expectancy of non-Indian men at birth is 63.35 years. Life expectancy of Indian women at birth is 63.23 years; life expectancy of nonIndian women at birth is 74.17.


David Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to ask him a question if he would not object.


Len Marchand: When I am finished. Statistics can often be misleading, and I am sorry to say that misleading statistics have often been used against the department of Indian affairs when it has been convenient for hon. members to suggest how bad things are. When the report on Indians and the law came out there was a story in one newspaper to the effect that 100 per cent of the women in the Kamloops jail were Indians. I was very alarmed at this statistic and I phoned Mr. Gus Godfriedson, an old friend in Kamloops, to ask what was going on and whether this was a true figure. He said, "Not that I am aware of. I know of one woman who has been in jail in Kamloops from time to time. If you call that 100 per cent, I guess the figure is correct."
With the best intentions in the world, members wound the Indian people when they use such figures. We are a proud people and there are many things that work against us. But most of them are not intentional, and we would hate to feel that they are.
As I have said before, the Indians have many accomplishments of which they can justly be proud. Most of us know that from time to time the department is a help. On the other hand, from time to time the department is not as helpful as we would like it to be. In our emotional moments many of us may blame the department for many things. But if we are to debate the future of the Indian people on an adequate basis, we will have to recognize that many things are being done by the Indian people. Many things are being done by various agencies of government, including the Indian Affairs branch. Still more things
March 6, 1969

remain to be done. But most Indian people today know that things are very different from what they were. Those who read the record of this debate will surely feel that members on all sides of the house want to do a better job for them.
et (8:20 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate very much the statement of the hon. member who spoke before me, but nevertheless we much understand that within his party the hon. member may feel a little too bound to defend party policy. Certainly he is right to rejoice over the fact that we now appear willing to give a final solution to the Indian problem.
But if we consider the present situation that was permitted to develop for many years, not to say centuries, we should wonder what will be the results of the new government policy. Why? Because the situation has become so serious that one wonders if it might not be too late for a solution.
I would now like to make a comparison between the fate of as important a minority as the French Canadians and that of the Canadian Indians. We French Canadians have been fighting since 1760 against complete assimilation, against the loss of our rights and prerogatives. We are in a position to understand the problems of a race doomed to extinction, judging by the views which have been prevailing for a long time in this government.
So I can well understand the Indian problem. The principle according to which everyone should be allowed to remain himself is so true and enriching in a country like Canada that every effort should have been made in the past to make sure that the Indians, the first and most important inhabitants of our country, remain themselves.
The government is now trying to correct the situation and if the Indians themselves believe that this will be successful, I am the first to be delighted about it.
I doubt it, but this day may have helped in finding a real and definite solution to the problem.
I would also like to speak about the problems of the Eskimos, especially those living in northern Quebec. Even if it is now possible to give them the means to be independent, we should not prevent them from leading a fuller
DEBATES	6311
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians and richer life. I know that, in Northern Quebec, the Eskimo Association carries out the contracts granted by the government in that region. So, if the Eskimos are ready to look after their own affairs, to invest their profits to their advantage in their own region, that could be a partial solution to the problem.
Consequently, foreign companies, and more particularly American companies, should not be allowed to take over the implementation of those contracts, to make profits and invest them in the States or in a country other than Canada, above all when Eskimos can run their business by themselves to their own profit. Apart from being an incentive for employment in those areas, the implementation of those contracts would enable the Eskimos to make money, as the Americans have always done. That would make them more independent, freer, for they would no longer have to make do with the welfare allowances that they get at the present time.
All those problems should therefore be considered in a very open way and we should not give with one hand what we take with the other. If we really want the Indians or the Eskimos to enrich our national heritage, we should let them have their own way and facilitate their self-determination, by all possible means.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a portion of the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That in the opinion of this house the government-
Then, I omit some words,
[DOT]-is following a course which threatens to perpetuate the denial of fundamental human rights and freedoms, to continue the destructive effects of paternalism, and to maintain discrimination based upon a cultural inheritance together with a general negation of human dignity and respect for our native people.
When I read the motion of the hon. member, it seemed to me that he was being unnecessarily pessimistic, negative and totally uninspiring. It did not sound like him. The hon. gentleman is from a riding neighbouring mine. I know that his interest in the Indian people is genuine, deep, and of every long standing. Listening to him tonight, I did not find that his language matched the slightly intemperate tone of the motion itself. I found him generally non-partisan, very fair for the
6312	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians most part and, again, speaking out of a considerable body of knowledge on a subject that has interested him for a long time.
He is one of the people in this house who took an interest in what has come to be called the Indian problem while numerous other Canadians, who at times now take a somewhat noisy interest in the matter, were quite silent and indifferent. If I start on a slightly critical note in reviewing what the hon. member for Skeena said, it is because I am leading up to a point. I should like to refer to one section of his remarks in which he was criticizing the booklet "Choosing a Path" which was distributed to the consultative groups as they met across Canada. The hon. member referred to the section which asked the Indians what they thought of the Indian liquor legislation. He went on to ask: Isn't this ridiculous? How many times have they been asked this question? Could they be blamed if they looked upon it as an insult to their intelligence?
Can we really say this, Mr. Speaker? It is true that they have been asked this question many times. It is true also that they have given many different answers. This does not apply only to Indians. The white people of Canada have, for many generations, asked this question about liquor control. They have given many different answers. They are continuing to give different answers.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In my own province of British Columbia, the provincial government has recently set up another royal commission to investigate the problem of drinking in the province. So, I do not really think that it is an insult to the intelligence of Indians to ask them the question once again, or if it is, it is at least no more insulting than referring the question to yet another royal commission on behalf of the white community. I am not bringing this up to niggle on a small point but to lead to a point which I think is important, and it is this: There is disagreement among the white community in this nation on many issues, and there is disagreement among the Indian community on many issues. It is a good thing that there is. Occasionally, during the course of this debate I have heard mention of this figure called "the Indian" as though every Indian in Canada were somehow merged into a single recognizable entity. This mythical figure we call "the Indian" expresses the unanimous collective thoughts of all the Indians in Canada. This is a false premise and as

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
long as we persist in it in our handling of the important matters of Indian administration, administration by Indians themselves or by the Indian department, we cannot be right. There is no such man as "the Indian" in Canada. Indians are people of immense variety, and there is no reason why they should not disagree. It is true that, for instance, in most of the provinces of Canada there is a single Indian organization. Speaking in terms of fairly large organizations, there are at least four different Indian organizations in British Columbia which have slightly different views on what the course of their people should be. Occasionally these organizations are viewed somewhat critically by the white community. They say: "Why don't you people combine? Why can't you speak for British Columbian Indians with a single voice?"
Some of the people who ask this question sit in this house where there happen to be four political parties, not one of which is in total agreement with any other party. If it is right for us, then it is also right for the Indian, and this leads us a little further. It leads to the question of consultation with the Indians. Let us, and let the minister, recognize the fact that we cannot consult with the Indians of Canada and get one, single, cohesive answer as to what they want. In fact, it is almost an insult to suggest that we can go to the Indians from one side of this nation to the other asking: "Tell us what you want" and assuming that they are all going to tell us the same thing, therefore, it is merely a matter of meeting their requests in greater or lesser degree. This is not to happen. There are great variations even within a single area in my own riding of Coast-Chilcotin. I made a rough calculation a short time ago and I found that there were over 30 reserves in my riding. Many of the people cannot converse with one another except through the medium of the English language because their own languages are of such a vastly different nature.
In the course of the consultation meetings, how many points of view have been put forward on how the Indians feel as to their role as citizens of Canada, citizens of the province, citizens of North America and citizens of what might be called a pan-Indian society? In each case there are at least four distinct views held by the Indians. I should like to quote one from a publication called the "Indian Magazine" which I am sure many hon. members who are interested in this subject
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
receive. Let us see what Chief Max Gros-Louis of Huron Village near Quebec city had to say:
X can't see the Indians belonging to the provinces, because there's going to be another separation among Indians. We are already separated by the United States. Now if we start separating by provinces, that's going to be the end of the Indian.
That is one man's view. The consultative group has heard from Indians who positively want to be citizens of the province in which they reside. They feel that this is of prime importance to them. They feel that in many provinces of Canada they are being deprived, in greater or lesser degree, of basic rights as provincial citizens. There is a third view among Indians which is that the international border is an artificial line; that it is one which should not apply to them and that the Indian society is not of the nation of Canada nor of the nation of the United States but is a loosely connected society of a single group based on a single culture whose home is North America. There is yet a fourth view held that within Canada the Indian people are not Canadians but are allies of the British Crown; that they are a nation separate within Canada and that their true connection is to the Royal House of Britain.
I am not going to suggest which of these views predominates amongst Indians. I have some ideas, but I do not know whether it is up to me to suggest them at this time. However, I would point out that every one of these views has some legitimacy and every one of them has some followers in Canada. Therefore, whenever I hear that any man, particularly a white man but also an Indian, claims that he knows what all the Indian people of Canada really want, my faith in his knowledge and judgment is diminished. I bring this point forward in connection with the delays in bringing forth the new Indian act and the legislation for an Indian claims commission.
There is one difference between the present administration of the Indian department and those which preceded it. I think it is that we are attempting consultation with the Indian. As the hon. member for Skeena said, we have always claimed we were consulting them, but did we really do it? I can quote a good friend of mine in this regard, Chief Dan George of the Burrard No. 3 reserve. I recall him saying once: "Oh yes, the white man is always coming around and he says to us 'what do you want' but he never waits for us to answer".
DEBATES	6313
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I hope that perhaps one time we will wait for the Indian to answer, and we will receive a multitude of replies. Those replies are going to come slowly but surely if we are committed to asking questions and waiting for answers. Then, we cannot arbitrarily say: "Sorry, you are too long in giving your answer. We do not have the time to wait. Here is the new Indian act, take it or leave it". Such a course would be a denial of the fundamental principle, as I understand the minister's remarks, underlying the policy that this department wishes to follow. There are a great many features in it, and I must pass over most of them. It would be ludicrous for me to attempt to review the situation of the Indian in Canada, either historically or at present.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would not pretend to criticize the record of Canadian white governments in their handling of Indian affairs but at the same time, though speaking from less experience because the period of my close association as a member of parliament has been briefer, I would not attempt to defend all the actions of the present Indian Affairs branch. Like the hon. member for Skeena I have the feeling that it is shot through with a very strong degree of paternalism, and this cannot be good; it must go. I certainly agree that the earlier the Indian Affairs branch can bring about conditions in which it is no longer required, the better it will be for the Indians. There is, however, a point on which I am not clear, though I listened carefully to the hon. member for Skeena in this respect. He was speaking of the Indian Act and it was not clear to me whether or not he was recommending that the Act be abolished. I would be delighted if he would interrupt me and tell me whether or not he advocates the abolition of the Indian Act.


Frank Howard: Yes.


Paul St. Pierre: I wish I could understand his position; I am sure he will answer me on some occasion. I cannot understand it, now. I, too, would like to see the Indian Act abolished but we must realize that we have certain obligations to the Indians of this country by treaty. Some of these treaties we have bent, and others we have broken. Then, as hon. members are aware, there are Indians in British Columbia with whom we have never signed treaties of any kind. Nevertheless, since we have signed treaties and assumed responsibilities to these people, how are these
March S, 1969
6314	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians responsibilities to be discharged except through an Indian Act-call it by another name, if you wish. I think the Indian people must themselves surrender these special rights voluntarily. We have no right unilaterally to push aside these agreements and wipe this legislation off the books. It seems to me that whether we call it an Indian Act or something else, we must keep legislation respecting the special rights of the Indian people on the law books of this country until and unless they themselves choose to ask that it be removed.


Frank Howard: Right again. Yes.


Paul St. Pierre: Am I to understand that the hon. member would be satisfied with a change in the name of the act?


Frank Howard: I would say, "no" to that one.


Paul St. Pierre: There is one other point I should like to raise, and I feel it involves a moral responsibility on the part of the white majority in this country. There are many Indians who wish to leave the reserves, move into white society and integrate completely, losing their Indian identity. This should be their right. Since in most cases they are disadvantaged people, I believe we have a duty to give them special help in this regard. But what of the Indians who wish to remain Indians, who wish to live on their reserves and lead the traditional lives of their people? Is this not also their right? Do they not have the right, if they choose, to continue to exist as a separate, non-integrated group in Canadian society? It seems to me that both by treaty and in terms of ordinary justice the Indians who choose to remain Indians have the right to do so. Does this necessarily place them in the position of being second class citizens? I believe that throughout most of our history this has been the effect. By choosing to live on the reserves, by choosing to retain the old ways, they have tended to become second class citizens. Surely, the Canadian nation can find some way of guaranteeing that these people can live different lives without obliging them to be poor for the most part, as they are, or poorly educated, or discriminated against in any real way because they are Indians.
Surely, out of our present examination of the Indian Act the most important thing we can bring forward is a recognition on the part of the government, on the part of civil servants and on the part of the ordinary people

of Canada that when we meet an Indian we are meeting a person, one individual. And there is every bit as much variety among people of Indian ancestry as there is among people of any other race.
Before I close, I should like to comment on one point made by the hon. member for Skeena. I should like to give my fullest support to his plea for the early setting up of an Indian claims commission. Let us not fool ourselves. The government of this country has neglected to sign treaties such as the Jay Treaty and Treaties 8 and 11 in the north. We have made treaties and broken them. We have failed to make treaties in British Columbia west of the rockies, and in other parts of the north with the Eskimos. This record of doubtful faith, and in some cases of bad and broken faith, is a festering sore in this country. Let us not delay any longer than is necessary before forming an Indian claims commission to review these old disagreements, to patch up old difference and to start us in the 1970s with some of the old hatred and bitterness wiped away. I thank the house for its attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Yewchuk: In the past several years, Mr. Speaker, certain changes have taken place in the attitude of Canadians toward the Indian population of this country. Public opinion has been aroused. It has been noticed, perhaps as a result of some publicity, that the Indian people are living in conditions which are not comparable with those experienced by non-Indian Canadians. There is an obvious disparity in their means of living in all aspects-a disparity in housing, in economic status, in opportunities for education, and in opportunities to seek the better things which this country has to offer.
As a result of this change in public opinion under the pressure which has been building during the past couple of years, the Indian affairs branch has decided to take a closer look at the Indian Act in its various aspects and to establish whether some of the difficulties which the Indian people experience today may not be correlated with certain aspects of this legislation. I think it is fair to say that public opinion has become aroused because our Indian population in general is becoming more educated. The more educated Indians have become outspoken and have brought their problems to the attention of the Canadian public.
March 6. 1969

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It might be said of the consultations that were begun last fall and completed in January that that was the first occasion on which Indians had the opportunity to meet a minister of the government and express their views to him directly, instead of letting him know their views through the medium of letters sent by mail. Those consultations led many Indians to believe that there is now hope for them to achieve a status enjoyed by the rest of the population. I had the pleasure of attending a couple of those consultations, one in Nanaimo and one in Edmonton, and was impressed by the fact that the complaints of Indians of different areas were very similar. They also expressed a common fear that the results of those consultations would not live up to their expectations. In other words they felt that, as too often in the past, they might be disappointed.
Speaking to the House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said on November 19, 1968, that Indians-
-must have the same degree of self-governing local institutions as other Canadians. They must have access to the same institutions and programs of government as other Canadians. They must have the opportunities to achieve for themselves their own aspirations.
That statement, at least, holds out hope to our Indians that their lives will improve. I hope the fear Indians have expressed that the consultations will come to nothing are unfounded.
It may be well to examine the most serious problems confronting our Indian peoples. The Indian Act, now being reassessed, generally speaking is too paternalistic and restrictive to allow our Indians to develop properly in our society. As other speakers have said, most Indians are poor, only 25 per cent of employed Indians making more than $2,000 a year. Average per capita income for Indians is $500 a year, compared with $2,500 for other Canadians.
What are the reasons for this disparity? First, because many of our Indians live in isolated communities, they have inadequate opportunities to become educated. Psychologically and sociologically, their education is often inadequate. Also, they do not attain skills necessary to earn a good living. This afternoon the minister said that hon. members should not criticize the government for past inactivity without making constructive
DEBATES	6315
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians suggestions for future programs. I have one or two suggestions for the employment of Indians. My suggestions do not apply to all Indians of this country, but mainly to those of northern Alberta. I am glad the Minister without Portfolio is here to listen to my remarks in this regard.
In the northwestern section of Alberta a new town to be known as Grande Cache will be built within the next couple of years, for the purpose of mining coal. It would seem logical that Indians living in the area should be trained and prepared for employment in the building of this town. They could then be employed in coal mining, once the town has been built up. Possibly such training and retraining may entail co-operation between the Departments of Indian Affairs, Manpower and Regional Development.
As I said a moment ago, lack of education has constituted a serious problem for Indians. The minister has said that Indians must have access to the same sorts of institutions that other Canadians have. May I point out that the community of Fort Chipewyan in the northern part of Alberta, with a population of about 1,500 people, has no high school. The population is largely Indian. How then can the minister say that those Indians should have access to institutions similar to those enjoyed by other Canadians when there is not even a high school for them to attend?
Because many Indians live in isolated areas lack of health services has become a problem. In the north, we have many fairly small settlements, few of which could support a physician. Most of them are serviced by public health nurses or by what are known as nursing stations. A couple of years ago a group of Australians had a song on the Hit Parade. They sang about some sort of flying doctor who was knocked out of the sky by a boomerang. The flying doctor idea is very good, I think. We ought to set up some sort of mobile medical air service to provide improved medical services for Indians in isolated areas. Although the nursing stations can handle many problems, a physicians' help is often invaluable. During my election campaign I visited seme of these northern areas with my campaign manager, who introduced me as a physician. It did not take long for me to be surrounded by people complaining of all sorts of illnesses. Eventually I told my manager not to introduce me as a doctor, because I could not look after the medical problems of these people anyway. I did not take my medical
6316	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians bag with me. The point is that by no stretch of the imagination does our Indian community have adequate health services.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) spoke about the problem of Indians and the law. He seemed rather upset by a statement of a previous speaker that all the inmates of one institution in Kamloops consisted of Indians, and refuted that statement. In my hand I hold the booklet entitled, "Indians and The Law" prepared by the Canadian Corrections Association, in August, 1967. Table VII on page 45 indicates that during April, 1966, of 11 females admitted to the Kamloops female section of the western provincial correctional institution, 11 were Indians and Metis. At that time, in that particular institution, 100 per cent of the inmates were Indian or Metis. I do not say this to criticize the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) for trying to minimize the problem Indians are having with the law. It is certainly a major problem.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think it is fair to say that in most western correctional institutions more than 50 per cent of the inmates are of Indian extraction. This would indicate there is something wrong with our laws which deal with Indians and their particular crimes. A recommendation in this report indicates that the people who prepared it are very concerned about the problem of Indians and the law. The recommendation, in part, reads as follows:
Provision of special services in magistrates and justices of the peace courts to ensure that Indian and Eskimo people understand and exercise their rights. At present, most do not understand the nature of the charge against them, the type of implication of plea they may enter, court procedures and terminology, the right to speak on their own behalf or to request legal counsel.
This is one area in which we as a society have failed miserably. We have not taken time to examine the problem sufficiently. Something must be done to prevent Indian and Metis people being sent to jail or prison simply because they do not understand their rights, the courts and how they can defend themselves. This situation must be corrected as soon as possible. Translation services, legal counsel and all facilities required to ensure that justice is properly carried out must be offered to Indian people when they appear in court to face charges of various types.
Indians in the province of Alberta feel they are being unjustly treated with regard to

DEBATES	March 6, 1969
mineral rights. I want to put this on record, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to Indians with whom I am familiar. Many Indian reserves are being explored for oil. Licences are being issued to exploration companies by the government without any consultation with the Indian people. Indians should be entitled to the same royalties as a white farmer. The farmer is able to negotiate an agreement by which he can profit from oil being removed from under his land. The same right does not apply to Indians or Metis living in Metis colonies. This matter must be investigated, and whatever injustice may exist must be corrected.
The problem of poverty is not easy to solve. It is fair to say that poverty has been with man since history was first recorded. Only time can tell if poverty will ever be completely eradicated. Possibly the largest contributing factor to poverty conditions among Indian and Metis people is the fact that they have extremely large families. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the average earning per capita of Indian and Metis people in Canada is approximately $500 a year. I do not have the exact figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, but I think that it is fair to say the average Indian or Metis family consists of five to ten children.
Trying to support five to ten children, send them to school, feed, clothe and provide them with shelter is almost an impossible task. A task of this magnitude would lead the head of a family to despair and discouragement. With the limited skill most of them have, even by working 24 hours a day he could not earn enough to support a family of that size.
In consultations with the Indians, I would suggest it might be appropriate to ask them if they would like to have family planning information distributed to their people. If they are interested, a vigorous program should be instituted. If not, I would suggest the matter be dropped.
I am anxiously awaiting the report of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) which he hopes to discuss at the next consultation meeting to be held in Ottawa. I hope that the Indian people will not be disappointed and that their expectations will be satisfied, at least in part. I hope also after these consultations1 these people will be made to feel they are part of our country, enjoy the same status as the rest of our citizens and1 can look forward to a great future.
March 6, 1969	COMMONS


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I would be remiss in commencing this speech, Mr. Speaker, if I did not congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) not only for the contribution which he has made to this debate, but the contribution so happily made to his family unit about a week ago.
One misconception regarding mineral rights on Indian reserves should be clarified. The hon. member suggested that Indians do not benefit from their mineral rights to the same extent as farmers. Mineral rights under reservations are the property of the band who own or occupy the reservation. They are approximately in the same position as farmers who own their mineral rights. This is a considerably better position than the bulk of the farmers who have surface rights only.
In participating in this debate, I do not present myself as any sort of an expert, although it has been my experience to have employed a large number of Indians on construction projects in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, to have participated with the Musqueam band of Vancouver in the development of their property, and to have enjoyed a more casual relationship with numerous prairie Indians.
The most significant lesson I have learned is that in speaking of Indians we are not considering a homogeneous group, identically motivated and moving as one at the same pace toward universally shared objectives. It should not be surprising that they are as diverse in their capacities, their orientations and their objectives as any other similar sized sampling of people.
The present statute enacted in 1951 contains some very strange provisions. I will refer to one of them. It is section 119:
o (9:10 p.m.)
An Indian child who
(a)	is expelled or suspended from school, or
(b)	refuses or fails to attend school regularly, shall be deemed to be a juvenile delinquent within the meaning of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
There we have it; no indictment, no trial, no judge, no jury, just a criminal record. However, in keeping with the non-partisan character of this debate I wish to report in fairness that when that section was enacted in 1951 no spokesman from any party-and all parties today represented in the house were represented then-objected to that section. Today it is a great commentary on the advance in our thinking that obviously no representative of any party in the house
DEBATES	6317
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians would permit a provision such as that to go forward without very serious challenge indeed.
It seems to me that in this approach to Indians as a unit, the fallacy in our entire policy of the past lies. The fatal flaw of our Indian legislation since its inception has been this idea of considering Indians as a unit, rather than people the same as the rest of us. We are fundamentally wrong when we try, in a particular piece of legislation, to deal with all Indians as though they were a homogenous group, because we attempt to identify an average Indian to whom we can relate the legislation when there is really no such thing.
Having done that, we compound the felony, motivated I am sure, by compassion rather than colonialism, by reducing that average Indian to some sort of lowest common denominator to be sure that we do not treat any unjustly in a material sense, and in the process we treat almost all Indians unjustly in the spiritual sense.
The philosophical dilemma is far from new. I will refer here to the House of Commons debates in 1880, volume 2 at page 1990 and 1991. On the one side of the debate Mr. White of East Hastings said in part:
We are making them believe that the country will support them, and putting them in a position in which they have no credit or standing in the community. We should no longer treat the Indians as children. Something should be done to put them in a position to make them know and feel that they were responsible to themselves and to the country.
On the other side of the debate, Sir John A. Macdonald said:
You cannot make an agriculturalist of the Indian. All we can hope for is to wean them, by slow degrees, from their nomadic habits, which have almost become an instinct, and by slow degrees absorb them or settle them on the land. Meantime they must be fairly protected.
That was in 1880. Today, almost 90 years later, the same points of view exist.
The fact remains that Indians are now what is fashionably called, "a visible minority". Policies carried on by governments since the first Indian Act was enacted by the United Provinces of Canada in 1865 have made them basically welfare cases. Because they are a visible minority they are visible welfare cases. There is a stigma to that status, and whether or not we are or should still be obsessed by the guilt that was expressed in the debates of 1880, it seems we must now redirect the legislation and the policy behind it. We must abandon paternalism no matter how
March 6, 1969
6318	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians strong the humanitarian impulse is to retain it. We must instead embrace social and economic integration as our objective, recognizing that a transition period of at least two generations will probably be needed to effect the policy in a substantial way.
Above all, we must orient our policy and the administration of it to individuals, to people, not to norms or averages, because when you deal with human beings there are really no norms or averages. The typical or average Indian is a fiction, a creation of administrative convenience. Continuation of the concept will invalidate any policy, however well conceived in its other dimensions.
I am heartened that even with the handicaps of the existing legislation the present minister and his department appear to have taken a human and a personal view towards the Indians, towards their responsibility. I have every confidence that in the new legislation coming before us as a result of the consultations that are going on today our policy for the Indians will be based on compassion and not paternalism, consultation not direction, and participation not dictation.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: however, to call this meeting. When I complimented the minister I meant it quite sincerely; but if this situation continues much longer I will have to take a different view of things. As I mentioned, I was very happy to see the conditions when I visited the far North on my last trip. I found that the native population was increasing and that the school population was increasing. I believe there were some 230 persons in a nice new school which was well heated and well lighted. The children there were happy. I believe the grades carried on through grade 6 and possibly grade 7. When speaking to the people I learned that they objected very strenuously to having to send their children one thousand miles away for ten months of the year in order to continue their education after grade 6 or grade 7. The only answer in this regard that I have had from the department is that it is necessary to educate these people where the employment opportunities are. Quite frankly, I disagree with this. I agree with the native parents who want to have their children at home for a few more years.
I believe the department should consider this very carefully. Home ties are no different when we are speaking about the native people than they are for anyone else. The mothers, fathers and children are no different than I, my family and my children. The minister has gone forward with great strength with, shall I say, the foundation laid by previous governments. I must mention this because everyone in Canada knows the roads to resources and northern development programs came about under a previous government. I say again by way of emphasis that I appreciate the way the present minister is carrying out his duty. I should like to remind him, however, of one or two things to which I take exception. I am not in a position to advise a minister, but if I might use the word "advise" I would say that if children are to be educated where the opportunities are he will find difficulty in bringing people from the Arctic Ocean 1,000 miles away. When a native person is 1,000 miles away he is not at home.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Perhaps there should be further development, particularly in respect of transportation, to open up these communities. That is all that is needed. Perhaps we might call it an "icebreaker" to open the Arctic. Others have used submarines, but I would add a word of caution there. I think that with the energy of the present minister this development to which I have referred will not be long in
DEBATES	6319
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians coming, and I say this in spite of the fact that I sometimes wonder about certain policies of the government. Frankly, 1 see no point in transporting 200 or 300 children a distance of 1,000 miles when they can stay in a comfortable, warm, well lighted school for 9 months in the year. I sincerely trust this development will take place in the north before these children graduate.
There are many other things I wanted to talk about, but by agreement I am cutting my remarks short. May I compliment the mover of the motion in the same way as I complimented the minister in my opening remarks. I trust that my few points will be noted because they are sincere and heartfelt. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I start by apologizing to any members on the other side whom I may have displaced in rising. May I also join many previous speakers in expressing appreciation at the high tone of the debate that has taken place today. This has been one of the more constructive debates it has been my pleasure to hear in this house. There have been 12 or 13 speakers in the debate this afternoon and this evening, every one of whom I believe has added something constructive to the review and to the considerations we must give in formulating a new policy. I do not think I can cover all of the highlights of the speech of each hon. member, but I will attempt to reply in general and to answer quickly one or two questions.
The immediately preceding speaker, known as "Weasel Horse", the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock), expressed concern at the delay in the national consultation meeting. In the interests of saving time, may I simply refer him to the remarks of my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) earlier today, and also assure the hon. member that we are giving consideration to the question of the number of representatives from Alberta. Some difficult problems are posed but we are going to be very open minded and do all we can to satisfy all concerned. I am sure that, with good will on all sides, a reasonable solution will be found.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), pointed out one rather agonizing section of the Indian Act which by itself, if for no other reason, indicates the great need for change. The hon. member referred to the Indian child who misses school occasionally
March 6. 198S
6320	COMMONS DEBATES
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians and is automatically labelled a juvenile delinquent without due process of law.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) had some worthwhile comments to make, though too many for me to refer to them all. He referred to the need for family planning. I was impressed by the way he put it, that we should ask the Indian people what they wanted, rather than in any sense imposing something upon them. He also referred to flying doctors. I think it is fairly well known that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has been negotiating with the Canadian Medical Association and with regional and provincial medical associations to see whether a voluntary roster system could be instituted that would bring better service to Indian communities in more remote areas.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) made reference to the various differences of opinion existing among Indian people from coast to coast. I hope to refer to his rather interesting comments later.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) made a very pertinent observation when he talked of the need for all of us to recognize the great progress that is being made by many Indian people. So often in watching television I am concerned that, while undeniably poverty among the Indian people is shown, and while unfortunately there is a high rate of alcoholism and a rising rate of crime among the Indian people, a balanced picture is not presented. The other side of the coin, is not shown indicating the great progress that has been made by more and more of our Indian people. I think it is important that we give a balanced picture, and certainly that was one of the many contributions the hon. member made in his remarks.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) made several constructive suggestions with which I cannot deal in detail. One of them was the thought-a thought that we are considering-that there should be established Indian development corporations; that there is a general need for decentralization and for economic development as a whole. I also join with the hon. member in expressing my distaste of what I saw on the television program "The Public Eye" to which he referred, when a rather prominent citizen made such a bigoted comment about Indians, their blood content, and their difficulties with alcohol. I think this program made all of us

who are at all sensitive to the situation cringe.
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and others referred to the need for a higher priority to be given by the government in meeting the problems of our native Indian people.
Hon. members will probably be surprised to hear me say that the motion that began this debate is a good one. I think the wording is appropriate and set the tone of the debate, which has stayed on a fairly high plane.
The corollary to this motion is for the government, I hope helped by the opposition, to not pursue a course, whether innocently, mistakenly or deliberately, that will meet the objectives and cause the results that are inherent in the words contained in the motion. We must, of course, remove and eliminate the destructive effects of paternalism by removing paternalism. We must eliminate discrimination, and discrimination there is in this country. In our course of action, we must restore human dignity, respect, pride and self-confidence to a group of people who have been alienated by many factors, not the least of which have been the policies of the past.
In his elaboration the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) went back-and this is what has impressed me most of all in this debate-to examine the basic assumptions upon which our policy should be founded. He questioned those basic assumptions in the comments or partial solutions that he offered.
Specifically the criticism that is inherent in the motion before us today is contained in an expression of cynicism as to whether the government is going to take action. All I would say about that is that personally I am absolutely convinced that it will not be very long before action is taken and that there will be a constructive change in policy. I appreciate the fact-and many people have made this point today-that it is no longer a time for sweet words and speeches; it is a time for action.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The other inherent criticism in the motion, referred to by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and others, was the delay in announcing policy. I, and I know my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other colleagues in the cabinet, are also impatient to take the necessary action and to move on this whole situation. When my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) discussed with me the assignment to work with them in identifying the problems and to recommend to them and the cabinet possible avenues for change, I felt it was necessary to charge out because, in the first place, one of the more specific matters to accomplish was the immediate revision of the Indian Act.
The first meeting which I attended, in Yellowknife last July, taught me very quickly that perhaps speed was required but haste was not a good idea. There were many aspects of this whole situation that had to be examined in depth after consultation with and listening to the views of Indian people. I think the real point is that we must move on a timetable that is acceptable to the Indian people. We must not try to meet some artificial deadline that might be suggested, and in the process fail to apply the wisdom that the situation needs after 300 years of neglect and incorrect policies.
I think it would be presumptuous of us as a government if, after seven months of consultation with Indian people across this country and an exchange of views such as we had in the consultations ending only four or five weeks ago, we had presented immediately to this house, the Indian people and the nation a package policy. If we had done that, I think it would have indicated to all concerned that we had made up our minds long ahead of time and were not really listening to the recommendations and points of view expressed during the 17 consultation meetings just ended. We had to have time and we must continue to take the time, to digest all the views and opinions expressed in the last eight months. I cannot see the wisdom or value to anybody in proceeding with a new policy without the input that is necessary from all these consultation meetings.
There has been criticism of the consultation meetings. I think the degree of criticism is in many ways far from justified. These meetings were far from perfect, but we should not go to the other side of the spectrum and say they were hopeless, useless or, as some have said, a facade. They were open meetings. It may have been specifically said that the purpose of the consultation meetings was simply to examine the proposed revisions of the Indian Act. But from the very first meeting, and in every subsequent meeting, there was no attempt on anybody's part, whether he was a minister or not, to suppress any point of view expressed about any matter bothering the Indian delegates who attended.
DEBATES	6321
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
These meetings covered the whole range of local problems, regional problems, national problems, the Indian's suspicion of government, their cynicism, treaty rights' and aboriginal rights; in fact, the whole gamut and range of frustrations and grievances that has built up over the centuries in respect of the non-Indian, Indian relationship. So, there was no suppression. Although these meetings may not have reached all the objectives we might have had in mind, I think it was a very valuable exercise and within a short time there will be in the policies that will be announced some indication of the value that came from those meetings.
As most hon. members know, there were 17 meetings. I believe all but one of them was attended by a minister, either my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or myself. Of the 17 meetings I know my colleague was at eight, and I was at ten. There was only one, in Prince George, which we regret we did not attend. This was due to circumstances which arose very suddenly and could not be avoided.
There are in this country 558 Indian bands, and in those 17 consultation meetings 530 were represented. I think that is a pretty good representation. This brings to mind one of the problems we face and with which we must deal. We must have understanding in this respect, and perhaps some adjustment from the Indian people themselves. The hon. member for Kcnora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) referred to the fact that Indian people do not view representation, the delegation of authority and the appointment of spokesmen, in the same manner as non-Indians. I have learned during the last few months that there is a tendency in the Indian community to seek consensus and unanimity. Often no one person is designated as the spokesman for a group of people. Often at these consultation meetings an Indian delegate would rise right at the beginning, to make it clear, and say: I speak for myself. In their gentle, effusive and humble way they would indicate that they were not taking unto themselves the authority to speak on behalf of other people.
There were many things wrong with the consultation meetings. There was insufficient opportunity for the Indians to consult amongst themselves beforehand, I think we have learned a great deal from that. At the same time, I think it was an exercise in consultation the like of which has never before been conducted by any government with any group of people in this country.
March 6, 1969
6322	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
We are embarking upon new policies. New policies will succeed, obviously, only if we insist in seeking the right answers with clarity and consistency in both the definition of the objectives we are seeking and the selection of the means of realizing them. In this process we must all ask ourselves certain basic, fundamental questions. Then, we have to try and answer those questions. Hopefully, from the questions and the answers will come enlightened policy. Some of these questions are: In what way are Indians excluded from our society? In what ways have they been disadvantaged? How did they come to be that way? What obstacles stand in the way of their achieving equal citizenship and full participation? Then the obvious question is: What actions and measures can be expected to overcome these obstacles?
I think in answering these questions it is important to examine the jurisdictional, legal, administrative, social and economic factors which shape the present status of Indian people and native peoples in our society. We must look at the special legal status of these people. We must recognize and consider the poverty aspects involved, their alienation, cynicism, mistrust of government and obvious isolation from the larger society.
The hon. member for Skeena referred this afternoon to the supposed basis for federal government acceptance of responsibility in this field. He referred to section 91, paragraph 24, of the British North America Act, which assigns the making of laws, of legislation respecting "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" to the jurisdiction of the federal government. I do not know that this, to the exclusion of change, means that it has to be totally, utterly and exclusively the responsibility of the federal government and under its jurisdiction.
Anyway, on that assumption many years ago, and as a consequence, the Indian Act was passed, an administrative structure was created and special policies were developed for this particular ethnic group. Further, the federal government became involved in the provision of a complex set of services for Indians which other Canadians receive from provincial and local governments.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The basic source for defining the policy of the federal government has been the Indian Act. As hon. members know, it is a comprehensive act which defines who shall be considered an Indian and how one can give up
[Mr. Andras.l

Indian status. In so doing, it establishes a special legal category defining certain rights and imposing certain restrictions. It contains provisions1 dealing with the reserve system, a system of local government, and special sections relating to taxation, liquor, inheritance and education. Although the federal administrative structure, the department of Indian affairs, stems from the Indian Act, a growing number of important departmental programs are marginal or peripheral to the Indian Act: welfare, health, community development, economic development, manpower programs etc.
This has been referred to before as well today, and I will bring it up again. The fact is that the treaties signed with Indians add another dimension to Indian-government relations. Almost all Indians express strong resentment at the failure of the government to honour and fulfill treaty and other obligations and promises. The most important of these pertain to hunting, fishing and trapping, and to the provision of land.
Hon. members have made reference today to the fact that most social and economic indicators show that the majority of Indians live in sub-marginal conditions and that relative to the rest of the population the gap in income levels, health care, educational achievements and occupational skills, while improving, is actually growing wider between the Indians and the non-Indian society. There is a significant factor explaining poverty among native peoples in Indian communities, and that is their geographical dispersion and, in many cases, the remoteness of native communities. In addition, their limited mobility has contributed to making employment and participation in the economy difficult. As a consequence, Indians have been isolated and excluded from the larger society, and the exercise of their basic human rights is seriously restricted.
We have to recognize also that cultural barriers and the insensitivity of the non-Indian society to the heritage and values of Indian life have played and continue to play a major role in excluding native peoples from the mainstream of Canadian life.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired, unless there is unanimous agreement to let the minister continue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would like to give the minister additional time. Perhaps before it is
March 6. 1969

ten o'clock I might also indicate we believe there is general agreement to allow the house to sit an extra hour tonight so that two or three more members might take part in this important debate. I mention it now so that in case there is not unanimous consent we could do it by way of a motion. However, perhaps there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement for the house to sit until eleven o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. I believe the order should include a reference to the adjournment proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They can be deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to thank the hon. members for their courtesy in letting me go over my time. I was wound up, and I had no idea the clock was moving that quickly.
I was commenting on the fact that I think we also have to take into consideration, in the evolution of the new policy, the fact that there is an insensitivity of the non-Indian society to the values of Indian life and that this has been a factor in excluding Indians from the mainstream. These barriers are most easily observed at two crucial points. If they could be overcome we could go a long way to correcting the situation.
These two points are where Indians come into contact with our industrial society, in educational institutions and in the labour market. Many native students enter the school system with obviously different cultural orientations and often limited or no knowledge of English or French. The educational process, one of the major instruments of socialization in any society, proves to be for the majority of Indians a maladaptive experience. In terms of getting a job, in many ways the traditional Indian way of life has not prepared the individual for occupational roles in the Canadian labour market. The new demands that they have to face-and so often they face them with a lack of understanding on the part of the people with whom they are mixing-are hard to adapt to and frequently force the Indian person into accepting sporadic, low skill employment instead of a career oriented occupational role.
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
I believe, and I know my colleague joins me, that in the past Indians have not been adequately consulted nor has their point of view been sufficiently considered in the formulation of policy and the application of programs affecting their lives. Regardless of the type of program, such paternalism and noninvolvement only encourages apathy and reduces the effectiveness of any measure because there is a resulting lack of acceptance.
This is a brief expose of the tangled web of jurisdictions, constitutional problems and contradictory objectives. That web must be untangled. I doubt there is any one single group of actions that will provide instant solutions to the deep social problem that we face with regard to our native people. However, one fact is clear. There must be change, and change there will be. Again I congratulate the hon. member for Skeena and I agree with him that in order to provide meaningful change we must go back to the basic assumptions.
The alternatives'-and I just throw these out without commitment because, as hon. members know, we are not in a position to delineate or define our policy-will obviously range from a tremendous increase in the existing structure with more budget applied to it and more people to do more of those kind of things on the one hand, to an alternative similar to the one implied by the hon. member for Skeena, or perhaps some alternatives in between these two. But whatever decision is made as to the basic objective, we must be very careful in analysing, and seeing with all the wisdom that we possess, the consequences that will flow once we have identified the objective we want to pursue. Whatever that solution will be, it must take into account the fact of the poverty among the Indian people. It must given consideration to treaties and rights and the views and attitudes of Indians toward treaties and rights. It must take into consideration and counteract the deeply rooted alienation that exists among the Indian people.
The other point which we must take into account and which has been mentioned by many hon. members is that because of the diversity of opinions and diversity of problems-which incidentally are similar to those found in almost any comparable sized group in Canada, whatever their origin or their racial background-we must be very flexible in our solutions. I do not think we can have one single approach to this.
March 6- 19S9
6324	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians
In conclusion, let me say with all the conviction I can that whatever the solution may be it cannot be unilaterally imposed upon the Indian people. We must take every precaution to ensure that there is consultation and joint effort of the Indian people and the governmental people, whatever level of government is involved. There must be consultation every step of the way. We are fortunate now, as perhaps we would never have been five, ten or fifteen years ago, to recognize that there is great Indian leadership emerging in the Indian community. It is coming from the youth, but all the Indian people are awakening, and through consultation, through their own efforts, through conversations, they are becoming aware of the disparities between their lives and those of the rest of Canadian society. And they want to do something about them. We do have time to make meaningful changes and move along with them. I am encouraged by this debate to feel that this approach will be a non-partisan approach and I think, this, plus all the actions which have been taken by government, will yield solutions which will at least start us along the right path.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: I think the step taken by the house a few minutes ago in extending this debate is a measure of the concern which is felt about this subject by members in all parts of the house. I am pleased that the debate was extended in order to provide further opportunity for discussion of this important matter.
I wish to say also that I listened with great interest to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). I think he demonstrated an understanding in depth of the problems with which we are grappling in this area. I express the hope tonight that the understanding he demonstrated will be translated into legislative action and government programs and also that these will be followed by adequate implementation. Certainly, such measures will have the full support of members in this quarter of the house.
I think there is no denying that in the past there has been a significant shortfall as between plans and programs with respect to Indians and the achievements which have resulted from them. The same applies to programs and plans with respect to our Eskimo population. I could go into a lengthy analysis of this aspect, but whatever the reasons I


think this failure must also be taken into account when we are considering future programs and policies. It is a sad thing for Canadians that this house should find itself today in a position where the social and economic situation of a group of people identified by their race has deteriorated to the point at which some hon. members have found it necessary to draw special attention to it by way of the motion now before us. It is a fact that the situation of the Indian people in Canada today is a national disgrace. The problems faced by Indians were underlined forcibly by the Economic Council in its most recent annual report. As set out on page 121 the Council stated:
No discussion of poverty in Canada can avoid making special reference to the Indian, Eskimo and Metis members of our society. A few simple statistics tell a brutal story. One is that the average life expectancy of an Indian woman in Canada is 25 years. Another is that the infant mortality rate among Eskimos is about 293 deaths per thousand live births, more than ten times the infant death rate for the population as a whole.
These are not my figures; these are the figures of the Economic Council of Canada which is certainly a reputable organization with the necessary technical skills to produce accurate figures.
I might also draw attention to what is contained in a brief prepared for submission to the national Indian advisory board some three years ago. This is a statement by the Indian affairs branch submitted to the federal-provincial conference on poverty. It dealt with the health of the Indian people and we find that the average age at death of Indian males in 1963 was 33.31 years, and of Indian females, 34.71 years. The document goes on to tell us that the national average ages at death in 1963 were 60.5 for males and 64.1 for females. I might also draw attention to the summary of conclusions reached by the Economic Council, because I think these words are worth putting on record. The council recognized it did not have full capability to cover this field completely through its own operations but, it drew on the experience of many organizations which have given much study to this question.
On this basis, the council came to some conclusions to be drawn in connection with the problems we have been discussing tonight. The Economic Council's report reads, on page 123:
(1)	Indians and Eskimos are treated too much as a special group in ways which exclude them from many of the ordinary provisions of public policy-
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
(2)	Particular efforts will be required to help those Indians, Eskimos, and Metis who are striving to integrate themselves into the larger society-
(3)	A third major area of consensus is the need for a "community development" approach to the problems of education, individual development, adaptation to the larger environment, and community organization-*
(4)	It is clear that however much can be done to develop economic activity on reservations and in other places where significant groups of native peoples live, a continuing substantial migration to urban areas must be expected, notably in Western Canada-
(5)	It would also appear useful to initiate an immediate study of federal and provincial legislation and administration practices affecting native peoples.
As has been noted, the standard of debate has been high. We must compliment the hon. member for Skeena for his part in it. He is a recognized authority on matters we have been discussing tonight. I think, nevertheless, it is clear that a common dialogue is developing on this matter. We have had fine speeches this afternoon and this evening but, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) said, we need action, not words. We must be careful to define what we mean by action. It is not just a case of spending money or of invoking special programs for this group. It is not just doing things for our Indian, Eskimo and Metis peoples. Our actions involve an intricate, subtle and highly complex process of interaction and development. The federal government is the agency on the spot, holding the ball. In developing its policies it must take into account the history of the conflict of white and Indian peoples, the history of the established branch of government dealing with Indians; its traditions, patterns of operation and so on, as well as the fact that there is segregation in many parts of Canada. The Government must also consider the many economic and social changes taking place in our society.
We cannot blame the federal government as such for our past history in this regard. It is a millstone which must be borne by all in Canada. The federal government has a basic constitutional responsibility to deal with these problems and, in reality, the provinces must also enter the picture.
Why did the hon. member for Skeena introduce the motion before the house, Mr. Speaker? The purpose is not to go over past history. We need to figure out where we are going. We must formulate policies that will lead to advances in this field. We need to avoid the fallacy of just measuring advances on their own merits. It is not a question of whether more people are receiving specified
DEBATES	6325
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians levels of education. The question is whether these advances are keeping pace with the change in times. The problem does not involve money alone. A great deal of money is being spent, and is bringing about great improvements in certain aspects of our population. The question we must ask ourselves is, are we doing an adequate job. Are we serving the short run and long run aspirations of our Indian peoples?
Obviously, many members of the department concerned are competent, dedicated, and are trying to do a good job. But they operate within an institutional framework which stifles any efforts towards fundamental change. The motion has been brought before the house because many of us feel disturbed about what has been happening during the past year. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of his party raised the expectation of our Indians when they said the Indian Act would be reviewed and that consultations might take place. Preparations for these consultations were undertaken and a booklet containing 34 questions was prepared. Incidentally, I believe all these questions were prepared for the department by the Indian Advisory Board. As I understand the situation, this is true. All the questions which were placed before the consultation meetings did originate with the particular body, but I would like to know if all the questions requested by the Indian advisory group were included. My information is that they were not, and that some of the exclusions made a significant difference. The approach to these questions was disturbing because it involved a detailed examination. The approach involved simply making revisions and slight changes to the status quo. Consultations were held with varying degrees of success. I want to commend the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) for his effective and very hard work in this regard. He assured the Indian people no changes would be made in matters affecting them without adequate consultations. I fully believe the minister said this in good faith.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Late last fall the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) announced an administrative reorganization. It became obvious there had been no consultation. Protests were made by representatives of Indian organizations. The Minister without Portfolio was put on the spot. He made some rather strong public statements regarding the government and what had happened. I will not at this point say whether he used the best
March 6. 1969
6326	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians possible judgment with regard to the specific words he used, but nevertheless the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development replied once more that these were only administrative changes. It became obvious from sources such as the press that the minister was called on the carpet. Eventually, there was an announcement that the lines of authority were clear, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in charge and would be the one to decide what changes would be made to the Indian Act.
I suggest this was more than an administrative change announced by the minister. It involved community development programs. There was a reshuffling of the administrative structure. As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) previous to that the Indian-Eskimo Association had requested that community development programs be turned over to Indian people and Indian organizations. This is a policy matter and would be a fundamental break with the past. There are responsible Indian organizations in Canada today, with capable leaders, who have a rapidly developing capacity. I suggest the first step which should be taken should be to give these organizations the opportunity to manage programs of this sort and to make decisions on these programs. The fundamental principle involved is that of selfdetermination. With respect to the Indian Act, there is a possible question of semantics involved.
There is no suggestion that treaty, legal and moral obligations made by Canada in the past must be honoured. This must be provided in the legislative framework, under whatever name the particular legislative measure might assume. A fundamental change in approach is needed and the paternalism evident in the past must be dropped. There appears to be more support for this view in all corners of this house. We need to make sure that self-determination is made possible for people of Indian ancestry. This could lead to various patterns in programs and activity. It does not mean that all Indian people will lead the same sort of lives. Involved with this principle of self-determination is the fact that people can live the type of lives they want. This is a fundamental principle to recognize. Furthermore, we need to remove the legal disabilities under which Indian people have to live at the present time.
The fundamental points we have to keep in mind are, first, it must be recognized that Indian people have the right of self-determination. The implications of this principle are


that not only does it give Indian people the full right of integration into the community and society as we know it, but also that it gives them the right to live as they wish to live. The right to make their own decision must be recognized.
Second, we must recognize commitments made by Canada as a nation to Indian people. This involves full recognition of commitments regarding land, health and other services. These rights need to be honoured as long as the Indian people collectively or individually wish to retain them.
Third, we need to get away from the centralized control of administration which has for too long featured our Indian affairs programs. Many hon. members will be aware of some of the incredible stories involved in the centralized control and bureaucracy which Indian people encounter at every turn and in almost every day of their lives.
Fourth, we need to ensure that there is integration with the community at large. For too long and under too many jurisdictions, the basic approach has been one of having special programs designed for Indian and Eskimo people. In some instances this cannot be changed overnight, but certainly we do need to adopt a fundamentally new approach.
In my own province of Saskatchewan, there are some 40,000 people of Indian ancestry who are regarded as treaty Indians. There are nearly 40,000 others of mixed ancestry, some of them referred to as Indian people and some as Metis people. There are eight Indian reserves in my own constituency, and a large number of Indians living in the city of Kegina. In the past, they lived largely on
In some parts of the province there are still treaty obligations which have not been honoured. In southern Saskatchwam the reserves are largely on agricultural land. The people have lived in a basically rural atmosphere which provided a fairly stable form of existence for some years. The economic instability of the 1930's and the 1940's the political instability and in fact some of the social upheavals of this' period, produced great changes. From that time on it became increasingly difficult for people of Indian ancestry to cope with the problems they encountered.
On our reserves we have agricultural land that has not been developed. I can cite many instances and examples where this could be considered to be solely due to the smothering paternalism that has been a feature of public policy in the past. Much of this land is rented
March 6, 1969

out to people off the reserves who have made arrangements with the Indian affairs branch, and with very little consultation with the Indian people themselves. They are the ones who are now using this land.
It is true that some development projects have been carried out. There are a couple of projects in my own constituency at the present time involving community pastures on the Muskowekwan and Gordon Indian reserves. I have some details which I obtained from the government on this matter and I find that Indian people do not have the necessary resources to make full use of this pasture at the present time. Indians will be given first claim to the use of this pasture, but the answer to my question also stated that Indians do not now have sufficient cattle to fully stock the pastures and so the remaining capacity will be made available to people of non-Indian ancestry. What will happen to Indian people when they do wish and are able to make use of these community pastures? These facilities will then be used under contractual arrangements made with people outside the Indian reserve. It is also clear that these pastures will be managed by other than Indian people. They will be managed by government departments and agencies. Again, I say this is the type of thing that is still going on for which there is no need. This is another reason we felt we had to bring this motion before the house.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In conclusion, therefore, I suggest that we do need fundamental changes in our approach to the Indian Act. A meaningful program involving a new approach of self-determination for the Indian people should be started now. Tonight we are not dealing with personalities, but we are dealing with the welfare of people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to conclude my remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there general
agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: If the achievement in the future falls short of the objective, I believe the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must examine all aspects of the situation fully. I have been very closely involved in Indian matters and matters of
DEBATES	6327
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians concern to the Indian people. I sincerely hope effective action will be taken to deal with these problems in the very near future.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening. I should like to express my appreciation to the members of the house for extending the sitting. I am sure members will excuse me if I do not make any preliminary remarks because I should like to raise one particular issue. I know there are other speakers who wish to follow. Before I get into that issue, however, I should like to say I believe what the Indian people are saying to us today is that in their view the basic policy objective must be full and equal citizenship. There are many obstacles in the path to that objective. The one to which I should like to draw the attention of the members this evening has already been mentioned. It is the role of the provinces in assisting Indians to lead contemporary lives as Canadian citizens.
I think one of the most serious obstacles of all to a contemporary life for Indians is our misconception of the role of the province; that is, it is commonly thought Indians are the sole responsibility of the federal government. This misconception of the direct role and responsibility of the province is shown by governments themselves, by most Indian people and by the general public. It results in a special intense relationship of the Indian people with the federal government and a severely attenuated relationship with the provinces. This I think is an indefensible and discriminatory arrangement which denies equality, is a bar to integration and, I believe, is without foundation in the constitution. It results from historical reasons and is reinforced by current political pressures on the federal government to do more. The more Ottawa does-and I am one of those who thinks it should do a great deal more-the more it tends to lock Indian citizens into an unequal and separate existence.
My argument is that this unacceptable division of federal-provincial functions is neither required nor justified by the constitution or by Indian treaties. It should neither be tolerated by Indians nor by the general public. A more complete statement of the legal basis of the argument than I can give can be found in the Hawthorn-Tremblay report of 1960 and particularly the writings of Dr. Kenneth Lysyk of the Faculty of Law of the University of British Columbia. When one looks at the constitution one finds there is no doubt at all
March 6. 1969
6328	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians that under the British North America Act, section 91 paragraph 24, it is the federal parliament that has the exclusive authority to legislate for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. It should be noted that this section does not read "Indians on lands reserved for Indians" but by its wording indicates that parliament may legislate for Indians whether reserve based or not, as well as for lands reserved for Indians.
I want to discuss in the short time available Indians only, since Indian lands are in a different and special category, being singled out in a way that health, education and other matters are not singled out. It has been forcefully argued, and I think correctly, that whereas the provinces cannot legislate specifically for Indians as such, there is nothing in the constitution that says that provincial laws of general application-for example, in the field of health which is normally a provincial responsibility-should not apply to Indian persons as to all other provincial residents. It is only that kind of legislation that is clearly for Indians that is reserved to Ottawa. When the federal parliament legislates specifically for Indians, it can and does intrude on fields normally reserved for the provinces, though at the expense of perpetuating a specialized monopoly of services to a separated class of Canadians identified on ethnic and cultural grounds.
Even in this latter case, when the federal government does legislate it is not mandatory for it to do so; it is simply permissive for it to legislate in order to implement federal policies in Indian affairs. The Indian Act and its regulations is such a piece of federal legislation which only the federal government can pass under the constitution, since it is directed specifically and only to Indians as defined under the act. A province could not pass an Indian Act, but the general laws of a province and its programs and policies can none the less apply to Indians in the province within limits.
Therefore, I think it is important to question where those limits lie and how flexible and responsive they can be to Indian needs. It is important to an Indian future for Indians to determine to what extent it would be in their interest to alter the federal-provincial balance or to mix it. This federal-provincial balance may be altered, for example, more in the direction of the province, as is happening in several provinces under Indian pressure, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Some significant flexibility does appear available so far as the constitution is concerned, except in respect of Indian lands. This is an exclusive federal responsibility. Firm limitations on provincial legislative competence do exist, however, in two sources other than in the constitution. These are found in the treaties and the Indian Act. An example of the conflict of provincial law with treaty provisions is found in the fact that the provincial game laws do not apply. Nor are provincial laws applicable if they conflict with the Indian Act or its regulations; that is, whenever the federal parliament has already occupied a given field with Indian legislation.
These limitations on provincial competence are thus significant, but they relate largely to the extent to which the federal government has already occupied a field which might already be under provincial jurisdiction by devising its own Indian policy in that field. Therefore, in many cases, except with respect to treaty provisions, the removal of some of the limitations on provincial legislative competence rests with the federal government by way of change in the Indian Act. Perhaps, therefore, new options will become available to Indians and governments as a result of current consultations with the Indians with respect to amendments to the Indian Act.
When a consensus is reached on changes in the act, it may well be-and I suspect this will be the case-that substantially greater automomy will devolve upon Indian band governments. They may then choose, under the less confining provisions of a revised Indian Act, to relate themselves more directly to provincial laws and services. They may gradually relinquish or modify the special services provided exclusively by the federal government.
Indians will properly ask whether a shift in federal-provincial patterns of responsibility can take place to their advantage without adversely affecting rights that they regard as theirs. I believe the answer is yes. They will ask whether the federal constitutional responsibility would thereby be reduced. I believe the answer is no; there would be no change.
s (10:30 p.m.)
At this point I would like to say two things, Mr. Speaker. I think, first, the federal government can be faulted for a failing to clarify the true constitutional position to the public and to conduct intensive discussions of the problems and options with Indians and the provinces. In the absence of consultation,
March 6. 1969

Indian communities are left vaguely uneasy about changes they find it difficult to discern. If I had had time earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would have stressed the very important role of a task force in developing a new consensus and a new policy orientation.
I would refer again to the need, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) reminded us this afternoon, of high level federal-provincial conferences to activate, with Indian consent, the unfulfilled responsibilities of the provinces. In addition, I think it was never more important than now to clarify Indian rights under treaties, and aboriginal rights where there are no treaties, for example with respect to hunting and fishing rights and with respect to claims to title or interest in lands. It is essential to restore rights that have been abridged, and to meet obligations that have been unfulfilled.
The time is overdue for settling outstanding claims, whether aboriginal or treaty, through either direct negotiation, which has much to commend it, through development of agreements or a claims commission, with compensation where appropriate. It seems to me, moreover, that if the consultative process is to be comprehensive, flexible and genuine, the question of how to settle past grievances and claims, including the technique of the proposed claims commission, should be part of that consultation process, since only by consultation on these methods can the claims and needs of the future be related to the claims of the past. Only in this way, I think, can a developmental momentum be generated and maintained.
Consultation concerning treaty rights should be part of the discussions concerning the role of the provinces, and both should be part of the consultations concerning development programs for a new future. I am stressing that the consultation process must be comprehensive if all of the options open to Indians1 and government are to be usefully examined.
I think it is fair to conclude that the federal government, with Indian consent, has considerable freedom to determine the kind and scope of responsibilities it will assume under the grant of constitutional power in section 91 of the British North America Act and under the resulting Indian Act. It is evident, I think, that only if the provinces, under Indian and public pressures, change their attitude and expand their legitimate functions will it be possible to talk of successful participation
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians by Indian citizens in contemporary Canadian life at all levels.
Reserve communities should not remain federal islands within provincial boundaries, frustrating a people in search of equality through development. If and when a province extends its general programs and services to Indian residents, whether on or off reserves, it does not assume a responsibility that constitutionally belongs to another government and consequently should not be paid for doing so. It is simply fulfilling its own responsibilities. No doubt a case can be made for cost-sharing on historical grounds or grounds other than constitutional.
It seems possible to resolve the question of a more federal-provincial mix of functions and services on utilitarian grounds, because treaty and constitutional barriers are slight. The particular mix in any given case at any given time is a matter of policy and agreement, not a matter of the constitution. The choice in altering the governmental balance lies largely with the Indian people.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members here for agreeing to extend this sitting tonight so that those of us who wanted to say something about the Indian people of Canada would have the opportunity of doing so.
At the outset, I would like to say something about the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras). I think that as a result of the approach of both these ministers to Indian affairs, to consultation with the Indian people of Canada and to the relationship between the Indian people and the government of Canada, we have entered a new era in this field. I believe that both these ministers have taken upon themselves a heavy responsibility, as we realized today when we listened to members on all sides of this house, each with his own idea, his own theories and his own approach to this very perplexing matter and to how it should be resolved within our confederation. I think both these ministers have shown a great deal of courage, a number of new ideas and a lot of strength.
Having followed the discussions in this chamber today, as a member of parliament I have the feeling that those of us who sit in the House of Commons as Canadians, many of us representing the Indian people, are, like many other Canadians, concerned about our first citizens. But I think that with a little
March 6, 1969
6330	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians fear and trepidation, many of us ask ourselves whether or not we are able to offer much that is constructive. I listened with bewilderment to some of the suggested solutions to our problems with respect to the Indians. We can look back to our history and see that all has not been well and that many of the policies adopted have been based on a concept that is not acceptable in today's society. I could not help but feel again today that we who represent many people offer solutions which are not really solutions which the Indian people themselves want. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who said that there is not just one solution, there are many.
I listened to others who suggested that in their own areas there were particular problems which were not necessarily part of a national problem. May I suggest for a moment that one of the things that we have to do as legislators in Canada is to recognize that we cannot offer the solutions, that we must look to the Indian people themselves to come up with their own ideas and thoughts, and that it is not an easy thing for us to be able to do this. I think that if we suggest for one minute that the Indian Act is not something that we can amend, we will look like people who know not what they say. For example, I think of the problems of treaties No. 8 and 11 in the north on which the Indian people have many ideas. I think also of the concern that people have about the treaties which were signed by their forefathers only 45 or 47 years ago, and whether they have had any real effect on their lives.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
The fact that the federal authority has not implemented certain aspects of these treaties has I believe destroyed some of the faith which the Indian people have in the great white father. In this process of communicating with the Indian people and establishing good faith I believe it is incumbent on us as politicians to identify these problems positively. But in the name of Heaven let us not use them for the sake of political advantage. I cannot but be concerned when I listen to continued attacks on a particular administration. I am thinking in terms of the Akaitcho Hall affair which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has raised in this house on several occasions. I respect the hon. member for having brought this up in the first instance but I am not persuaded he should continue to play on it when those of us who are acquainted with this situation know there


are forces at work within the community to change it. Let us take this kind of situation out of the public domain. Let us not play on the feelings of the Indian people or of the Eskimo people or of the Metis people or of any other group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: How would you change things, then?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I have lived in Yellowknife, the location of this institution. Maybe all is not well. As I said, I respect the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the house, but I believe the administration of the hostel felt they could handle the situation once it had been brought out into the open.
In line with what I was saying a minute ago, I do not wish to pursue this subject. There are other areas going beyond the Indian Act and an Indian claims commission where a dialogue could be established with the Indian people. We could help achieve this by doing things, by building homes, educating the young people and developing the economic potential of the reserves, something which is extremely important. I believe the minister is aware of this. I believe he wants to do these things. I suggest to him, to the department and to this house that with the continuing goodwill shown by this assembly toward the Indian people of Canada we can accomplish something realistic, beyond partisan considerations, beyond the politics with which many of us are so familiar.
There are many other things which I am sure all of us would like to say. One area which is most important in terms of the goodwill which must be established between the Indian people and the other people of Canada involves enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention. The Indian people, in accordance with their treaties, believed in their hearts and minds that they had the right to hunt and shoot the animals and birds of the land and the sky. They felt they had this right for as long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west-they thought of it in such terms. I know there are many who would say that the Migratory Birds Convention should not be amended because to do so would not be in the interests of conservation. I suggest to the minister that shooting the few additional birds which otherwise might not be shot will have little effect on the bird population of this country. I also believe that if the Indian people of this country are given responsibility
March 6, 1969	COMMONS
in this field and authority to shoot those birds they feel it is necessary to shoot, they will prove fully responsible and will behave as we expect them to.
It has been suggested that we should abolish the department of Indian affairs, take the money now spent on the department and use it to improve the living standards of Indian families. I suggest instead that we should examine how much it costs to educate our young Indian people. As Canadians we all want our Indian people to take their full part in our Canadian way of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there is a gentleman's agreement for two hon. members to share the last ten minutes available. On that basis, I think it would be fair to all hon. members if I were to recognize at this time the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall leave most of the remaining time to the other hon. member who wishes to speak. I wish to make three brief statements.
I make no apology for having continued to pursue the Akaitcho Hall incident. I would not have done so if the minister, on the first occasion I raised the question, had said, "I know about it; it is wrong and I intend to correct it." He did not say that but spoke of other matters with which I will not deal. In such situations, the only way to bring about change is by having the courage of one's convictions and by continuing to insist that the change ought to take place. That is the only way we shall bring about changes to this act.
Secondly, we introduced this general subject because, in the view of our party and many members of the house, the sort of discussion that has take nplace today was long overdue. It was necessary to obtain from the minister the kinds of statements we have heard from him. Having introduced the motion, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) set a high level of debate. He introduced debate at that high level precisely because we wanted an earnest discussion of the issues involved. We did not want, as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has suggested in connection with the question of Akaitcho Hall, to make this merely a political debate. It was nothing of the sort.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say on behalf of my colleagues that I do not blame the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development 29180-401
DEBATES	6331
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) for not being very specific about policies they are not yet ready to enunciate. I say to them on behalf of my colleagues and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of the house, that we heard with interest and anticipation their statements that they intend to end the era of paternalism; that they intend to recognize the basic human rights involved in this issue; and that they intend to listen to our Indians and pursue policies that will embody the wishes of those people. This is what they said and we shall hold them to their statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I hope the legislation they will bring down in a few weeks, not in a few years, will fulfil in toto those promises to the Indian people of this country. I hope it will recognize their right and really enable them to integrate themselves into our society as Canadians. On behalf of my colleagues I say to the minister and the government, we will accept nothing less when the legislation comes.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Ian Watson: The trip to the Northwest Territories and Yukon taken by members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the end of January this year allowed us to visit five Indian and one Eskimo communities. The trip was taken at the end of January so that members could experience northern living conditions during the Arctic winter season.
Among the objectives was a look at northern housing and employment conditons, particularly as they affected Indian and Eskimo peoples. We were exposed to a representative cross-section of the problems which affect our Indian people across Canada by visiting those two communities.
Some of the housing conditions we encountered at Copper-mine on the shores of the Bering Sea were much better than I expected. Almost all the residents of this village live in homes built during the past three or four years. On the other hand, some of the worst housing I have seen anywhere was on the outskirts of Whitehorse in a slum area inhabited by whites and Indians. This slum section, referred to locally as Sleepy Hollow, is much worse than the local Indian village.
The physical progress in the north in the form of new housing and new school facilities is encouraging. I travelled across the north in
March 6, 1969
6332	COMMONS
Alleged Denial of Rights of Native Indians 1966 as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Northern Affairs. This physical progress was undeniably obvious. There was a hopeful sign in the attitude of people in the local communities toward the problems of their fellow citizens of Indian origin. In 1966, it appeared to me that the white communities were interested only in their own problems. In 1969, there were signs of genuine interest on the part of the average white northerner in helping native people to full participation within the modern economy which is developing so rapidly in these northern communities.
I have spoken so far of progress and hope, but that is far from the whole story in the north. Last autumn the standing committee studied the employment situation of our native Indian and Eskimo people and found it to be generally deplorable. The unemployment rate for employable adult Indian males is in the 40 per cent to 50 per cent range. For a portion of the year at least that percentage of adult Indian males is unemployed. This was confirmed by our visit to the north. Coppermine appears to be a prosperous community, yet almost the entire male population was unemployed at the time of our visit.
Even though mining exploration was in progress last summer in the Coppermine River area, only 40 or 59 miles away, very few of the local residents were employed on those projects. Something is radically wrong with a system when southern labour must be brought from thousands of miles away to work in an area that has a native labour surplus. We had public meetings at each place which we visited. At our public meeting in Coppermine we asked the young men present how many of them would be interested in working on mine drilling rigs and we got a substantial response. We found out that within the last six months to a year the department instituted a number of new programs which will quickly lead to a great many more of our young Indian and Eskimo people being trained for positions in northern based industry.

In 1965 I wrote a letter to the then minister of northern affairs in which I suggested that one method to absorb more of our native northern people into the labour force would be to convene a conference of representatives of northern based industry, northern based labour unions and other parties, including representatives of provincial departments of labour, the federal department of indian affairs and, of course, representatives of the Indian people themselves.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I don't think we have a quorum in the house at the present time on this important question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member calling for a count?


Barry Mather: Yes, sir, I am.
And the count being made, more that 20 members were declared to be present.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) is in error. There is a quorum.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take another minute to complete my remarks. I urge the minister to consider again convening a conference of people with experience in this field to attack this labour problem. I also give notice, as chairman of the committee, that we intend to call before the committee representatives of northern based industry that is not employing sufficient numbers of native people, and representatives of northern based labour unions that are not contributing sufficiently to the employment of native personnel in the north.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is now past ten o'clock, I must inform the house that pursuant to standing order 58 (11) this debate is deemed to be closed.
Accordingly, the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 7, 1969