1969-07-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in English and in French of the report of the Tariff Board, the reference number being No. 143, Polyethylene, together with a transcript of the evidence presented to the board in public hearings. I assure the house that the Tariff Board's recommendations will receive most careful consideration by the government. Interested parties who wish to comment on this report should do so as soon as possible.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRANSPORT NEWFOUNDLAND-EMBARGO AFFECTING LABRADOR CITY-WABUSH AREA

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the rail embargo imposed on shipments of gasoline, automobiles, domestic heating and cooking fuels and other necessary supplies via the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway between the province of Quebec and the towns of Labrador City and Wabush, Newfoundland, which is now causing serious shortages and severe hardship to residents of these two towns because of the depletion of fuel supplies and the unseasonably low temperatures being experienced in the area. There is need for emergency action by the Minister of Transport to avoid the impending crisis.
29180-701J


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has brought to the attention of the house a matter which undoubtedly and clearly is of considerable urgency. The determination which must be made by the Chair is whether the house should be adjourned for the purpose of debating the situation mentioned in the hon. member's proposed motion. After much thought, I am inclined to the view that debate at this time could hardly be expected to relieve the hardships to which the hon. member refers. It should also be remembered that in order for there to be an adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 parliament should be faced with a genuine emergency which might be termed national in character. Having considered all the aspects of the very important matter referred to by the hon. member, I do not think that the motion ought to be put to the house at this time.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS AT PRAIRIE POINTS

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the dire shortage of railway box cars at grain shipping points in western Canada and the fast approaching deadline of the end of the crop year on July 31.
With the government's announcement of an equalized five bushel quota over western Canada by the end of the crop year, it will be absolutely impossible to meet this commitment unless emergency measures are established by setting up a transport co-ordinator and by extending the end of the crop year to August 31.
As there will be no opportunity for parliament to debate this national emergency, it is vitally urgent that there be a full and comprehensive discussion of this matter in the House of Commons at this time.

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: I think in the circumstances it is incumbent on the Chair to bring to the attention of the hon. member the provisions of subsection 16(d) of Standing Order 26 which has reference to a motion under the terms of the standing order:
(d) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this standing order;
My understanding of the hon. member's motion is that it is substantially the same as one which was discussed under the provisions of Standing Order 26 on January 22 last when a similar motion moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) was accepted by the Chair. I think the provisions of the standing order are clear. It would not be possible even under the circumstances outlined by the hon. member to allow the adjournment of the house at the present time for the purpose of discussing the hon. member's motion.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second day in a row that I am moving a motion. I am trying to pay careful attention to Your Honour's ruling of yesterday.
I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgen . consider a don, namely the current discussions which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is having with the premiers of provinces and with Indian people and the turbulence and fury which is arising therefrom.
An hon. member is saying that I am out of my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has given the Chair notice of the proposed motion. I have to admit that this is one of four motions submitted earlier today, or yesterday, for the consideration of the Chair and which has given me very serious difficulties. I sincerely think it is a borderline case and I have been wondering whether the motion of the hon. member might be allowed in the present circumstances.

Even as I stand before hon. members now, I am not sure that this motion ought not to be granted. The matter raised by the hon. member is certainly one of urgency. It might appeal to hon. members to debate it in the sense that, as the hon. member has suggested, the proposed debate would have reference to discussions which the minister is having at the present time with the Indian people and with provincial authorities.
It may be that hon. members might want to have an opportunity to express to the house and to the government their views in connection with these discussions. In view of the fact that I have had these serious doubts I would think that they should be resolved in favour of the motion.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will take
into account that actually such an adjournment debate may take place only later today and that only one hour-I was going to say of government time but that would be incorrect; it would be House of Commons time-would be involved. In view of this I think hon. members would not mind giving up one hour of discussion in the debate now before the house, for the purpose of considering this important matter.
I would add one word of caution at the present time, and remind hon. members that the staff of the house has been under pressure lately. I would hope some arrangement would be arrived at between hon. members to limit the length and number of speeches during the adjournment debate later this day, so that the staff could be given an opportunity to leave the premises at a reasonable hour, and not late at night as has happened in the case of two or three of the previous debates embarked upon by the house under standing order 26. This is a suggestion I am making to hon. members, and the house leaders may want to have discussion on this point later.
In view of what I have said, the motion will be put. Has the hon. member leave to proceed with the motion pursuant to Standing Order 26?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26 the debate will take place from three o'clock this afternoon.
July 11, 1969



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26, either today or on Monday, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the serious increase in the consumer price index-the cost of living-by one full point during the past month, which is a yearly rate of increase of 10 per cent a year, and is the culmination of the steady rise in the cost of living which has been taking place for the past several years brought about by the failure of the government to take steps to deal with this serious situation.
I bring this motion forward at this time because the time table announced by the government house leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot argue the urgency of debate. He must rely on the Chair. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that only one such motion can be granted per day. The Chair has already ruled in favour of the previous motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). However I will not wait until Monday to rule on the hon. member's proposed motion. I would tell him that after much consideration I would have to rule along the lines of the previous decisions made when similar motions were proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and, I believe, by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), when it was indicated that these types of motions based on such circumstances are not normally accepted by the Chair, or by the house.
I refer the hon. member to the ruling which was made by the Chair on May 8 last when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings proposed a motion under Standing Order 26 in connection with the consumer price index. I suggest to him and to other hon. members that the ruling made at that time would apply in the present situation, and so I regret that the motion of the hon. member should not be put to the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, with great deference may I rise on a point of order to remind Your Honour that at that time you ruled there would be an opportunity in the next
Inquiries of the Ministry few days to discuss the important matter I brought up, namely, during the debate on the budget, and I accepted your ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon.
member refers to Standing Order 26 he will see it is not possible to argue either before or after the decision or the ruling of the Chair. This is the very purpose of the new Standing Orders, to try to save the house from the difficulties of the interminable arguments we had in previous years as to whether the Chair ought to, or ought not to accept these motions.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
The hon. member has made a motion and I assure him I have given the matter much consideration. I might say in passing that the decision reached before was not based entirely on the point he has just raised. If he will read the decision which was made then and on other similar occasions, in particular when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) sought to adjourn the house in similar circumstances, I would think the hon. member would realize that the ruling which applied then would apply also in the present circumstances.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the increase in the cost of living disclosed today and referred to by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, whether the government has any special plans not yet disclosed to help bring relief immediately to ease the burden and to prevent the burden from increasing, particularly for those who are aged, those who are poor and those who live on fixed incomes.


Edgar John Benson: course, Mr. Speaker, the government is always concerned about the people on fixed incomes, and indeed the policy we have enunciated, which I hope the opposition will support, to fight inflation is the only way to overcome this difficulty. The major cause of the increase in the cost of living in the month of June by .8 per cent was a 12.7 per cent increase in the price of beef.

July 11. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the increase of nearly 3 per cent already in this calendar year would amount to something approaching an emergency, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to review the methods he has adopted and enunciated to date, and consider mobilizing the country to adopt some kind of guideline policy to meet this grave situation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to continue to review vigorously the policy of the government in this regard, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would join with me in urging all Canadians to be modest in their demands on the economy, and not take more out of it than is being put in through increased productivity.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the cost of living now is increasing at a rate of 10 per cent per year, would the minister not agree that the policy which he put forward in his budget is completely ineffective in curtailing inflation, and that he should accept the suggestions put forward by members of the opposition and get something done about inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will agree that his supplementary is argumentative.



EXPEDITION IN PRESENTING ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT ON COMBINES AND PRICES

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would bring his considerable influence to bear on the Economic Council of Canada to expedite the report on combines and prices, in view of the seriousness of the increase in the cost of living index.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. member for assuming I have considerable influence on the Economic Council of Canada, but I do not have all that much influence.



BOX CARS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY OF QUOTA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether any special arrangements have been worked out with the railways, par-{Mr. Benson.]
ticularly the C.P.R., so that extra box cars may be provided on C.P.R. lines to move grain, since many of the points are on a quota of two bushels and less and it is impossible to visualize how they can possibly meet the five bushel quota by the end of this month.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in Winnipeg earlier this week and held some discussions with regard to the transportation problem. I have also been in touch with the presidents of both railways and propose to invite them to Ottawa after the weekend for further discussions, to see whether we can do something along the lines the hon. member outlined.



RESEARCH


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, in view of the fact the house will be sitting next week, he will make a statement on government science policy which he indicated a few days ago he might make if the house was still in session.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know that it would be a good idea to interrupt for this purpose the interesting debate that is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the government is giving consideration to the recommendations of the O.E.C.D., that the government appoint a minister responsible for all aspects of science policy priorities?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, following my question yesterday, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said he wished to check on the figures I quoted, which I have sent to him. I should like today to put to him the following question.
In the light of the date supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, would the
July 11. 1969

parliamentary secretary be ready to recommend to the Minister of Agriculture to review the policy being carried out by the Canadian Dairy Commission in order to help dairy producers?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for having passed on to me the statistical data he had, since I was wondering whether they were accurate or whether the hon. member was finding it somewhat difficult to understand them. As a matter of fact, if he had read the whole bulletin, he would have seen that instead of a decrease, it is actually an increase for 1968 in comparison with 1967, and that with regard to the 196367 average, it is an increase of 14.8 per cent.
It seems to be exactly the opposite of what the hon. member said, and the misunderstanding comes from the fact he does not understand the figures.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary be ready, with all the vicious honesty for which he is known, to go and explain those figures to the farmers in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Think before you speak! [English]



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Will he advise whether the federal government is about to sign an agreement with the province of Newfoundland in respect of a regional development program?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, similar questions have been asked within the last month or five weeks and I think the minister's answer is on record. If there are any recent developments I will advise the hon. member.


Jack Marshall: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? Is he in a position to disclose to me and to the
Inquiries of the Ministry house the results of a meeting held yesterday with the premier of Newfoundland in respect of a regional development program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I have to intervene in this regard because I doubt whether the Minister of Transport is the minister who should reply to that particular question.


Jack Marshall: Perhaps I could direct it to the parliamentary secretary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct the hon. member's question to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go ahead.


James Aloysius McGrath: Did the Prime Minister meet with the premier of Newfoundland in the last few days to discuss a regional development program for that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is related to questions asked a few minutes ago in respect of the further increase in the cost of living, as it affects pensioners. In view of the situation will the minister consider increasing the income tax exemptions for pensioners and superannuates?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, although I will consider any suggestion made by the hon. member, I cannot undertake that I will consider this in the immediate future.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services in reference to a report of the chief adjudicator to the Public Service Staff Relations Board, in respect of which he replied on Wednesday last.
I now ask whether he has investigated the considerable gap between the date of the decision, namely April 30, and the date the report was received by the Public Service

July 11, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Staff Relations Board, namely June 16. If he has, will he say what was the cause of this lengthy delay and whether such delays are to be considered normal, to use his adjective?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is that Mr. Martin's appointment as chief adjudicator ended on April 30, 1969. Some drafting and editing of the report was necessary after that date, but it was thought he should sign the report on April 30 to correspond with his term of office.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister understands the time sequence that I have in mind. I am interested in what happened between April 30 and June 16.


James Armstrong Richardson: I can only answer for the Public Service Staff Relations Board. As I explained to the house recently, the board received the chief adjudicator's report on June 16 and made a distribution of the report on July 4. I have explained that this is a normal period of time. I cannot go beyond my responsibility, which is to explain the action of the board.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister see that the report is tabled so that the members of the house who have been denied the chance to discuss it may at least have the privilege of reading it?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Privy Council has been considering that question, which was asked recently.


Mr. Fairweather:: Then we will never see it.


James Armstrong Richardson: If there is to be a tabling of the report, it will be announced in due course.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: On a point of order, may I with your permission, Mr. Speaker, point out to the minister that the document is a public document. The hon. member for Hillsborough asked that the minister be kind enough to put a copy on the table so that everyone may see it. It is not within the government's ambit to withhold the report; it is a public document which anyone can obtain by going to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. The minister is being asked to give us an opportunity to read the report.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the

hon. member was referring to the suggestion that there be a motion for the subject matter to be referred to the committee. I will undertake to get copies and table them.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the policy of this government to proceed with certain plans and proposals for the extensive exporting of fresh water to the United States, particularly into the Great Lakes basin, by means of a northern Ontario water diversion scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question asked by the hon. member is of such wide scope that it should be replied to by way of a statement on motions. If the hon. member thinks this matter should be discussed earlier, I would be pleased to see that the question is given priority for consideration at the time of adjournment.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the disclosure by the Bank of Canada that chartered banks are rapidly reducing their lending, and that loans were off $20 million in one week alone, does the government intend to impose this tight money situation on all regions of the country equally, regardless of their economic condition?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered this question yesterday. Both the Governor of the Bank of Canada and I have-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You weren't here yesterday.


Edgar John Benson: I am sorry, the day before yesterday. Both the Governor of the Bank of Canada and I urged the banks, which have to ration credit, not to do so in areas of high unemployment or areas of development in Canada, and also not, where possible, to small businesses which depend almost entirely on bank borrowings for their working capital.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
July 11. 1969

the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to the question directed to him by the hon. member for South Shore. Will the minister tell the house whether he received any indications from the banks as to whether they would accept the recommendation made by himself and the Governor of the Bank of Canada with regard to the non-rationing of credit in areas of slow growth?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in my conversation with the chief general managers of the banks they indicated this was the policy they were following.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question Mr. Speaker. In his recommendation, did the Minister of Finance suggest that particularly the prairie regions be not restricted in their credit, even though the high interest rates may add to their difficulties later on?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Could the minister tell the house whether he deems it advisable to intervene in order to reduce the interest rates, since their increase has been of no avail and the government is taking other steps to restrict credit?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the question of interest rates is not one that the Minister of Finance can determine by simply saying interest rates should be lower. As I indicated yesterday, the government of Canada would of course like to see lower interest rates. I would again refer the hon. member to the very learned statement in this regard by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, made before a committee of the house last week.



POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON INTEREST RATES-CREDIT CONTROL DISCUSSIONS

David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Governor of the Bank of Canada informed the committee that in the present circumstances a high interest rate was desirable in order to slow down the economy, would the minister explain exactly what he means by the government being in favour of lower interest rates at this time?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: did not say "at this time", Mr. Speaker, I think interest rates-


David Lewis: Oh, you mean ten years from now?


Edgar John Benson: -at the present level are necessary at this time in order to protect the Canadian economy in the long run. When my hon. friend has co-operated with the government in its attempt to fight inflation, and when people such as him become conscious of the problem we really are facing, then we will have lower interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: You are fighting the poor of
Canada, not inflation.


Mr. Barney Danson (York-North):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada did not say that high interest rates are desirable, but quite the reverse, and in view of the fact that he related this to inflationary pressures, would the minister consider semi-emergency measures such as meeting with the provinces to discuss credit controls, the possible imposition of forced savings and the delay of some major government programs?


Edgar John Benson: This is a very complicated question, Mr. Speaker. To answer the third part of the question first, the government has taken steps toward curtailing and reducing expenditures where it is at all possible. With respect to meeting with the provinces regarding credit controls, I have no immediate intention of doing this.



INQUIRY AS TO METHOD OF SETTING INTEREST RATE

André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to put a supplementary question Mr. Speaker.
Since the Minister of Finance has stated that it is not the government which sets the interest rates and since the governor of the Bank of Canada said himself yesterday at a sitting of the committee that he did not do it either, could the minister tell us who does?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now reaching the area of debate and I would not think the matter should be pursued further.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like, in a non-debating way,
11102	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry to ask the Minister of Finance if he would re-read the Auditor General's report over the weekend.


Edgar John Benson: I have read the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker. I hope my hon. friend has read Mr. Ras-minsky's statement.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On May 20 the minister answered yes when I asked if he would make a statement on motions at his earliest convenience concerning the administration of small boat harbours on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. I wonder whether his earliest convenience means that the minister can make a statement within the next few days on this important and urgent matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will do my best, Mr. Speaker. This is a complex matter. The representations made have been noted. There is a good deal of logic in what hon. members have said, and I am trying to work out something imaginative.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister be making an announcement with respect to the reorganization program for Canadian forces bases before the adjournment of the session or at least before the end of July?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can make an announcement before the end of this session, because I cannot foresee when it is going to end. As far as the end of July is concerned, I had a target date which was August 1. The subject is very complicated. Many departments of government are getting involved in the study of the implications of base closure. I still hope that I can meet that target date of August 1, but I am not quite so sure now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I take it from the minister's observations that because of the
[Mr. Baldwin.)
DEBATES	July 11, 1969
serious economic implications which this may have on certain regions in Canada, the whole matter has been or will be thoroughly processed with respect to the impact on regional disparity?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is what I indicated when I referred to the different government departments involved in the study of each base.



CANADIAN LEGION REPRESENTATIONS ON NEWFOUNDLAND BASE

Jack Marshall: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Would he advise the house whether he has studied a brief from the Newfoundland command of the Canadian Legion to establish a military base in Newfoundland, and if he has made a decision-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not a supplementary question.



SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS AT PRAIRIE POINTS- EXTENDED GRAIN YEAR

Richard Russell Southam: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and it is related to the one put a few moments ago by the hon. member for Mackenzie and addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the dire shortage of box cars to be used in the emergency in trying to meet the deadline of July 31 in the crop year, will the Prime Minister confer with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on his return from Washington regarding an extension of the crop year for at least several weeks so that this emergency can be met?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider the matter.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I should like to preface my remarks by saying that it is very nice to see so many Liberals here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
July 11, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. May I point out that we are running short of time.


John Gilbert: My question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact that the minister has promised on different occasions to make a statement on the policy on urban development and public housing, will he fulfil that promise by making a statement on motions next week setting forth the government's policy in these matters?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as sometimes occurs, there is a slight distortion in the premise on which the hon. member's question is based. I made no commitment to make a full statement on the policy regarding urban development and public housing at any given time. What I said was that I would be meeting the officials of the provinces to establish new criteria for public housing, and that I would do my best to deal with the urban renewal projects as soon as possible. That date of decision is getting closer every day that goes by.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brefon-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether he and his government endorse the compulsory retirement at the age of 60 of Devco employees?
Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Prime Minister. I do not wish to rush him but I want to ask him whether he cares to carry out the promise which he made on April 14 to answer the question which I put to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question and, as he knows, if there is no reply given to it or if he is unsatisfied with the reply, there is not much that he or the Chair can do about it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to give the Prime Minister one more chance, and ask him whether he accepts the remarks made by his own Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in which he admits there is discrimination by Devco against Cape Breton miners? What is he going to do about it in his "just society"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
29180-702k
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



FREEZE IN TRACKER AIRCRAFT OVERHAUL

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Macdonald has to go.


An hon. Member:: Tell them to shut up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: There is lots of time. Keep it up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do
not know what the fuss is all about. I have not yet said a word.


Mr. Aiken:: Yes, but they know what you are going to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. As he knows, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and I have been asking questions about a stop work order affecting Fairey Aviation of Canada. We have been told that the Minister of National Defence has a reply. Can he give it now?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, the question was to the effect that we had imposed a freeze on the repair of the Tracker aircraft by Fairey Aviation of Canada. The answer to the question is that there is no freeze, and that the work in hand is continuing. It is true that we have reviewed the future contract programs, but this is normal practice.



WATER RESOURCES


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of resources (Mr. Lang) and it relates to a question asked previously by the hon. member for Thunder Bay concerning the diversion of waters in northern Ontario. Has the government entered into any agreement with the province of Ontario on this particular matter or has the government made any decision since the question was raised in the Committee on Resources in the month of May?

July 11. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: There is no question of any decision on either diversion or export of water, as the hon. member mentioned in his question, and as has been mentioned in previous questions. There is co-ordinated activity between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario in the matter of studying the water available in the northern area of Ontario, studies which are wide in scope and which may take another year to complete. They may be the base of some future action at some future time but are certainly not determining action at this time. I may add that the studies were originally inspired by a recommendation on the International Joint Commission at a time when the water in the Great Lakes was very low.


B. Keith Penner: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister responsible for energy and water resources undertake to table in this house a report which is entitled "A Proposed Water Diversion Program out of North Western Ontario into Lake Superior" dated June 25, 1964, and six progress reports which have followed it?


Otto Emil Lang: I will give consideration to this request. The reports are of an interim nature and I will certainly look at the question of whether it would be appropriate to table them at this stage.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could answer the specific question I asked as to whether there has been any change in the situation since the matter was raised in the Committee on Resources earlier this year, or whether this is a continuation of the policy then explained and which has been carried out since 1964?


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure of the date referred to by the hon. member, but I do not know of any change made recently.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Robert Muir: I have a question for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman, in view of the difficulties experienced by the government in this chamber yesterday afternoon, whether he is giving consideration to the appointment of a new house leader?


An hon. Member:: Where were you?
IMr. Aiken.]



TRANSPORT


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: My question is for the
Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some 2,000 private automobiles at Wabush and Labrador city are inoperable because there is no gasoline, and stocks of domestic fuel are depleted at a time when these towns are experiencing unseasonably low temperatures, will the minister advise what action his department is taking with regard to the removal of a rail embargo on gasoline and fuel oils?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I should make it clear that the embargo referred to by the hon. member is imposed by union representatives who are refusing to load such cargo, except under restrictions which make it impossible for the railway to complete deliveries. As of this morning the railways indicated to me that they are prepared to carry fuel into the area, provided they get agreement with the unions involved.
Secondly, I have asked the Canadian Transport Commission to send a representative into all four areas to check on the situation.
Thirdly, I am advised that the discussion with regard to settlement of the strike is progressing favourably, and hopefully it will be over within a very short time.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is direc ed to the Minister of National Revenue. Arising from the assurances given by the minister to this house on June 6 to the effect that there is no delay in processing income tax returns, and in view of the fact that some 700,000 returns have still to be processed, what special efforts will now be made in the organization of the minister's department to ensure that those who are entitled to refunds receive them before Christmas?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we have already processed 200,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order and should be placed on the order paper.
July 11, 1969


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister assure the house that the government is not improperly retaining these funds to bolster its revenue position?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask the right hon. gentleman whether he can confirm that his planned trip to the west will commence on July 12, or is he going to reconsider the date in view of the fact that it is Orangemen's day?



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether he intends to be here next week to participate in the debate, or is he carrying forward his plans to visit the west?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the west is more important than listening to a stupid filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rule in our book-it is one of the standing orders-which provides that answers to questions should give information, and should not be such as to provoke debate. There is also a tradition in this house that the Prime Minister is the leader of the house and as the principal member must lead the house in the maintenance of respect for parliament.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They have no respect for anything over there.


Robert Muir: What a joke, this P.M.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: submit that the answer of the Prime Minister is contrary to the rule relating to answers to questions, and is uncalled for. The house is debating a very serious matter, namely the rules of this House of Commons, and I submit that if the Prime Minister has a modicum of respect for this place he will withdraw his remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think any impartial observer of the question period in this house would say that about 80 per cent of the questions are not to elicit information, are not of a serious nature. I think my only qualification of the hon. member's point of order is that it is sheer hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wishes to compound the situation by his further remark, then that is, of course, his privilege. However I draw to Your Honour's attention that the previous statement, the one to which I objected, did not refer to the question period but to what he called a filibuster, a debate that is taking place. The Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility for the untoward remark that he made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see several hon. members seeking to rise, either on supplementary questions or supplementary points of order, but I doubt whether anything can be gained by continuing the point of order.
The initial point of order was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who suggested that referring to a debate as a filibuster-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a "stupid" filibuster.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have to consult the precedents to determine whether that word is unparliamentary. It seems to me that in my short years in parliament I have often heard a debate called a filibuster by members on either one side of the house or the other. No suggestion was made at those times that that term was unparliamentary, and I would not think that it is. Whether an adjective describing that word makes it less or more unparlia-

July 11, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry mentary, I am not sure. I would not think the word was unparliamentary to the extent that if a member used the word he ought to be required to withdraw it. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree that my expression of opinion in this regard is probably supported by the precedents.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is indicating, I think, perhaps not that he is dissatisfied with my ruling but that-


Mr. Nowlan:: I rise on another point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
order to make clear what I said, may I-


Some hon. Members:: No, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 was unable to hear all of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre owing to the catcalls and noise from hon. members across the way, but aside from the question concerning an adjective placed before a noun in describing a debate in this chamber, the Prime Minister went on in all his honest glory to use the word "hypocrisy".
I have always taken the stand that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. However I suggest that the word "hypocrisy" does impute motives. We have had a lot of catcalls from many of the members across the way while we have been discussing a serious subject, though the Prime Minister has not set an example in maintaining the decorum of this chamber.
I am coming to the point that one is not allowed to impute motives. I am not so much worried about whether the Prime Minister thinks in his mind-whatever is in his mind-that the debate is a stupid filibuster; that is a matter of opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point of view raised by the hon. member, but it is a basic rule of parliamentary debate

that no hon. member may impute motives. If the hon. member suggests the Prime Minister, in referring to the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was imputing motives, I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to say that he was not imputing motives.


David Lewis: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I am going to stand still, Mr. Speaker, until hon. members opposite have the dignity and decency to shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I can indulge in a wordless filibuster until there is silence, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly proceed with his point of order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to suggest seriously to Your Honour that the issue is not merely an issue of whether any hon. member said a certain word or took a certain attitude towards a debate in this house. The issue before this house and Your Honour is the position of the Prime Minister of Canada in this house. The issue is whether the Prime Minister of this country can act in such a way as to induce every hon. member of this house, particularly on his side, to make a shambles of this parliament, as it is his intention to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is this not imputing motives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are not making much progress. It is now the hon. member for York South who is imputing motives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask hon. members whether they seriously think this house should continue much longer in this way. I have some serious reservations. A moment ago I suggested, and I believe I was right in my suggestion, that attributing hyprocrisy to another hon. member is imputing motives and to that extent I suggest that that word is unparliamentary. The Chair has intervened in similar circumstances before. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley suggested that I should
July 11, 1969

intervene now, and that is precisely what I am doing. We will not make much progress, certainly, in the consideration of the affairs of the House of Commons if hon. members one after another rise on points of order and take it upon themselves to impute motives to other hon. members. I wonder where that will lead to?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to Your Honour that although there are other things I might say, and I may say them on another occasion, I will obey your wish. May I suggest to Your Honour that, despite your suggestion that that word be withdrawn, the Prime Minister has not made any gesture of rising to his feet. That is why I have risen to my feet. If the Prime Minister will be decent enough, man enough and Prime Minister enough to withdraw, I will be glad to sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Translation\


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the same point of order.
We feel that the Prime Minister of Canada is imputing to us motives we do not have. As for us, we can remind him of certain facts. Indeed, he never participates in any debate on procedure in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if this intervention is useful.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, after the second slight occurred I rose in my place, because I wanted the Prime Minister to withdraw what he said. He has not done so. Your Honour pointed out that imputation of motives is contrary to the rules. Unfortunately the hon. member for York South has fallen into the trap of seeming to impute motives. Imputation of motives can undermine our whole system of debate in this house and I say that I will not stay quiet unless the Prime Minister withdraws.


Mr. Speaker:: My ruling was not that the Prime Minister should withdraw his remark but that he should indicate to the house that he was not imputing motives. That is the difference. I should like the Prime Minister to say that to the Chair and to all hon. members. I have not suggested, nor do I suggest now, that he should withdraw the word he used; but he knows as well as I do that we can neither impute motives, nor say we are
Inquiries of the Ministry imputing motives. I invite the Prime Minister to agree with me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, although that word used may describe the seriousness of questions asked by the opposition, I certainly wish to obey your ruling, sir, and I do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does that cover-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -Your Honour's suggestion that it would be imputing motives to say that the point of order raised was tantamount to hypocrisy, and that the Prime Minister is withdrawing that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have already made my ruling on the first point of order raised by the hon. member. I told the hon. member I did not think it was unparliamentary to refer to a debate in this house as a filibuster because I think, if we are to rationalize the situation, that this is imputing collective motives. I wonder if that is unparliamentary. Perhaps it is not. In any event I should not like to renew the argument which started 15 minutes ago. I have made my ruling indicating that it is my view that saying that debate is a filibuster is not in itself unparliamentary. I asked whether the qualifications which have been added have made the situation worse. I have some doubts, but I do not think so. I have made my ruling and the hon. gentleman agreed with me. I think, so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, that is the end of it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I raised the original point of order inasmuch as it was my question that brought on this furore.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nobody even noticed.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not know whether the Prime Minister considers that 80 per cent of the questions coming from this side of the house are hypocritical or that 80 per cent of us are hypocrites.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for the co-operation of hon. members.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question to ask and I think it is most important to clear this matter up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will kindly resume his seat I will
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization recognize him and give him the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. First, will the Prime Minister inform us whether he expects the debate in this house to continue on the subject we are presently debating; under whose leadership will it continue in view of difficulties this house faced last night. Second, will he please advise the people of western Canada, and I consider it a dubious honour for them to be told, whether they are more important than his problems with the House of Commons are. Would he also say what his program and itinerary is to be?


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster! Filibuster!


Some hon. Members:: Leaky Deaky! Leaky Deaky!


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest hon. members should forget the question period and give the hon. member an opportunity to make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster! Filibuster!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members ought to know that I have no intention of ruling that using the word "filibuster" is unparliamentary. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
EMr. Speaker.]


Mr. Bell:: He is a real hypocrite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously getting into more difficulty. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster might perhaps use other words that are not unparliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion I made when that word was used earlier was that we cannot impute motives. I am sure the hon. member did not want to impute motives.


Thomas Miller Bell: With a great deal of respect, I did exactly the same as the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we have established that there were no motives imputed on either side of the house, we shall go on with the business of the house.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that a private member has the opportunity to be welcomed with such fervour in the house in rising to intervene in a debate-


An hon. Member:: You had better check your dictionary.


Grant Deachman: I must say I welcome the opportunity of intervening for a short time this morning, especially as the house is in such a light and jocular mood when discussing such a serious topic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Grant Deachman: Before I come to the remarks I want to make, there is one point which I would like to straighten out for the purpose of the record. On the C.B.C. program, "The World At Eight", this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) claimed that the lack of a quorum yesterday demonstrated the lack of interest by Liberal M.P.'s in the rules debate.


An hon. Member:: We have you all here this morning.


Grant Deachman: I know the hon. member wants to have it straight on the record because he has great pride in parliament and its procedures. I think he would want to have it on the record that the private members'
July 11. 1969

hour was under way at that time. I think he would also want it to be known that debate on government business does not take place during that hour.


Gerald William Baldwin: Speak on the subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Stop your filibustering.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member will keep to the subject matter of the debate.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Grant Deachman: I believe the point I am making affects all of us who are interested and are taking part in this debate. While it is a matter which might have been raised as a question of personal privilege, I think it can be straightened out on the record by saying that according to long-standing custom we really do not look for a quorum during private members' hour. With respect to hon. members, this is not done.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members are not helping the Chair, and I find the situation most unbecoming. Hon. members are not assisting the Chair at all by conducting themselves in this way. I invite the house-


An hon. Member:: Adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and I invite the hon. member who has the floor to limit his remarks to the subject now under consideration.


Grant Deachman: I do not want to embarrass the hon. gentleman or his party further; therefore I will address myself to the subject of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
should have been here yesterday afternoon.


Grant Deachman: The amendment to the motion before us seeks to return the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to the committee with instructions to delete proposed Standing Order 75c. This would mean, of course, that
Procedure and Organization we would have to give up the idea that the House of Commons can come to agreement with regard to the programming of its work when it is agreed by a majority of the members of the house that a particular legislative measure should be programmed. The effect of the amendment would be that we would have to give this up.
This was not the sense of the committee report. The committee report recommended a way in which we would move logically forward step by step to the point where, failing to reach party agreement, at least the majority of members of the House of Commons could vote to determine whether time should be allocated for any step of the legislative procedure. The sense of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) yesterday does not really meet the sense of the report of the committee as it was made to the house. If the report is to be sent back to the committee for revision I think it is desirable that this be done in the form of a resolution enabling the majority of members of the house to allocate the time for a legislative stage, and not send it back to the committee with instructions from the house to negate the report of the committtee by striking out 75c. If the report is sent back to the committee it must be made clear that a majority under 75b would always include the representative of the government party which has the responsibility for legislation and represents a majority and the will of the people who have sent us to this house. In fact, it should include not only the representative of the government but also the representative of the official opposition.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
This idea was put forward yesterday in the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Reid). It flows from a suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell). I want to refer to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) when he said:
I am sorry if I was not clear. What I said was that under proposed rule 75b the Leader of the Official Opposition ought to be recognized. The two minority opposition parties should not be in a position of forcing their decisions on this house, along with the government, on the Official Opposition. The Leader of the Official Opposition, being a responsible officer of this house, should have an important role to play under this proposed rule. I point out that here I do not speak for the President of the Privy Council or the government.
Following upon that suggestion I wish to introduce in a moment an amendment to the
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the house leader of the Official Opposition. But before doing so I wish to speak of how essential it is, with our growing responsibilities, that each member of the house should be aware of the necessity to program the work of the house in such a way as to afford members time to get back to their constituencies and to go into other matters than those which are debated here on Parliament Hill week after week and month after month throughout the year. I think we all feel that we spend too much time here, that we spend so much time here that our life in the House of Commons becomes unrealistic and, like people living in a monastery or a boy's boarding school, we begin to look upon it as the centre of the world or the centre of the nation when in fact the centres of the nation may be in many other places.
I believe all of us would welcome the opportunity to know the sort of schedule we were going to operate on throughout the year, to know when we could expect with certainty to visit our constituencies to reacquaint ourselves with our electors, refresh our memories about our own regions, their economic and social problems, and thus become better members of the house. With the evolution of the committee system which has blossomed within a year or two into a very formidable structure, absorbing an enormous amount of the time of members, I think we all realize that unless we can bring about a proper allocation of our time between the work of the committees and the work of this chamber, we cannot possibly discharge our duties as honest, elected members of this house.
All of us, whether we are in the opposition or on this side of the house, know we have a duty to the nation in respect of legislation, a duty that involves more than the obstruction of legislation which we may oppose. We have a duty to understand legislation, to understand it by contact with our constituents outside the house, to understand it through time for reflection, to understand it by contact with experts through the committee system, and then to apply our minds to expressing our ideas in the house, voting on the issues, and moving on to the next subject. If we cannot find a way of almost totally programming our work, then as our duties become heavier and heavier our efficiency and capability to deal with legislation will suffer and the people of the nation will suffer because of our inability to cope with our own problems and our own programming.

In the situation in which we find ourselves now, as the summer disappears and as we struggle with the job of programming our work, the first proposition to be made must concern good will. Most of the things that we do in this house are done on a basis of good will. For the greater part of the year we find we do not need to avail ourselves of the rules, to come to grips with one rule in particular to bring a procedure or process to an end. Even though as members of parliament we may be dogmatically opposed on matters of policy we find we must act here in the interests of the nation, and that we must come to a settlement among ourselves as to how a matter is to be disposed of. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I say we also know there are instances throughout the year when negotiation breaks down, when lines become hardened, when members spend more time in cat-calling and banter. In fact on occasion I find myself-and I regret it- indulging in such things under tense circumstances, as do other hon. members. But I do not think we leave the chamber feeling any great pride after doing so.
To revert to my theme, we do get into situations where negotiation will not solve the impasse. Therefore we have to move one step beyond that to a rule that will break the jam, not because we want to throttle parliament, not because we want to put a bridle on the opposition, not because we want to bull or ram something through parliament, as suggested yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but because we are compelled to act by the fact that we are elected representatives, by the fact that we come here to serve our constituencies and the nation. And the way we can act is to program a legislative timetable, irrespective of whether this party sits on this side of the house or whether some other party sits on this side of the house. We must not continue unprogrammed, heading into the year without knowing how we are going to bring it to an end. We must find ways of breaking the deadlocks that sometimes occur.
So, Mr. Speaker, this morning I wish to make a suggestion, stemming from the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel South as expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, in the form of an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River, which would add at the end thereof the following words:
-and in substitution therefor to recommend to the house a proposed standing order by which an allocation of time motion may be proposed to the
July 11, 1969

house by a Minister of the Crown in the event that no agreement could be obtained pursuant to the provisions of proposed Standing Order 75a, or when the representatives of the government and of the Official Opposition were not included in the majority of the representatives of the several parties referred to in proposed Standing Order 75b and to report back the proposed Standing Orders to the next sitting of the house.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I have copies here-

-and I have copies in French and in English.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might wait a minute or two to give hon. members an opportunity to look closely at the proposed sub amen dment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour to give consideration to the validity of the subamendment on the basic principle that it seeks to introduce a completely new principle to the amendment which I offered to the house in respect of the main motion. The amendment I introduced was a very simple one involving the deletion of rule 75c, in respect of which I expressed some very considerable dislike. I was supported in that stand by a great many other hon. members from this part of the house and to my left. That was the reason I moved the amendment. There will be, of course, an opportunity for those hon. members who disagree to express their view by voting against the amendment. But surely the subamendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra seeks to introduce a completely new departure or new principle.
For this reason I submit that on the very basic and elementary principle governing amendments Your Honour should not allow the subamendment at this time. If in due course the amendment I have offered comes before the house by way of a question and the house comes to a decision on it and if it should happen that my reasoning and that of those who support me does not move members to support my amendment, my friend could offer his amendment at a later time, but I submit he cannot do it by tacking it on as a subamendment at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to a number of citations in Beauchesne's fourth edi-
Procedure and Organization tion, in particular citation 202(13) which reads as follows:
An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved.
Again, I should like to refer to citation 203(3) in Beauchesne:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main-
I beg your pardon. I have the wrong citation.


An hon. Member:: Read on. It sounds fine.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A subamendment which proposed an alternative to the original amendment is in order provided it is relevant to the question.
I pick up the last phrase first and suggest, of course, that the actual terminology used is entirely relevant to the question of whether or not 75c as such should be adopted by the house. The purpose of providing the opportunity for amendment-and as Mr. Speaker knows there are quite a few precedents in this regard-is to give an opportunity to those who might find the proposition acceptable under a slightly different form to move alternative or substantial propositions which would enable them to support the original amendment. I think it might be helpful if I referred to a ruling of Mr. Speaker to be found in volume 63 of the Journals of the House of Commons for 1926. The ruling begins at page 468 but I should like to refer particularly to the terminology of the Speaker at the top of page 469 where he points out in general terms:
The object of an amendment is to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or-
Here the Speaker makes reference to the then current edition of May.
-to present to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
The effect of making an amendment is for the time being to link the amendment with the main motion so that the subject matter of both is thereby placed under the consideration of the House.
Then the Speaker went on to say that bearing this principle in mind there could be little question in that instance that both the amendment and the subamendment referred to the particular subject matter there. I suggest there can be little doubt in this case that
COMMONS DEBATES	July 11, 1969
Procedure and Organization
the subamendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra relates both to the subject matter of allocation of time and the Standing Orders of the house and relates in particular to the proceedings conducted under proposed Standing Order 75c.
The argument commonly posed against an amendment of this type is that it amounts in effect to an expanded negative. That is to say, it involves a more complicated way of saying no to the amendment when preferably one might simply move against it. I suggest that in these circumstances it is not just an expanded negative. It is an alternative or substitutive proposition to that introduced in the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River, and for this reason it would be in order for the Chair to accept the subamendment of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the debate should continue on this point.
I would submit, therefore, that for the purpose of giving lyon. members an opportunity to pass judgment on this alternative or substitutive principle, which is relevant to the main principle involved in the original motion and is relevant to the amendment itself, it would be in order to accept the subamendment of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra does raise some interesting procedural points, not to mention the interesting points of substance which are also involved and with which we shall deal later, if necessary. It seems to me that all the citations referred to Your Honour by the President of the Privy Council fall to the ground because they relate to motions of substance, to general motions that are placed before the house. What we have to consider is that what is now before the house is a motion to adopt a report of a committtee. There is a clear rule of parliament stated in citation 323(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the House, but it must be referred back to the committee.
It seems to me that any amendment to the motion that is before the house must pay full regard to that provision, namely, that a committee's report cannot be amended on the floor of the house. It may be argued that in effect the hon. member for Peace River is seeking to do this indirectly because his 
motion, while it seeks to refer the report back to the committee, does suggest a change that ought to be made. However, I draw to your attention this fact. The change suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River is a change in respect of a subject matter related to the way of doing things which is before us. Rule 75c is in front of us in cold print, and the proposal is that 75c be deleted by the committee. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, while he is employing the device of helping to send the report back to the committee, introduces a whole new proposition. He does not talk just in respect of 75c; he wants a new 75c put into it with a new principle which happens to be one he would not expect some of us to go along with, but we must not get into the substance.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In that connection may I draw Your Honour's attention to one of the subparagraphs of citation 203, namely subparagraph (5) which says:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
I submit that if this was a general resolution in itself which we were dealing with, and it was in the terms the President of the Privy Council tried to put forward under order 100 or 99-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Under 99.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are even now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Fair enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even under those terms this amendment would have to be called into question because it raises a new question which can only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
When you put the two things together, the fact that it is clearly a brand new question plus the fact that it is in violation of the proposition that a report from a committee cannot be amended on the floor of the house, there are very serious procedural questions about the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in my humble submission for Your Honour's consideration in respect of the proposed subamendment, may I say first of all it is in my mind a form of an expanded negative. In actual fact the amendment is that the report of the committee be returned to
uiy 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization
the committee to delete a particular section. That is all it seeks to do. But the subamendment adds something else which is quite new. Within the terms of the subamendment there is an entirely new principle involving what should be considered under 75b. The fact is that it seeks to amend 75b. It does not make any mention whatsoever of 75b, but rule 75b would be amended as a result of the acceptance of the subamendment. One must amend 75b to carry out part of the purport of the subamendment by defining what shall be a majority. That is where it must be done. It cannot be done in 75c. If that is the purpose then I say the subamendment is deficient. If that is not the purpose I suggest to Your Honour that the whole subamendment is meaningless.
There arises a further procedural difficulty in respect of reporting back the proposed Standing Orders at the next sitting of the house. The subamendment is definite and clear that the committee must report back at the next sitting of the house. If the subamendment were accepted by Your Honour it might ultimately be vo ed on at ten o'clock some night. When it refers to the next sitting does that mean the committee would report back at the next sitting, or does it mean that this is something to be thought about during the summer adjournment in order that the committee may come back with a new 75c, or a new proposed Standing Order regarding the allocation of time? That is what it really says. It would involve a proposed new Standing Order for the allocafion of time. Would that be for the next session of the house? If that is the purpose of the subamendment, it does not say so.
I put it to you that this is impossible and that no one in the house would seriously suggest that if the subamendment were accepted at ten o'clock on a Thursday night the standing committee would come back with an appropriate Standing Order by 11 o'clock on Friday morning, or at least until an appropriate report had been posted. In this way it is quite wrong. It refers to the next sitting of the house. That does not mean anything else but the next sitting because this is all the business now before us.
Therefore I put it to you that the subamendment is out of order in that it is clearly an expanded negative. Second, it introduces an extraneous and new principle. Any amendment under the circumstances would have to refer to 75b if the purport of the amendment is as I have indicated. Third, it is indefinite and impossible to carry out from a
logical and administrative point of view in the way it is now worded.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to submit to you that the subamendment is in order. The committee, under its original terms of instruction from the House, dealt with the problem of allocation of time and reported on three phases of that problem, namely, 75a dealing with one set of circumstances, 75b dealing with another set, and 75c purporting to deal with still another set of circumstances.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River attempts to give instructions from the house to the committee to delete one phase in respect of a matter on which the committee has now reported. It is abundantly clear that the committee can only do what it is instructed to do by the house. I should like to refer to citation 220 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition. Citation 220(1) states:
An instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the house.
The argument I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if the committee were bound purely by the amendment in the terms offered by the hon. member for Peace River it would be unduly restric'ed in discharging its responsibility under the instructions which have been given it by the house. Citation 220(2) states:
"On May 5, 1893, the Speaker of the Commons of the United Kingdom laid down the following rulings with reference to the instructions: The principles which guide a limit in the system of instructions on going into committee may be thus stated: First, an instruction must empower the committee to do something which the committee is not otherwise empowered to do. Secondly, the purpose of the instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the bill"-
I would argue that the committee report in this case is not to be distinguished from a bill and must, generally speaking, fall wilhin the framework of a bill. The citation then states: "Thirdly, it is irregular to introduce into a bill, by an instruction to the committee, a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct statutes for distinct branches of law."
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
In discharging its instructions and responsibilities to the house the committee brought forward three recommendations in the form of 75a, 75b and 75c. If the committee were
COMMONS DEBATES	July 11, 1969
Procedure and Organization
to follow the instructions contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River it would in effect be inhibited and restricted in discharging its responsibilities under the instructions given to it. The subamendment put forward by my colleague a short while ago would permit the committee to deal with this question in a way that has not been dealt with in the discussion regarding the report dealing with the allocation of time in the house. Nothing in the subamendment is in any way inconsistent or negatives the instructions given to the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have had only a brief opportunity to examine the wording of the subamendment, but it seems to me it is an effort to amend proposed rule 75b indirectly rather than dealing with 75c and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. In other words, I think the subamendment, if accepted, would not amend 75c but 75b. To that extent it is not in any way related to the amendment we are now considering, which proposes to delete 75c. For that reason alone I submit that the subamendment is out of order. I do not think we can go this far beyond the scope of what is proposed in the amendment by trying to amend a proposed Standing Order which is not dealt with at all in the original amendment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the subamendment, which I too have had only a brief opportunity to examine, clearly contradicts and negatives the amendment. What the hon. member for Ottawa West said might be relevant if there were no amendment before the house. He directed his remarks to instructions to the committee, and that sort of thing. I suggest that the hon. member's remarks were irrelevant in the circumstances and were not directed to one of the major points Your Honour has to consider.
Clearly, the amendment moved by the hon, member for Peace River involves the deletion of proposed Standing Order 75c. Equally clearly, it seems to me that the subamendment is the exact opposite of that and its effect is that 75c be retained. It is in direct contradiction of the amendment. I am not addressing myself to the question whether an amendment such as this would be in order if it were proposed to the house after the amendment is dealt with. That is an entirely different question.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others have put forward perfectly valid objections. Clearly, the subamendment

is directly opposed to the amendment and therefore is out of order. If at some future time after the amendment is disposed of a motion like this were presented as an amendment, that would be an entirely different question. I suggest that the subamendment is clearly out of order because it negatives and is directly contradictory of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their learned contribution to the debate on the procedural point. There is some difficulty in determining whether the amendment can be accepted at this time. Some hon, members who took part in the debate indicated that the only matter we have to decide is whether the amendment is an amendment to the main motion or a subamendment. I assume that in practice it does not make very much difference. At the same time, the procedural point has been raised and I think it should be resolved.
Hon. members have referred to a number of citations and precedents. In view of the fact that it is one o'clock, hon. members might want to wait with bated breath until two o'clock, when I will deliver a learned opinion on the point of order raised by hon. members.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
fTranslation]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to thank the hon. members who were kind enough this morning to provide some assistance to the Chair in connection with the interesting point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
During the lunch hour, I have considered that point of order very seriously. Following my own inquiries as well as the advice and opinions that were generously supplied to me, I am now in a position to give a decision.

Hon. members will realize, of course, that what the Chair is concerned with especially is the relevancy and scope of the subamendment. I am worried particularly by the description of the amendment included in the subamendment. I refer to the fact that the mover of the subamendment suggests that the subamendment is presented as a substitution for the original amendment. I am wondering
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization
whether this in itself is not an indication that and the incident of the lack of a quorum the amendment cannot be accepted on the yesterday afternoon are direct consequences
in.tT'nrhir'hrm of and insistence by tne
basis of relevancy.
In the course of the procedural debate hon. members mentioned the fact that we are dealing with an amendment which is limited in scope in that it suggests that the report be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization with instructions to amend it by deleting therefrom proposed Standing Order 75c. It seems to me that the amendment which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra proposed to the house this morning does go beyond the scope of this very limited amendment. In my view and in my interpretation of the subamendment, it seeks to do many other things, one of them being to correct proposed standing order 75b. Because of that I have very serious reservations about the procedural acceptability of the subamendment.
Hon. members know that the role of the Chair essentially is to see that discussion is relevant to the matter before the house and that amendments be relevant to the questions before the house. If the Speaker has a role to perform that is particularly significant, it is precisely to see that the rule of relevancy, to some extent at least, is respected. It is not all that easy to ensure that it is respected in the course of debate. It is not easy either to see that it is accepted and respected in connection with amendments proposed by hon. members.
After much serious thought I have come to the conclusion that the subamendment proposed by the hon. member enlarges the scope of the amendment which, as I said, is limited in nature being restricted exclusively to a reconsideration of proposed Standing Order 75c. I indicated before one o'clock, and I reiterate now, that perhaps the method by which the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra might be considered by the house is in the form of an amendment to the main motion. I cannot rule in anticipation but it would appear to me to be the reasonable way in which to consider the hon. member's amendment.
For this reason and in the hope that we can ensure respect for and acceptance by all hon. members of the rule of relevancy, I suggest that the subamendment be not considered now and that we proceed for the time being with the consideration of the amendment itself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I feel the discussion today, the question period this morning
government on this type of amendment which tries to ram closure-I do not know what else to call it since it is closure-down our throats when the house will not accept that. It must be remembered, and I have indicated this before on previous occasions when we were speaking on points of order, that the rules of the house are the rules by general acceptance of the house. They are no more the prerogative of the government than they are the prerogative of the Chair. The Chair does not make the rules. Neither are they the prerogative of the opposition.
Why this government at the present time should feel that they have become the anointed to impose their version of the rules and the version of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the house is not obvious to anyone. If some of the new members would look back on the traditions and customs of this house they would see that June 25, 1968, was not the date of the second coming of Christ and was not the dawning of a new parliamentary system. It was a continuation of our parliamentary system of government.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Prior to my coming to the house in 1957 many rule changes were made. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was in the house at that time and so was the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard). The hon. member for LaSalle will agree that the changes made in 1954-55 received the consensus of the house. Lest some of the neophytes think that many of the changes brought in then were not of a major nature, let them refer to the committee report and to Votes and Proceedings, of the day when they will discover that that was the time when limitations were first imposed on the debate on the speech from the throne and the debate on the budget. Other limitations were also imposed which were for the benefit of the executive.


Mr. Winch:: And by agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, by agreement. Subsequently other changes were brought in during the 1960-61 administration which modified our daily proceedings.


Mr. Goyer:: What about the debate on the flag?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about the debate on the defence production bill and on the trans-Canada pipe line?

Procedure and Organization


Jean-Pierre Goyer: But what about the flag?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have no shame in that connection. I place no stricture whatever on the debate on the flag.

I shall only say that even if one was not born in Montreal, one is not compelled to share the views which are popular there.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about protracted debate, let us recall the pipe-line debate which although more violent than the flag debate lasted as long.

The hon. member would not even know what the government tried to do with the Defence Production Act of 1955. It was a bad law. As a result of opposition to it public opinion was mobilized, and the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, had to send Mr. Howe fishing so that the offensive clauses upon which Mr. Howe was insisting could be removed from the bill.
This is why we in this house must have the power to oppose if necessary. As a member of the committee on procedure I opposed many of the changes that were brought in by consent last December. My stand on this proposal today is absolutely clear: I think it is wrong.
With all due respect to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the ruling the Chair made in regard to acceptance of the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was also wrong. There is no rule that says I cannot disagree with a finding of the Chair. Although I accept the ruling made by the Chair I do not think it is correct. It is wrong because the motion that appeared on the order paper was in clear defiance of an order of the house.
The only member who had a right to bring forward a motion in regard to the procedure of the house was the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) as chairman of a committee that had been instructed by the house to study a certain matter and report. He, in turn, had been instructed by the committee to seek concurrence in the committee report. A government minister had no prerogative to bring forward an amended version of the motion. That action was totally and irretrievably wrong.
If that ruling is to persist and rule 75c is approved, the house will have been delivered bound hand and foot, with a gag ready to be placed in the mouths of its members, right on the doorstep of the government as it wants. 
July 11, 1969
Under 75c, which deals with legislation and not with estimates, if a committee brings in a report to the house that is in any way critical of the government the government will tell a supine chairman of that committee-many of them have been supine chairmen or have behaved as such-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say shame on the government for its actions in regard to the chairman of the transport committee, the man the government put in hospital. The government is also guilty of shameless conduct in regard to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He was put under intolerable pressure. He was put in an impossible position, his committee having decided in its wisdom to bring in a certain report.
A great deal has been said about the merits of our new committee system. It was going to be the beginning of the dawning of a new era.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The cornerstone of the just society.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. All members were going to participate. They would be able to question witnesses and to express their opinions. They would be able to bring forward the reports they wished.
We must remember that committees consist of a majority of government members. In this regard I could say something about government members who express a degree of independence. As a result of the new method of appointing members to committees, government members are being yanked off without their consent or consultation. An example of this took place in the transport committee last week.


Mr. Lessard (LaSalle):: It was done in your time too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, it was
not.


Mr. Peters:: They had to come to the house first.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let me ask
the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) or the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) whether they were consulted about being pulled off the transport committee. Did they consent to that?


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-
July 11, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary South is rising on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "Under what guise is the hon. member attempting to speak?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South is rising on a point of order.

Procedure and Organization the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands related to matters about which there would be a great deal of controversy in the house. Let us assume that old age security is made-
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Go home.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was taken off the transport committee at my own request because I was going to be necessarily absent from Ottawa. I returned to the committee immediately I came back to the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is nice to have the record clear on that point, but I should like to know why it was said otherwise in the committee. In any event, as long as the government has the power to remove members from committees, as it has, we will see independent-minded committee members suddenly taken off committees. No motion in this house is necessary. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Lind) last year suddenly found himself involuntarily taken off a commit, ee, though at that time the government had to make a motion in the house before it could do so.
If the government does not like the report of a committee it can prepare a government motion to excise the portions of the report in question. Then it will claim the right of precedence simply by instructing the chairman not to move the motion for concurrence. On top of this we have allocation of time. As I have said, the house would be bound hand and foot, with a gag less than an inch from the mouths of its members, always at the ready, if 75c were approved.

If we want to consider closure, I will tell you that it is provided for implicitly in the Standing Orders.


Hon. Members:: Give examples.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of closure? I am willing to tell you how it can work.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others have indicated that in the future there could be a change of government. We must remember that these proposed rules are not temporary but will be in force until the house decides otherwise, and the examples put forward by


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is all right, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is new here and a member of that arrogant majority. Let us assume that the government is going to amend the Old Age Security Act by imposing a means test.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am only assuming that this would be the proposal. Let us say that the government of the day says, ''We are going to allow one day for second reading," and that at the end of that one day's debate the motion is put, after which the bill is sent to a committee of the house. Let us say that it is to be in committee for two days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For
one and a half hours each day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. The committee could be allocated one period a day in a committee room. It is all too easy to have 15 or 17 committees programmed for a day. Committees are fairly simple to schedule, although they do not always go ahead. At any rate, there is discussion in a committee primarily composed of government supporters for two days, and then the committee has to report. When the bill comes to the house at the report stage an allocation order is made and there is a further two days' debate at the report stage, followed by third reading. But, Mr. Speaker, there will be debate at the report stage only if there are amendments; if no amendments are put forward at that stage there will be no debate. So there might be two days of debate followed by third reading. That is all that would be allowed.
I know the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) said he thought that allowing one member from the front bench and one backbench member from each party to speak would be a sufficient expression of opinion. Isn't that cosy, Mr. Speaker?
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
backbenchers over there have as much respect for parliament as the Prime Minister has.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You know, Mr. Speaker, if some of our neophyte members had had a chance of serving in the opposition as well as on the government side, and my experience is about evenly divided between both sides of the house so I ought to know what I am talking about, it would be much better for them. There must be ample opportunities for discussion. And who shall say on a particular bill affecting constituencies from one end of the country to another that such and such a frontbencher who represents his constituents and such and such a backbencher or private member who represents his constituents shall be the only ones to speak? Who is going to arrogate unto himself the role of God in saying, "You, from the province of Nova Scotia, on this particular subject, you cannot be heard; and you, from Ontario, on this subject, you will not be heard." Hon. members forget that in this house we are equals and have equal rights to speak. But no, only the exalted 27 or 28 in this house are to be given the opportunity to speak extensively.
This situation applies to the government backbenchers, if only they knew it. At present it makes no difference to them because they are not allowed to speak and will not be allowed to speak. Talk about participatory government! Here we have a government in which the front benches have lost contact with the back benches. We have all heard good stories going around of the yards and yards of ministerial skin that were scraped off walls following complaints at the Liberal love-in. Government backbenchers are overheard talking in coffee shops and elevators. They gripe and their gripes are heard by others so that they become public knowledge.
I now wish to deal with some other matters, Mr. Speaker. I am participating in this debate at this time because, as vice-chairman of the committee, I can say that the chairman who presided over the committee's sessions last year and this year, without exception, did an excellent job, and no member of that committee can point a finger at him for being partial or for not having the committee under good control. It was because he was being hamstrung and humiliated by the government that I have insisted on taking part in this debate. I am taking part to protect the position of the chairman of the committee 
because I feared he was going to be destroyed. But that, of course, did not seem to affect the conscience of the government house leader.
I wish to place on record as vice-chairman of the committee, and I think I speak for all members of the committee, that I appreciate the services performed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). I put my remarks in those terms. I have no words of condemnation in my vocabulary that are strong enough to condemn the government's attitude in this connection. May I also say that the Leader of the Opposition indicated that there was a rumour, and he was quite right, that a motion might be brought in order to vindicate the conduct and position of the chairman. I was prepared to bring in a motion of privilege on behalf of the committee in order to protect the chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
were ready, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We just could not allow this matter to pass without making the strongest representations. Members of other committees will have to take the same steps in order to protect the position of chairmen. We have developed a committee system that will fail if we do not have strong, impartial chairmen. And, Mr. Speaker, we want our chairmen to be as free from pressure and as impartial with members of the committee as Your Honour is in the House of Commons.
In many ways our committee chairmen must be carbon copies of Mr. Speaker and display an impartiality of conduct and a knowledge of how committee meetings ought to be conducted. Otherwise our committees may become arenas for hatchet games in which government instructions will be carried out to the letter. After all, have we not heard that the government house leader has indicated to government members that their function in the committee system is not primarily to amend legislation and alter estimates, but to protect the government. They are part of the government's team and they are to act as such. Well, Mr. Speaker, the natural consequence of that is, as I said a moment ago, that the committees will become arenas for hatchet games. The whole of the process is spurious if it is felt that the committees are not going to be a forum for discussing and examining legislation and estimates and/or going into questions that the government has put before them.

July 11/ 1969
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Some people do not have much hope for the committee system. I do not share that pessimism. I will be personal again and say that the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs had developed a spirit of co-operation. Its members work with the chairman who understands their aspirations and is quite prepared to work along with them. We get along fine in that committee. That type of committee produces good results. It may be one of the exceptions.
I have great hopes for the committee system, but it will have to work differently from the way in which it has been working. The committee will have to work with much less influence from the government. The chairman cannot be either the chief protector of the government or the hatchetman. He must always bear foremost in mind the interests of the committee. It must be remembered that committees are composed of members from all parties in the house just as the house is composed of members of different political persuasions. Your Honour must protect the interests of all members, not just those of the government supporters. The chairman of a committee must represent the interests of all members of that committee.
I hope we will see some consequential changes. I hope we will have a panel of chairmen who will occupy a position in the house much greater than at present. If the government wants to do something about hatchet-men or chief defenders, why do they not employ some of their parliamentary secretaries who are terribly under-employed at the present time in that position?
All the changes that have been made over the years have been for the benefit of the executive. I suppose it is a case of always bowing before the altar or burning incense at the altar of super-efficiency, or supposed efficiency. We are now told that the Privy Council office is going to become an empire of technocrats. We are going to see what will happen to the office of the Privy Council, with parliamentary secretaries going over the heads of deputy ministers and around ministers. These stories get out, Mr. Speaker. What is being set up? An empire for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). A presidential system is being put together. Parliament? It is only an institution that must be tolerated for the time being, but too much attention should not be paid to it.
For example, there are regional desks. Hon. members need not be listened to. Somewhere
Procedure and Organization in the field there is a man reporting to the Prime Minister. Recent negotiations in the field of external affairs have not been carried out by the officials of that department. Special emissaries not connected with the department are being sent out who report directly to the Prime Minister. The Department of External Affairs does not know what is going on in connection with these negotiations.
While all this is happening, hon. members on the government side sit back and say. Everything is fine, what are you talking about? They say that these are mere rule changes which are being introduced. They have been brought in under the aegis of the Prime Minister, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is merely the instrument with regard to them. He is the chief executive officer in this abolition of the rights of parliamentarians.
Hon. members opposite are no different than I. They represent their constituencies in the same manner and have the same rights as do I. Somehow they should realize our rights are being trampled upon and we are being muzzled. What do they think is happening to them? Is their parliament going to be every Wednesday morning in caucus where, because of their numbers, each man may be limited to two minutes? What rights have they got to speak? How are they going to speak on behalf of their constituents when the power is given to the President of the Privy Council who cares not a fig for the interests of private members? An example of this is what happened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. The cabinet did not care a fig for him and were quite prepared to offer him up on the altar of expediency.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Do you prefer a two-leader system?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I challenge the hon. member for Dollard to make an intelligent speech on the subject of the rules.


An hon. Member:: It is not possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member should stand up and represent his constituents as he has an obligation to do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He does not know anything about it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon.
member gets a lot of information, doesn't he? He gets it, all right! The only time he rises is when some minister or parliamentary secretary says: 'Why don't you rise and ask this or
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization that question? I happen to have my music with me and you can ask a question today." That is the only time government backbenchers are tolerated. That is the only time they are heard. The only time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works has spoken is when he says he will take something as notice. The hon. member is a great one to speak from his seat.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) spoke this morning in exculpation of the attendance of members yesterday afiernoon. The hon. member does not realize it, but from approximately 3.15 p.m. yes.erday afternoon the same move could have been made as was made at 5.05 p.m. I was in the house until just before five o'clock and at least half a dozen times I counted the number of government members present. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking they had the effrontery to be absent, while the opposition had over 30 members.


An hon. Member:: Instead of leaving it-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the hon. member please let me speak.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking at no time were there more than eight members on the government side in their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There were no more than eight.


An hon. Member:: There was only one of
your members here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I ask hon. gentlemen to maintain some decorum and allow the hon. member for Edmon on West to complete his remarks. If the hon. member has a question, he may request permission from the Chair to ask it.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon.
member keeps insisting there was only one member here. He does not even know he had been sucked in.


Grant Deachman: It is recorded.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be at 5.05 p.m. but, as I said, the same action 
was quite possible from 3.15 onward. You do not know how many times you were counted in your lobby to see how many members you had there. It was clearly understood. This pattern had been apparent for quite some time, and it is very simple to do it. I do not have to explain, but it could have happened at 4.30 just as well as at five minutes after five o'clock, and the day before as well.
Let us be clear about it. The hon. member will not go on television tonight hollering "filibuster, filibuster." Why, to him two speeches in a row constitute a filibuster. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, when he speaks we consider that a filibuster on the part of the government. He makes only the one speech.
I wish to say a few things now about 75b and 75c. I oppose 75b, but not at all on the basis of the majority question. I feel, again in anticipation of the worth of the committee system, that no government house leader, and this includes my own party's house leader, can be well enough advised as to agree with the other house leaders that the committee proceedings on this or that bill shall take so many days, say, five days. For one thing there is already a committee on allocation of space and facilities. The house leaders would be competing against other requirements. In committees we are short of space and of staff. We do not know what witnesses are going to come before us and what priority we will have with regard to the printing of the transcript. This is important to the administration of committees. Committee members must have quick reproduction of the testimony given in a committee if they are to make intelligent comments.
As a classic example I cite the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which has been discussing high interest rates with the governor of the Bank of Canada. The governor brought in a very complex statement of 29 typewritten pages which took over a committee session to read. There were questions. The problems are difficult. The governor gave very lengthy, reasoned answers. But who on earth could sit there and make a complete note of them, particularly those members who signified their intention to ask further questions? How can they keep all of this in their heads from Tuesday to Thursday or from Thursday to Tuesday, or from one session to another if sessions are more numerous than that. We need the transcripts but as yet there is no established priority for them. There is no indication that we are going to get them.
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization
Then there is the question of how long a ing but an assault on parliament, completely witness is going to take. I can give many and utterly, by the executive, not by the gov-examples during the past winter of very ernment backbenchers because they are erudite, very learned witnesses, where a 30- frightened, unwilling and ignorant victims of second question prompted a 19-minute an- what they propose to support through the swer. This meant that a member with a 20- allocation of time. Parliament as such is being minute allocation of time during a round of delivered, tied hand and foot, with a gag questions got in one question, or perhaps two, already half way over its mouth, and the answers took up the balance of his How do you expect you are going to get time allocation. How is the house leader going voluntary agreement when the government to deal with that? I say that the house lead- house leader sits with 75c as a club behind
ers, with respect to bills over which there is controversy and with respect to lengthy bills, have no business imposing a time limit in committee. They do not know, except within very wide parameters, how long it is going to take. During the past winter we did not have any allocation of time in committees, but no one can point a finger at even one bill that was held up in committee.
On top of that, is it the intention of the government house leader to say that a committee shall sit morning, afternoon and evening? He may think so, but what about the staff? I have seen such decisions made on the spur of the moment, decisions like, "Oh, let us sit tonight," but there was no thought of checking with the staff about it. And remember, Mr. Speaker, every committee, for example the finance committee, takes between 30 and 40 people to attend to its needs. These include translators, transcribers, the electronic equipment operators and all of the other people involved. As I say, it takes a staff of between 30 and 40. Are you going to tell them on just the spur of the moment, "We are going to sit in the evening", or make an offhand decision that results in evening sittings?
The next thing we are going to meet is that these very competent and willing staffs are going to take the whole business and say, "Here, you get on with it. We quit."


An hon. Member:: They are now.


Mr, Lambert (Edmonton West):: Even now when we are still sitting in committees some have been delayed. Why? Because several of the staff have had to be given holidays in order to work off the great accumulations of overtime they have had built up to their credit. Yet this is what this proposal would load on to them. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough in condemnation of 75b in so far as it deals with the committee system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In so far as
75c is concerned, as I said before it is nothhis back and says, "Gentlemen, can we agree on this particular bill? If not, you know I have got 75c here. My proposal is that we are going to take it two days at a time, and that is it." Is this how one gets general agreement?
We are going to work to rule in this house, if and when 75c comes in. You will see the house work to rule, and the Lord only knows how slow that is going to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will there be accommodation? Will the house leaders and committee chairmen go to see ministers or opposite members to discuss these matters and say, "Well, bring on that particular bill tonight because we have agreed among ourselves that it will take an hour to get it through this particular stage." Nothing doing, Mr. Speaker. All that will be said to the government will be, "Go back to 75c and do your damnedest because we will see you freeze in Hades before we agree voluntarily.
This house gets along and has got along well on good, personal relations. It has gotten on pretty well this year, better than I have seen it for some years. But this proposed rule having been brought in by the government we saw an incident yesterday afternoon which would never have been even thought of under any circumstances during the period when we were getting on well together. And this morning we had a snap and snarl question session and we saw the petulant behavior of the Prime Minister even though, mind you, it was mild compared with what many of us have seen in the house in years past. Under these circumstances people become very concerned.
What do you think happened in the British house the other night when closure was brought on? Nobody has thrown order papers in this house; nobody has seen such a tumult. It does not matter about the subject matter, it is the attitude that is important. Closure and the guillotine, unless agreed upon, will never result in any greater volume of work going
July 11, 1969

Procedure and Organization through. I plead with hon. members, particularly with government backbenchers. If they think we of the opposition are being gagged, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the gag is being put on them too, and they are assisting in putting it on themselves. It could conceivably be that they will be sitting over here and they may also want time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Possibly I might ask the house whether there is unanimous consent for him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right; fine. I know where the no is from. This is a bad motion, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the committee report.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate this afternoon, that is why I shall be very brief, but I cannot let pass unnoticed the allegations and suspicions voiced by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in this house.
The hon. member for Edmonton West has insisted that the government, and in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), intended to muzzle the opposition and prevent the free exercise of democracy in this house. In addition, he made vague accusations which, when he defined them, were refuted flatly. The hon. member for Edmonton West gave the impression that the Liberal party and its members were muzzled, no less, by the government and by the Prime Minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It
is obvious.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, once again, those allegations are vague, especially because they are not based on facts.
How strange to see a member of the opposition complain about the government, and in particular about the Prime Minister, saying that he interferes with hon. members' participation in the debate, that he intends to deprive the opposition of their rights and prerogatives when, just recently, those same parties and specially their leaders received supplementary credits from the government to 
enable them to fulfil their role adequately in the house, to do some research and prepare sensible speeches instead of merely making accusations which have nothing to do with the matter now under study.
How strange to see an opposition, that is better equipped today than it has ever been, complain about being muzzled and being ostracized. There's no mistake about it: those who receive are biting the hand that gives to them.
As for us, we have but to congratulate ourselves on the action of the government and on our greater participation not only in committees, or in this house but also in the Liberal party's caucus.
The Prime Minister has taken steps recently that enable us in our caucus to participate much more actively than before in the elaboration of bills and discussion of principles that are to be brought forward in this house.
Moreover, the committees operate better than they used to. They are now provided with better research facilities, especially the committee on external affairs and national defence, which has at its disposal a staff of experts to assist committee members in their work. Here is a move which, far from hindering participation in debates, will help those who wish to contribute in an intelligent way to the business of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What happens to the committee reports? Are they shelved?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Perhaps the ban. member for Edmonton West could say how many reports tabled in the house were concurred in instead of always being over-critical and seeking the exceptional cases.
The object of the measure before us is to modernize the workings of our parliamentary institutions. Of course, in days gone by, it was difficult to let the people what was going on since the mass media were not as they are today.
Filibusters had to be accepted in the past, so that people would know about the legislation that was being considered.
Today, when television, radio and newspapers are always present, when journalists give a daily account of what is going on in the house and in the committees every minute, it is normal for the government to want an efficient tool to allow it to expedite the business of the house without for all that keeping the people in the dark.
July 11, 1969

Needless to say that if two weeks, three weeks or a month were, in the past, necessary to inform the people about the business of the house, today it is a matter of days and the citizens who want to be well-informed, who want to participate and to give their opinion on what we are doing in the house, can do it far more easily.
Mr. Speaker, participation also means that hon. members can and must be present in their ridings to meet their constituents and to listen to what they have to say about what is going on in the house. However, since the sessions, these last few years, have been very long, even endless, that pleases only those who enjoy dealing with legal and procedural technicalities while preventing citizens and hon. members from participating in the democratic process.
Therefore we must find some means of shortening the sessions so that hon. members may have some time available to visit their ridings and to live with the people they represent. The purpose of this legislation is precisely to speed up the business of the house. There is no question of putting a gag over anyone's mouth but rather to make it possible for hon. members to work in a more orderly fashion.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a matter of mental health to bear with endless and repetitious debates which contribute nothing of any positive nature.
Therefore, it is not surprising that serious-minded members are not always in the house listening to the same rubbish and rehashed nonsense.
I think that it is normal for hon. members to do some work outside this house while still serving the people they represent, and Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being three o'clock I do now interrupt the debate in order that the house may consider a motion by the hon. member for Skeena pursuant to Standing Order 26.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the debate commences may I explain to the house and the hon. member in particular that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is returning from Halifax where he was in consultation with Indian representatives this morning. He will be in the house within the next 20 minutes, I hope, to participate in the debate.
Indian Affairs



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDIAN AFFAIRS ALLEGED FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO CONSULT NATIVE PEOPLE IN DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY

Frank Howard: July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
was not at any time any indication whatsoever that there would be any constitutional protection for the hereditary, statutory and committed rights of the native Indian peoples. These were ignored. The matter of Indian lands and the inheritance of Indian people in respect of resources, which should have been enshrined in our constitutional law has been ignored so far by the government. This is one of the reasons for disagreement and resentment on the part of the Indian people.
The other reason, generally speaking, is the lack of consultation in the social preparation and the development of the policy declared by the minister on June 25. It is true that there was consultation of a sort prior to that time, and it might be worth while to trace a little bit of the history of this so-called consultation process to indicate why the native people feel they have been cheated and deceived in this regard.
When Mr. Tremblay was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a previous government, he announced that the government was going to develop a program involving advisory boards and councils. As a consequence there was established provincial and national councils or advisory boards in respect of Indian affairs. These boards met on numerous occasions and worked out, so far as I know with the minister and subsequent ministers, a program relating to Indian affairs revolving around the Indian Act. This also involved what should be done about historic rights.
The present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), when he was the minister of Indian affairs, not longer ago than December of 1967, announced in this house that as a result of these advisory boards and council meetings he had almost completed a draft of Indian Act changes. I submit this was done with an eye to the then expected federal election of 1968. There was a change of course; almost a disregard of the advisory board and council meetings. The minister then embarked upon a program which he called "consultation", designed to begin just prior to the then expected 1968 election.
It seemed to many of the Indian people who had attended these advisory council and board meetings and worked with the minister in preparing something in which they thought they were participating, that their ideas had been scuttled. The Indian people accepted the concept because they wanted consultative meetings. They agreed to start all over again, to put to the minister what they had been

saying for years. This culminated in a meeting in Ottawa at the end of April and during the first of May at a national level. The minister went to that meeting and listened, but made no declaration whatsoever except that in respect of the development of ideas and policy that he would make a statement sometime before the end of June. He did so, but at that stage the consultation stopped.
There was no consultation whatsoever with native Indian people about the actual preparation of the document the minister tabled in this house on June 25 of this year, a few weeks ago. Consultation ended when it should have reached its peak; when the crunch was put on and when the real guts of the situation was to be developed. The minister secluded himself with his advisors in whatever private offices he has and developed a policy and program in isolation from the native people, without regard to their feelings or to consultation. The minister has subsequently said the Indian people do not know what they want in this regard; that their opinion is divided.
On April 29 the National Indian Brotherhood, in consort with delegates who were elected to attend that national conference, made a statement to the government of Canada. I will not bother to read it in its entirety, but I want to say they expressed doubts about the course of consultation meetings, and specifically said:
It has been made abundantly clear, both by the consultations to date and through Indian meetings throughout the land, that the principal concerns of Indian people center around;-
They then list four principles as follows:
Recognition of the treaties and the obligations imposed by same;
Recognition of aboriginal rights;
Reconciliation of injustices done by the imposition of restrictions on Indian hunting through the ratification of the migratory birds convention and subsequent federal and provincial legislation;
Claims commission-It is our opinion that before meaningful consultation on amendments to the Indian Act can take place these four items must be dealt with and a position of mutual understanding and commitment reached.
Those are exactly the points the government seems to have missed or ignored. The manner of implementing these programs is also bringing a halt to a great deal of the development which should have taken place and was expected among the Indian people on the Indian reserves. These Indian people are now reluctant to participate in programs of development under the department in respect of such matters as housing, welfare and grants to assist in the economic development
July 11, 1969

of these areas because these people are fearful of what may happen to these programs if the government proceeds blindly, as has been the case.
Let me refer to the example of the Eel River Bar Reserve in New Brunswick. The Indian band there made an application for $125,000 to the Indian affairs branch of the department, and put up $40,000 of its own money plus additional collateral in the form of $13,000 per year expected revenue the band would receive. The band has now dropped that program for economic development of that reserve because it does not know what will flow from the present conversation the minister is having with the province, or from the direction which has been outlined. Consequently, they feel they have been cheated; that they have been exploited and that the government and the minister have chosen to ignore the fundamentals involved in an Indian affairs policy.
Many Indian people feel that the government went into the consultation process with its mind made up. They feel the government went there to listen but not to heed. The government has consulted but has not heeded, and these native people feel there may have been a basic misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge on the part of the minister and the government as to Indian affairs.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The minister gave an interview to Time magazine following the introduction of the policy statement in this house. In the issue of July 4 we find these words of the minister:
The more I thought, I realized that the Indians come to the federal government for one reason; because of the colour of their skins.
That is a ridiculously ignorant statement. We are involved here with the rights of people. We are involved here with something that should not have attached to it a condescending remark like that, semi-racist in nature. Surely, the minister knows that the Indian people do not come to the federal government because of the colour of their skin, hair or eyes. They come to the federal government because of our constitution. They come here because the federal government has sole, exclusive jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. That is what the British North America Act says. They come here because of the proclamation of King George III which respected their rights and which successive federal governments have ignored. They come here because the
Indian Affairs
agency representing the government of Canada at that lime signed the treaties. They come to the federal government because it has a legal, moral and ethical obligation to deal with their affairs. They do not come here on the basis of the colour of their skin. If that is truly what the minister and the government think, it is the cause of the difficulties and misunderstanding. Part of the program enunciated by the minister is already in effect and is the cause of resentment by the Indian people. The program has been announced and put into effect.
A cause of wonderment on the part of the native Indian people is the fact that we in this house tried to obtain a document headed "Local government on Indian reserves", and were unable to do so. This document was prepared in secret and hidden from the native people. I tried to obtain it in this house. The house made a decision on it by voting. I am not casting any reflection on the decision. I am not entitled, under the rules, to do that in any event. The minister said: Local government on Indian reserves is not my policy. If it is not his policy, why is it in effect? Who is running the department, the minister or the mandarins who work in it? If it is not the government's policy, why is it there? There is also the implementation of the program under the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Indian Affairs. They are starting to put into effect the policy announced on June 25.
The Indian people are very much concerned about the declaration that the government will respect what it calls the legal rights of Indians. They look at the Jay treaty and say: We have certain rights, but the Supreme Court of Canada has said the Jay treaty does not apply because the parliament of Canada never endorsed it. Is that the legal right the minister is prepared to accept, that the treaty is invalid? The native Indian people look at the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which they thought preserved their rights, and find that the courts have overruled them. The minister is prepared to endorse the ruling of the courts which has wiped out treaties in a number of instances across this country, treaties concerning health, the medicine chest treaty in the prairies and fishing rights in New Brunswick.
When the minister was asked about the Jay treaty in this house, Mr. Speaker, he said that the people who thought they were covered by that treaty could go to court. Is that the way he intends to respect what the native Indian

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
people believe to be their rights? These matters have caused a great deal of concern among the native Indian people. John MacDonald, Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs, circulated a letter to the employees of the department on June 25, the same day the minister announced his policy. I notice that Mr. MacDonald is sitting in the gallery today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I do not know why hon. members applaud him. In that letter Mr. MacDonald told his employees that they were going to embark upon a new policy. He set out in the letter what the government intended to do. Let me read part of it:
The government therefore proposes to negotiate with the provinces and arrange with other federal departments for the early transfer of programs and services carried on by this department for the benefit of the Indian people.
The letter refers also to the steps necessary to protect the job positions of the people working in the department, and special steps to deal with the problems of career development. In other words, the program the Minister announced is already being implemented, namely, transferring the programs and services carried on by the department for the benefit of the Indian people. These people have been making life miserable for the Indian people for many years, and now they are being transferred to other departments.
Is this part of the consultation process? The minister has just come back from Nova Scotia where he had meetings, with whom I do not know. Presumably those meetings were to talk about the policy the minister had announced and, hopefully, to change his ideas if they were rejected. At the same time he is doing that he is putting into effect a program which the native Indian people look upon with suspicion. It is fundamental to the whole problem-we have said this innumerable times- in the field of Indian affairs that any program or policy for the Indian people has to be commensurate with their needs and desires. A program or policy should not be developed within the sanctity of the minister's office or by the people working in the department, and imposed from above.
There has been almost universal rejection of this policy by the native Indian people in Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and parts of Manitoba; for all I know, perhaps all of Manitoba. In the face of this rejection, the minister still goes blindly on his way like a man compelled by a hidden force, unable to 
see, unwilling to hear. Let me read what the Indian Association of Alberta said.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. Chretien:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are having only one hour of debate, as far as I know, and if not I consent.


Mr. Danforth:: Oh, no. It is unlimited.


David Lewis: We are having at least three hours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


John Gilbert: Christian charity!


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying that at least five of the hon. member's colleagues remained in the chamber this afternoon to hear the debate on this matter of public importance. It is refreshing to see the New Democratic party so concerned about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that that matter has been settled.


Raymond J. Perrault: I made the point simply to indicate that this is a very important question, and I am shocked to find so few members of the New Democratic party present for the debate.
July 11, 1969


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I would ask the co-operation of hon. members. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) has the floor.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has risen on a question of privilege.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member has put on the record of the house the fact that there are five members of our party in the chamber at this time. I regret to say that his eyesight must be defective because there have been eight, nine or ten members at all times.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly capable of coun ing. If they were skulking behind the curtain and are now present, then I must withdraw my original statement that only five members were listening.
We heard from the hon. member for Skee-na (Mr. Howard) who, in a rare act of verbal contortionism, has completely reversed the position he adopted on June 25. His party has now incorpora: ed into the list of 5BX exercises the "Skeena flipflop". That is the only way to describe it. Now, we have the hon. member for Skeena posing as the fierce defender of the view that the government has acted precipitately in the matter of revising its policy toward our first citizens, that there has been inadequate consultation, and that the policy is defective.
I think we must remind ourselves that according to Hansard of June 25, at page 10584, the following words were used by the hon. member for Skeena with regard to the announcement made by the minister:
The hon. member for Peace River and I had the opportunity in 1959, 1960 and 1961 of participating in the joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs ... the report of which committee contained the same ideas and concepts that the minister has now outlined. Even though it has taken some period of time to get a cabinet minister to agree with those concepts, it is still welcomed.
Those were the words which he used. Then, he went on to say that many of his comments must necessarily be vague. Certainly they must necessarily be vague-they had not been worked out. The hon. member said:
Many of his comments must necessarily be vague, as he is not dealing with this matter in a unilateral sense but in an area of conversation and discussions with the native people and with the provinces.
Indian Affairs
Now, we hear that there have been inadequate discussions. On June 25, the hon. member said that of course there will be discussions, and there must be discussions. He acknowledged this fact, and he said that naturally the minister cannot have any predetermined position to outline to them. The words which he employs today are at total variance with the statement with which he greeted the announcement of the minister last June 25. At that time he said, as recorded at page 10585 of Hansard:
The policy statement is a step in the right direction,
He went on to say:
I think the success of this program depends on two factors: It depends upon the continued acceptance by the government of the views of the native Indian people themselves because they are of primary importance; it also depends upon the speed with which the government puts into effect those accepted views.
I suggest that this was a responsible statement, and I hope the hon. member will come out from behind the curtain before we are finished this afternoon.


Frank Howard: May I say, for the information of the hon. member, that I have been requested to answer the telephone.


Raymond J. Perrault: He said there had been inadequate consultation. He said that the minister had callously disregarded the views of the Indian people. This must mark the most dramatic conversion since St. Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. On June 25 this hon. member who was speaking for his party sought eagerly to attach himself to very concept advanced in the report on Indian policy, claiming paternity for the child. Today it is different; he rejects the infant and he would abandon it to its fate because he sees some sort of shoddy poli ical advantage. Anybody who goes around the country making statements of the kind he made is irresponsible.
I will quote again from page 10951 of Hansard in which he predicts that there is going to be tribal warfare, turbulence and fury- these are the words he employed. It would be wrong to question the motives of any member in this house, but one can only wonder why the attitude of the hon. member of June 25 has deteriorated into the position he takes today. On July 10, he spoke about a matter of urgent public importance, referring to the almost universal rejection of the policy statement of the minister. He spoke of the manner in which the government has treated the Indians, and the refusal of the government so

July 11. 1969
Indian Affairs
far to indicate that it is prepared to enshrine in the constitution their aboriginal and hereditary rights. He went on to speak about turbulence, fury, tribal warfare, and the rest. This is not a responsible statement by a member of the House of Commons, regardless of his party. The only word which would apply to this remarkable flipflop, to these verbal pyrotechnics, is disreputable.
What have the members of the New Democratic party been advocating these past few weeks? I have before me some of the words which they have uttered in this house. On September 19, 1968, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) called for self-determination. He said:
It is about time they were given the right to make more of the decisions affecting their own lives-
On September 23, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) said:
-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 their own existence as they wish to live it-
Then, we heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on October 28, 1968. He was attacking the idea of paternalism and centralization, saying that more decisions should be made by the Indian people themselves.
Then, on December 17, 1968, we heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), again attacking paternalism. He said:
-in spite of repeated proposals from the natives that they take part in the decisions which affect them.
Then, we heard once again on January 14, 1969 from the hon. member for Winnipeg North who spoke about self-determination. He said:
-one thing which the Indians want more than anything else is their right as citizens of Canada, and surely they are the original citizens of Canada, to direct and manage their own affairs,-
This is the consistent N.D.P. demand.
Then, we heard from the hon. member for Skeena who has spoken many times on the subject of Indians. On March 6, 1969 he said:
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-
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.

The hon. member called for the abolition of the Indian Act. He said:
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.
These are the statements which have been placed on the record by a party which today sponsors a resolution questioning the motives of the minister and questioning the report which he brought to the house. I ask the house whether or not this is a responsible attitude.


David Lewis: Where is the contradiction?


Raymond J. Perrault: I can go on and on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on a question of privilege.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member says we have been questioning the motives of the minister. The hon. member may be questioning the motives of the minister, but at no time have we suggested that we question his motives. Quite the reverse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am pleased to hear at least a partial return to a responsible attitude by the party to our left.
These are the suggestions made in the report on Indian policy:
-this is the right time to change long-standing policies. The Indian people have shown their determination that present conditions shall not persist-
This government believes in equality. It believes that all men and women have equal rights. It is determined that all shall be treated fairly and that not one shall be shut out of Canadian life, and especially that no one shall be shut out because of his race.
Then, a new policy is advanced in the report, which reads:
The government would be prepared to take the following steps to create this framework.
It does not say that the government is determined arbitrarily and unilaterally, without consultation, to impose this policy. There is an offer from this government. The government says that this is what they are prepared to do and the report states very explicitly that the measures for implementation of the
7uly 11, 1969

policy are straightforward. They require discussion, consultation and negotiation with the Indian people, individuals, bands and associations and with provincial governments.
This is a statement by a responsible government, earnestly seeking solutions to a problem which has plagued this nation ever since confederation. Today there has been an attempt, and I suggest it is a very shoddy and disreputable attempt, to create the impression that there is some sort of deliberate policy on the part of this government and those who support it, not to work toward the best interests of the Indian people.
Then, we see in the report, under the heading "The Immediate Steps", the following:
Some changes could take place quickly. Others would take longer. It is expected that within five years the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would cease to operate in the field of Indian affairs; the new laws would be in effect and existing programs would have been devolved. The Indian lands would require special attention for some time.
These are only approximate targets, and may I remind the house once again that the government has said it would be prepared to hold discussions. This is not the time, I suggest, for any political party in Canada to muddy the waters by suggesting less than worthy motives on the part of the government or anybody else. I suggest that the party sponsoring this resolution should not yield to the temptation to till the fields of misunderstanding. It is easy to say that one does not blame the Indians for going on the warpath in the hope that a few more gains will be made, but time would be better invested working constructively with the Indian people and providing them with full equality in Canadian society. This means reassuring them that there are enough responsible people in this parliament who will ensure that their rights will not be flushed down the drain.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is incumbent upon a responsible opposition to see to it that the Indian people are told this. In view of all the meetings held with Conservatives, Liberals and others in this house not one member of the house could claim that another member is not interested in the problems of the Indian people. It is unfair and unworthy to suggest that somehow some of the members of this house are trying to get rid of a responsibility that is justly and legally theirs.
Having talked with my associates in the Liberal party, I see in the proposed program
Indian Affairs
possibility for great advances by the Indian people, but only after full consultation as spelled out by the minister in his original statement. The rights that they possess at the present time should, I believe, in no way diminish; and I believe that view is held by every member of the House of Commons.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to make a few comments this afternoon because I was not able to be present in the house when the minister made his statement. However, I did read it with some degree of optimism, though with a number of reservations, and I should like to put these forward in a constructive way.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: I have
some reservations too.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to find a more lively group across the way than was the case yesterday, Mr. Speaker. However, since I am limited to 20 minutes I should like to use my time as constructively as possible.
The contentious part of the minister's proposals concerned the relationships with the government and other groups; on the one hand, relations with the provincial governments, and principally, of course, relations with the Indian people. With regard to relations with the provincial governments, the proposal seems to amount to a transfer of what must be some very expensive functions that are now being performed by Ottawa, functions that it must be the hope of the minister will be improved. However, there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen, because there is no guarantee that a transfer of adequate revenues commensurate with the responsibilities that the minister contemplates handing out to the provinces will be made.
Indeed, the statement made by the minister specifically suggested that the financial contributions of the government over a time will diminish, and then disappear. Such a statement is not likely to be very encouraging to responsible provincial ministers, and consequently not very encouraging to the Indian people.
This, of course, is the same government that promised there would be no more medicare, meaning there would be no more of these unilaterally dictated arrangements with the provinces. Yet clearly this proposal appears to be another announcement of an imposition on the provinces that involves potentially as much expense, and unfortunately as little consultation with the prov-

July 11. 1969
Indian Affairs
inces, as was the case with the medicare program.
With regard to the Indian people themselves, the statement of the government very nearly treats as irrelevant the issue of treaty and aboriginal rights which the Indian people consider paramount. The government takes the position that the issue concerns which level of government is to deal with the Indian people. This seems to be the fundamental concern of the government. To the Indian people themselves, one very hot and important issue concerns the rights that they will be able to enjoy as a result of treaties, traditions and other settlements. This matter is one to which there is no easy answer. However, it cannot be ignored, and it is clear that the Indians are very concerned that the government may be trying to ignore it.
In passing, may I say that it has been reported that the proposed trip west to be made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not include a visit among the Indian people, which I think is not exactly reassuring to them. If that report is correct, then I hope the oversight will be corrected.
Here again the government's procedures seem to be very much at fault. There has been a long process of consultation with the Indian people, but in many ways the real question is how much effective consultation was had. Certainly, there is a suspicion among representatives of the Indian people that the government had decided upon its course before the consultation began, and proceeded on that course regardless of what was proposed by the representatives of the Indian people.
Frequently throughout the consultations the question of treaty and aboriginal rights was raised. It was raised again dramatically at the final consultative meeiing that was held in Ottawa this spring. No government that is seriously concerned with knowing what the Indian people want could have conducted those consultations and then have produced a report in this form. As well as appearing to ignore the matter upon which the Indian people placed emphasis-perhaps it was not exactly ignored, I do not want to exaggerate the position, but I think it was downgraded- the government focused its atttention on a matter that was raised seldom, if at all, in the nationwide series of consultation meetings. I refer to the proposed transfer of responsibility to the provincial governments.
I want to emphasize my concern about the position in which the Indian people would

find themselves if the responsibility for their future welfare and development were transferred to the provinces without a continuing responsibility of some sort being accepted by the government of Canada. We all recognize that many of our Indian peoples have very serious social and economic problems which will require a highly integrated program to overcome, calling not only for co-operation from the Indians themselves but also for a highly co-operative effort on the part of various governments in this country.
In terms of talking about equality and justice, it seems to me a vast oversimplification to assume that total responsibility for the Indians can be turned over to the provinces, particularly without any real assurance of adequate financial support from the federal government. While some of the provinces might be capable of discharging this responsibility, there is no particular reason to believe at this point that all provinces would be capable of discharging it.
The minister's method of introducing policy changes may seem to involve the abolition of the Indian Affairs branch, which as a goal I gather has general approval. I do not hesitate to accept this to the degree that it is capable of achievement, but there is some real doubt that other arrangements will be made that will be adequate. The objec'ions of the Indian people are one indication of the difficulty. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said on June 25, as reported at page 10583 of Hansard:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
While the Indian Act and the federal authority have been unpopular, they have also been familiar. Their proposed removal will raise questions and concern about Indian lands and other rights. In some cases the Indian people may not welcome the prospect of having to rely upon provincial authorities.
The predictable reluctance of the provinces to assume responsibilities they feel they cannot afford, and with respect to which the federal government has not made adequate arrangements, constitutes ano'her difficulty. Of course, I appreciate that the Hawthorne report recommended, after extensive study of Indian matters, that the Indian affairs branch should continue in some form. One of my motives in speaking this afternoon is to urge on the federal government the idea that it must continue to accept responsibility and involvement in this area. If the minister accepts that position then I, in turn, cannot accept a program which involves the complete
July 11. 1969

transfer of all responsibilities in these areas to the provinces. I cannot accept the idea that there will be no continuing responsibility of any kind on the part of the federal government and that it will not even ensure that the provinces are dealing adequately with the Indian people.
Yet the minister has proposed, virtually unilaterally, to do away with the Indian Affairs Branch; and we must all face this question, Mr. Speaker. What will the minister do if he cannot make the necessary arrangements and do away with the branch? His statement in this house has virtually destroyed the effectiveness of the Indian affairs branch. There are reports that personnel of the branch, particularly in western Canada, are seeking new employment. There is no doubt that if the branch survives it will bear a stigma which will make it unattractive to potential employees. I suggest that unless the minister in future proves to be a better negotiator than he has been in the past-in fact, unless the government proves to be better at negotiating than in the past-he will find himself in the position of having destroyed the effectiveness of the department without having set up any satisfactory entity to carry on its work. He will not have made any effective, continuing arrangements, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government's methods of dealing with the provinces have been full of faults. The minister proposes to transfer jurisdiction to the provinces; yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the first official word the provinces heard of this proposal was when they read the white paper. I do not think that is a satisfactory way to launch a program like this, and I do not think it is a satisfactory way to conduct federal-provincial relations. All this makes me wonder, sir, just how successful the minister is going to be in implementing his program.
An attempt is being made to wrap this proposal in a progressive aura and to make it seem a kind of Magna Carta for the Indian people. It is far from being that. This debate will serve a most important function if it reveals the fact that this statement was made in the knowledge that it would probably be unacceptable to the Indian people, and if it reveals that no effort was made to determine whether it would be acceptable to the provinces. In those circumstances, it is no wonder that the document has proved far more popular with the press than with the people and provinces it affects directly.
Indian Affairs
It would be most unfortunate if an attempt were made to cast the Indian people who protest this document today in the role of those who speak merely in defence of a special interest or to suggest that they are merely protesting the disappearance of special rights and privileges they have enjoyed to date. Such accusations would be unjust and inaccurate. We cannot belittle or dismiss the seriousness of the protest of the Indian people. Reference has been made to threats of violence, and I do not make light of those. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we must face the fact that there has never existed an atmosphere of trust between the Department of Indian Affairs and the people it ought to serve. That atmosphere of distrust was intensified when the government's white paper contained proposals about which consultation did not occur, in effect dismissing representations about treaty and aboriginal rights. We must be honest with each other. I believe there are few more vexing problems in this country than the problem concerning treaty and aboriginal rights which could involve heavy federal expenditures. These are difficult questions of justice and equity which we must consider.
The central concern of the Indian people, and it ought to be our central concern, is that the effect of the minister's statement seems to be to downgrade the importance of this question. I hope the minister will take this opportunity of putting this matter into proper perspective before saying publicly that it has been misinterpreted. The Indian people themselves have made it clear that they are not prepared to discuss the matter with the minister until they have ample opportunity to prepare themselves. I gather the minister is prepared to give an assurance adequate time and resources will be provided to enable them to prepare themselves. I hope the minister will give the necessary assurances in the house this afternoon.
The point of this debate is not to condemn this government for what it has done, although it does seem to have been guilty of trying sleights of hand. The point of this debate is that we want to prevent the government from continuing to take steps which will create a serious atmosphere of suspicion and, perhaps, of disruption. The proposal to achieve equality for the Indian people is not at issue. This is a goal everyone shares. But you do not create equality, Mr. Speaker, by writing on a piece of paper or by making an announcement. You do not create equality by declaring your intention of achiev-

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
ing that state of equality. Equality tor the Indian people of Canada requires far more than a transfer of jurisdiction to the provinces. We must face the fact that a transfer of jurisdiction by itself could make economic equality for some Indian people, and especially for those who live in the less wealthy provinces, a much more distant goal. We must recognize the fact that some provinces are in a better position to help the Indian people in terms of encouraging economic self determination, jobs, and the like. There are other provinces which are in a less fortunate economic situation and it would be simply unrealistic to expect them to carry the added burden of services to the Indian people. If there is to be a genuine concern for equality, and I am not prepared to question the minister's motives, it is imperative that the government now move ahead with full consultations with the Indian peoples and the provinces. The government must recognize that progress will be made much more difficult if the consultations are carried out in an atmosphere of distrust on the part of the Indian people and representatives of the provinces.
There have been enough unilateral announcements by the government. We all accept the goals of equity laid down by the minister and I accept his sincerity of purpose. I am disappointed this new effort has been launched in an atmosphere which indicates a failure to consult. I am pleased to learn the minister is now visiting the provinces. I hope he will not try to proceed with a program that simply involves a declaration of intention on the part of the government of Canada to transfer the rights of the Indians to the Provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I hope the minister will settle down to the very serious and prolonged problem of developing a program that will be satisfactory to the Indian people, a program which the provinces would be willing to undertake and for which they will be given the financial resources to enable them to carry out this responsibility.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate at this time because I have to leave for Vancouver. Perhaps I can make a few remarks, however. This is a very important matter. There are approximately ten reservations in my riding. The reason I am going to Vancouver and the interior of British Columbia is to meet many of these people. I 
want to know their opinions. I want to know what they think of this particular policy before I make a lot of statements on their behalf.
There have been a lot of misrepresentations and misunderstandings as a result of some of the statements which have been made. A lot of these things that are embraced in the policy are things for which the Indian people have been asking. We have been asking ourselves, are we going to be treated as children for the rest of our lives or are we going to take on the responsibilities of adults? We must accept these responsibilities in the same way that other people do. We want to do these things. We want to take on the responsibilities which other people have. We cannot be treated like children forever. We cannot look upon ourselves as children. We have to participate in all aspects of Canadian life as human beings. I think this particular policy is paying off. It sets out some of the goals to which the Indian people have been aspiring. We have the same aspirations as other people.
Reference has been made to some of the things which are unacceptable. One of the major fears of the Indian people is that there will be a constitutional change which will turn over the responsibility for Indians to the provinces. This is something which the Indian people have feared for a long time. I plead with the minister to look at this matter very carefully, and clarify it so that it will be clearly understood.
Even though there is some fear on the part of the Indian people with respect to turning over the constitutional responsibility with regard to Indians, this does not mean that they do not want provincial services. We want provincial services, but there is another way of doing it. Many people have asked for this, including the North American Brotherhood, of which I have been a member for a very long time, as well as the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia.
The provincial governments are in the best position to provide many services, such as social welfare and education. They are in the best position to provide education because that is their responsibility. It is only right that we obtain our education from the same source as other people. It is not a matter of the federal government abdicating a responsibility. The government is trying to provide the best services possible for the Indian people. On many occasions I have asked the minister to give consideration to giving jurisdiction to the provinces on a function by
July 11, 1969

function basis rather than granting complete jurisdiction to the provinces. This should be done in consultation with the Indian people and with the provinces.
Another program the Indian people have been requesting for a long time is a program of economic development. I hope the minister will clarify some of the present programs for economic developments. I understand that $6 million has already been provided for this economic development program. I hope the minister will spell this out. One of the big difficulties connected with the development of Indian people has been the lack of adequate funds. One of the hang-ups has been the peculiar mortgage position of our land. We have not been able to mortgage our land in the same way as other people. There is an historical aspect to this. As one Indian chief pointed out, the Indian people are afraid that if they have this responsibility, some people will sell their land for a bottle of wine. I do not know whether this will happen, but the Indian people are afraid something like this might happen.
I hope as a result of the announcement of the provision of this $50 million we will see a greater development of Indian reserves across the country. There are some very valuable Indian reserves in this country. Caughnawaga is one of these, as the hon. member who represents that area will tell you. I have heard various estimates of the value of that reserve ranging from $400 million to $800 million. This $50 million program over the next few years will be very, very meaningful to those people. Time is running short. I would like to make more comments but if I do I will miss my flight.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: The last time I spoke in this house, Mr. Speaker, it was with regard to the official languages bill. I said that was one of the most important pieces of legislation which had come before this house. I think I took a positive approach to that bill and I will attempt to take a positive approach to this debate.
The Indian people were the first citizens of Canada. In all their dealings with the white man, both in peace and in war, they have treated us with honour. This is the point at which we should pick up the threads, because I must admit on behalf of the white race that we have let them down in this regard. When you let people down on points of honour, you lose all the way down the line.
I think I speak with some knowledge of the Indian people. My ancestors pioneered the
Indian Affairs
west. My grandfather ran a Hudson Bay Fort. My mother was raised with Indian children because there were no white children in the area. She was the eldest in the family of nine. Both my grandfather and grandmother loved these people. I think that if we, the white people of Canada, can only get that one point across, that we love them the way my grandfather did, the way my mother did and the way I claim I do, then 99.9 per cent of the battle will be won. That is all they really want to know. When I say love them, I mean love on the highest plane. I mean that we have their best interests at heart. And if we have their best interests at heart we will treat them with honour. If we can convince the Indian people that we intend to treat them with honour we have won that battle.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
They have always treated us with honour. If we can get them to sit around the council table now, roughly 100 years after most of the treaties were signed, the Indian people will meet us in exactly the same spirit. There have been threats of violence. I will not add anything except to say I would not blame them if they thought that during the next hundred years we were not going to treat them any better than we did in the last 100 years. But I do not think that is the case.
I want to compliment our young minister- after all, there is nothing wrong in being young-on the fact that he has taken the treaties out of the mothballs. Whether he intends to discard them or not I do not know, but I do not think so. I don't think he wants to, and I don't think he will. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) that he can expect the fullest co-operation from all sides of the house in arriving at a reasonable agreement on what we can do for these, our people.
I have some personal views on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and if you will rule that I am not veering too far from the narrow confines of the white paper I wish to outline a few of them. First of all, you cannot love people unless you understand them. It is very dangerous to go about such basic things as telling Indians the kind of house they should live in unless you understand the kind of house, in which they want to live. Assuming that we want a house made of sticks and stones, like one of the three little pigs, this does not necessarily mean that Indian people want the same kind of house.

July 11. 1969
Indian Affairs
The Indians may want a house made of canvas. They may prefer a good house made of canvas to an evil house made of bad sticks and bad stones. If they want to live like nomadic people, they have a right to do so, the same as we have. When we are tired of living in our highrise apartments, tired of the rat race in our great cities where most of us work 11 months of the year or more, we want to escape and go back to some form of nomadic existence for at least two weeks. We want to live in a canvas house, or one made of aluminum, on wheels. The Indians know that outdoor living is good for the soul and the body. Why should we, in our city-raised splendor, tell them how to live?
If we are going to spend large sums of the taxpayers' money building homes for Indians, for goodness sake let us consult them before we start. We should ask them what they think could be done with X dollars to provide the type of accommodation they want for themselves and their children, the type which fits into their lives, which fits into the kind of cooking arrangements they need. If we do that they will know we love them and they will be ready to take the next step, if they want to, towards our enlightened, civilized way of life.
Religion is a subject too hot to handle for most people, but not for Buffalo Two Horns, which is what the Indians call me. I have two horns and I am going to use them. I speak for the Indians I know on the western plains. They had a wonderful religion. They believed in the Great Manitou, the Great White Spirit. Today we almost have to apologize when we use that name-the Great White Spirit indeed, the Father of Mankind, the Creator of the Universe. They did not think he was dead; they had not buried him. Why should we go about trying to sell them our half-dead God when, left to their own devices, they still believe in the Great White Spirit who made them, who loved them, who made the whole human race, and who still watches over them? If we cannot give them a better God than the one we are peddling in our institutions, we should leave them with the one they have. But I am not one who thinks that God is dead, and I say let the churches join with us in parliament in giving the Indians a live religion in which they can believe, a religion which will help us to love them and make them love us in the way that we want to be loved by them.
In our civilized way of life we have tried to find an answer through labour unions. These have their place. Some people think labour unions have ennobled labour almost to the

point of worship. As I say, I think labour unions have their place, but they have not given man fulfilment. They do not give men fulfilment if they contribute to unemployment, if they call strikes the men do not want. Why should we go to the Indians and ask them to accept our standards of labour, or even our standards of wages, if we do not give them the dignity and the type of fulfilment that we ourselves would like to have?
I think it goes without saying that if we ask an Indian to work he certainly has a right to equality of wages with the white man, equality of working conditions, equality of advancement and opportunity. I have worked with these people in the ditches, over the pack trail, paddling canoes, and I have fought with them in the army. In every respect and in eVery endeavour in which they have competed with me I have found them my equal, and in a great many cases out in a natural environment have found them vastly my superior.
Some people would interpret the health provision clauses of the Indian treaties as meaning that we offered the Indians only the Hudson Bay Company's medicine box. But I think we must agree that we offered them whatever small advances we have made and will make in medicine. If the white doctor at Fort Garry was able to help them get through the fever, or could mend the bones of their children we were glad that they got that service. We were glad because we claimed we loved them, because we claimed we wanted to live in peace and harmony with them.
When the Indians signed treaties with us they did not later attack us and burn our wagon trains, as is usually depicted in Hollywood movies. In fact at the very time we most needed peace and quiet throughout the western plains, they remained peaceful and stayed on the side of law and order. In fact some of them were accused of being whiteman lovers when they folded their arms and said, "There is nothing good for black, red or white in murdering each other." When we offered them health I believe we offered them both mental health and physical health. Here I mean equality of health services, the same as equality of work and equality of religion. If we are to put first things first then mental health starts with spiritual health. You cannot have a happy mind unless you have a happy spirit.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
So we must proceed with this religion of love and faith. We must give them that. We must give them mental health, self respect,
July 11, 1969

love and brotherhood. Then they will be ready to clean up their lives and their bodies.
I venture to say that the people of the Indian race even today, neglected as they are, would pass physical tests equally as well as their white brethren. When we speak of health, of course, we mean economic health. We mean food and lodging; it is all of a piece. When we speak of integration what do we really mean? Do we really mean that we will try to make white men or Canadian citizens out of the Indians? I say to the minister and to parliament that if by integration we mean we will try to give these people the equality, fraternity and opportunity which every Canadian citizen demands and expects, and which every Canadian citizen should have, then I say let us integrate them. But if it is our in'enfion to make poor white men out of the Indian people then I say let them alone; they are better off starving on their own Indian reserves than living with people who do not want to give them the equality, opportunity and fraternity which is the birthright of every Canadian.
The program which is involved here is a large one. If my figures are correct there are approximately a quarter of a million people of native blood in this country. They are increasing in numbers faster than any other group of people. Fifteen years from now there will probably be one million. I believe these people are willing to meet us more than half way. As I read this statement it would seem to represent positive action on the part of the government. If we can forget our petty differences here and work together to help the Indian, and above all teach him that we do in fact love him as a Canadian, it may well be that long before 100 years from now these people will be integrated, as I said before, as full fledged Canadian citizens. This parliament may well be proud that today, this week, this session, we have taken the first step which is long overdue.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this debate this afternoon arises from the position in which the minister is now in respect of his dealings with the Indian people and the provincial governments. I think we realize, however, that it also arises out of his statement made in this house not too long ago. In other words, the current situation flows from that statement and we cannot, I submit, have a meaningful discussion unless we base it on that statement. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault), who is so glib, made some comment on the statement made by the hon. member 29180-7041
Indian Affairs
for Skeena (Mr. Howard) following the minister's announcement. I should like to make one or two references to just what was said on that occasion by the hon. member for Skeena. His remarks are reported at page 10584 of Hansard for June 25.
Some of the ideas contained in the minister's statement are good. Some of them are not so good. A great many of them are rather vague. I do not say this in an unkind way, and I am sure the minister does not take it in an unkind way.
A little farther on, we find this:
I submit it is extremely important that in the negotiations, discussions, or whatever they may be that the minister will have with the provincial governments, the negotiations or discussions proceed only at a speed commensurate with the desires of the Indian people in the provinces concerned.
I think those remarks bear a very close resemblance to some of the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). I point this out in an effort to make clear to Your Honour and the members of this house that the hon. member for Skeena has tried to show, as he said in his remarks earlier today, that he does not seek to enter into this discussion in any sort of a partisan way. He feels he has some responsibility, as one of the members in this house who comes from an area where there are a great many of these people, to try to understand and voice in this house the real thoughts of the Indian people.
I understand that the minister's dilemma, as the motion moved by the hon. member suggests, arises not so much from what is in the statement but from what is not in it. It arises in part from some of the clarifications of the minister's statement that have been elicited as a result of subsequent questioning in the house and the statements that have been issued by the Indian people themselves. The hon. member for Skeena, quoting from the document issued by the Indian people here in Ottawa prior to the minister's statement, outlined what the principal omissions were. I think the minister confirmed that those are the omissions from his statement.
I am sure the minister will recall that on June 26 a number of questions were asked, initiated by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). At one point I asked the minister the following question:
Does the statement which terms aboriginal claims to land as being unrealistic and not capable of being dealt with specifically represent a fixed government policy, or is this merely an idea which has been put forward for discussion and negotiation with the Indian people?

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
The minister's introductory statement was couched in many honeyed words indicating that these were simply the ideas of the government which were open to discussion. Therefore, it was difficult to know what was fixed government policy and what was open for discussion. This was the reason I asked this question of the minister. In reply, the minister had this to say:
The government acknowledges the legal rights of the Indians and the rights derived from legal documents. As for the other rights they are the same as those of the Canadian citizens.
Any member of this house who participated in the earlier debates on the subject of the establishment of a claims commission cannot be unaware of the fact that when we start talking about Indian rights that are contained only in legal documents we are talking about a very narrow segment of the whole question of their aboriginal rights.
The statement of the minister, so far as he is concerned, may seem quite legitimate. The outrage that has been expressed by Indian spokesmen since the minister made his statement results from the fact the Indian people did not have a chance to look at it. On that same day the minister made the following statement in reply to a question concerning the appointment of a commissioner:
-but the appointment of a commissoner rests solely with the government which alone is authorized to appoint one.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As far as I am concerned this is the attitude which goes to the nub of the matter. This is basically why there is unrest among the Indian people and dissatisfac ion with the minister. He has continued to insist that this question can be dealt with solely within the normal authority of the government of Canada. While it may be true that the kind of policy statement the minister prepared is normally a proper function of the government of Canada, it is not of much use in this regard. It is similar to other statements of policy announced as a result of decisions made by the cabinet in the privacy of the cabinet chamber. We accept this fact because we recognize the validity of the proper exercise of the authority of the Crown in this parliament. I submit that what the minister has failed to understand, and what the government across the way has consistently failed to see as a result of the discussions we have had on claims commission bills, is that when we get into this particular area in respect of the rights of people in what is now Canada, we

have to go beyond the normal terms of reference if we are to consider this question in any realistic and meaningful way. As a result, I can understand at least in part the reaction of one of the younger, but in my opinion most responsible, Indian representatives here in Ottawa with whom I had a conversation the day following the minister's statement. This Indian told me that the young Indians are going to be very bitter about this whole matter. He said there are going to be riots. I suggested to him that he might agree with me that riots were pretty stupid. He gave me a questioning look until I added that, usually they are caused by someone else's stupidity.
I submit that if unfortunately situations of that kind develop, the responsibility will rest fairly and squarely upon those of us who sit in this parliament at this time. They will result because of our own stupidity and because of our failure to recognize that we are dealing with something that goes beyond the normal confines of the jurisdiction of this parliament. We have to look at this problem in broader terms than we look at normal questions of Canadian policy. Unless and until we are prepared to recognize that fact, the so-called Indian problem in this country will never be solved. To me this is the nub of the whole matter, and this is why I feel sorry, like my colleague the hon. member for Skee-na (Mr. Howard) for the present occupant of this difficult position. We both have a very kindly feeling toward him. So far, at least, he has not appeared to grasp this point, nor have his colleagues in the government.
Let me go back to the remarks I made during a debate we had a week or so before the minister made his statement, during which I said I was hopeful but a little skeptical on the basis of the past experience with government, that there would be something in the statement recognizing the principles I have been trying to outline. On July 4 I addressed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as recorded at page 10842 of Hansard for that day:
Since the policy announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in respect of future treatment of Indian people is based on the concept that white is right, is the Prime Minister considering withdrawing Canada's sanctions against Rhodesia?
Mr. Speaker ruled the question out of order on the ground that it contained an allegation.
I do not seriously quarrel with the ruling of the Chair but, as everyone who has been a member of this chamber knows, that is perhaps the only way one can attempt to make a
July 11, 1969

point in this house. I did not hear the Prime Minister make a reply to the question and he did not rise in his place, but Hansard has reported him as having said:
Not only is it not in order; it is very low.
I fully admit it was not a nice question. In fact, it was a nasty question and it was deliberately nasty. I feel it was justified under the circumstances. I want now to raise this question about just who and what is low. The point I am really attempting to make, in the hope that the Prime Minister might give some thought to whe.her the government of Canada might be prepared to go a bit beyond the normal approach accepted in this country, is that we should recognize that the jurisdiction of the Crown does not cover the entire situation. We have all taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, but we know that the prerogatives of the Crown exercised in the right of Canada do not completely encompass this whole question of rights due to the Indian people of this country.
This establishes the relationship. I hope I can make it clear that I am not talking about any form of narrow racism, nor was I when I put that question in those terms. What I was trying to get at was the idea that the policy statement of the minister was based on a concept of white colonial supremacy, which is what brought Canada into being. What I was trying to get across was that in other parts of the world, the initial colonial powers have been divesting themselves of a colonial policy. Because the British North America Act and the Statute of Westminster of 1931 made Canada a sovereign power in the ordinary context of the term, we have this heritage in our midst. I believe there was a statement made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom the other day which bears this out. We have a responsibility in Canada to do what Britain did in India.
I can remember as a young Canadian being quite smug and complacent, and one of those who was willing to go to great lengths to do something about Britain freeing these other people called Indians. Down through the years we have been very smug and virtuous about the failings of colonialism and how Britain should free the peoples in Africa and in her o'her colonies. It has been very easy to get that kind of reaction. We have listened to a lot of statements in this house in the last year or so about the problems of Nigeria. Unless we are prepared to approach this matter of dealing with the Indian people with the same spirit we expect Britain, France, Ger-
Indian Affairs
many or any of the other Imperial powers to approach that question of freeing the peoples of Africa and Asia, we do not really understand the problem. If we are going to understand our Indian people we must first try to understand ourselves, understand what we are and recognize how we came to be.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Some of my ancestors came to this continent in the 1600's. I have colonial blood in my veins, like most hon. members in the chamber, at least those who are not in what is sometimes referred to in other discussions as the third group. If I have learned anything in the last few years from sitting down and talking to Indian people, it is that with humility I should look at myself in the mirror and try to understand what I am before I can hope to understand what they are. I submit this is the whole point behind the motion of the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member moved his motion in the hope that the minister having moved to the point in time where he now is, may be willing to recognize this concept in his approach to the question of aboriginal rights and rights to land, particularly in a province like British Columbia where we negotiated no treaties with the Indian people and therefore there are no legal documents. It is our hope that the minister will approach the problem in this way. For this reason we thought it desirable to have this debate this afternoon.
I submit, as I submitted when we had a discussion on Indian matters a week or so before the minister made his statement, that we are at a turning point. The Indian people have re-awakened, as peoples are re-awakening in many parts of the world and in certain provinces of this country. We now have the opportunity to sow the seeds of peace and bro'herhood, or we can perpetuate the growth of the seeds of bit'erness, which the minister must have experienced, as a result of his recent policy statement.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, over the hundred years since confederation the government of Canada has made many fundamental mistakes in the treatment of the group of people in this country whom we sometimes call, euphemistically, our first Canadians. However, I do not think there has been any greater mistake than the premature policy statement the minister made a short time ago. I was startled as I read it. I have been bombarded by telegrams, briefs and personal letters from Indians in every

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
part of this country, and obviously, their reaction was the same as mine. It is all the more incomprehensible because the government had achieved a dialogue with the Indian people of Canada. There had been gradually built up over the past few years a basis for understanding and mutual respect which gave promise that at long last the government would produce a policy, approved by the parliament of Canada, that would overcome the grave mistakes to which I have referred.
Just to review the matter briefly, the fundamental error, of course, in the treatment of our first Canadians was the establishment of the reservation system, or the ghetto system, which destroyed the Indian way of life and unfortunately, by the very nature of ghet-toism, made it impossible for them to become a part of the developing Canadian way of life. This created a situation wherein our Indians, who have a proud culture and heritage, became a marginal people. They were neither Indians nor Canadians; they were subject to discrimination and isolation, with the result that up until about two decades ago they were often referred to as a vanishing people. The only reason they were vanishing was that they were being decimated by disease by reason of many years of neglect.
The government of Canada at long last accepted its responsibility to our Indian citizens and in the past two decades, rather than being a vanishing people the Indian population of Canada has become one of the fastest growing segments of the great Canadian mosaic. There has been progress, as I say, in other areas over the past two decades. For example, just ten years ago the Indians received the fundamental right of citizenship in this country, the vote. Just as recently as that a new educational approach was adopted whereby it was possible for at least the children of our Indian citizens to break through the barrier of segregation on the reservation ghettoes and attend school with other Canadian children in the normal community situation in this country. As recently as this there has been an attempt to encourage Indian citizens living on reservations to accept more and more responsibility for handling their own affairs, in the hope that eventually the reserves will become self-governing communities on much the same lines as normal municipal organizations.
In the midst of this progress toward the assumption of full citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto, the minister arouses a storm of protest by his premature, arbitrary announcement which has come under debate [Mr. Dinsdale.l
in the house this afternoon. The situation is quite different from that which used to exist. As a result of the granting of the universal franchise to Indian citizens they have become more keenly aware of their rights and responsibilities. The new educational process has produced a generation of leaders who are no longer content to sit by and be regarded as nonentities to be manipulated by the representatives of the Great White Father. In other words, paternalism which was the curse of the reservation system has long ago gone by the board. This new leadership is represented by men whose names have now become well known in public affairs in Canada, particularly the presidents of the various provincial brotherhoods and the president of the National Indian Brotherhood.
Just a month ago there was a major breakthrough in the province of Manitoba. This breakthrough in the area of economic responsibility was achieved by Chief Dave Cour-chene, who is one of the prominent, capable leaders of the Indian community today. The provincial government agreed to make it possible for Indian communi ies themselves to have full responsibility for community development programs in the province.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The lack of wisdom in the minister's premature announcement is manifest by the fact that there has been universal condemnation on the part of these newly emerged responsible Indian leaders of the announcement that has been made. There has been failure to consult in detail or, worse still, it has been the attitude of the government and of the Indian Affairs branch to completely ignore consultation that has been taking place over the past few months. It almost goes back to the situation that occurred a year ago which caused so much confusion and cons.ernation among the Indians and became a cause celebre across the nation when the government decided to arbitrarily remove long standing medical benefits without any preliminary consultations with the Indians themselves. The government backed down from its decision, the breach was healed as a result of special meetings and consultations, and this seemed to have been a salutary lesson for the government.
However, the same mistake is now repeated, unbelievably, inexplicably and incomprehensibly, by the minister. The announcement he made-and this has been poin ed out by other speakers this afternoon-ignores the fundamental issue of aboriginal treaty rights,
July 11, 1969

the land claims, the hunting rights, and so on, subjects that have been discussed ad nauseam in this house and also by the Indians themselves. The responsible leaders of the Indians will not be satisfied until these fundamental rights, which have been long ignored by successive governments of Canada, are dealt with. Perhaps the greatest error of all was the setting aside of something that had been promised by successive governments, including this government, namely the setting up of a long delayed land claims commission which would be able to deal in an impartial and judicial manner with the fundamental rights of our Indian people. This has raised once again the accusation which appears in the excellently documented briefs of the National Indian Brotherhood and the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood that the white man is once again speaking with forked tongue. The basis of confidence and understanding that had been gradually established over the recent years of negotiation, and a more positive attitude toward the problem, have been destroyed unfortunately in one fell swoop by the arbitrary announcement of the minister.
Perhaps the government should be reminded once again that it can no longer unilaterally impose its will on the Indian people of Canada. Their fundamental rights have been ignored far too long. There is the matter of cuLural survival which arises from the policy announcement of the minister. The situation has been aggravated by the government's own attitude of confrontation on these matters of fundamental rights. I think the most fundamental aspect of the minister's announcement is its complete failure to take into consideration the constitutional situation as it rela es to our Indian population. It is constitutionally impossible to pass laws in this house conferring special treatment on Indians as Indians except under federal jurisdiction.
In other words, the minister's announcement that he is going to transfer responsibility to the provincial governments rather abruptly in a short period of five years is in complete disagreement with the constitutional provisions which cover our Indian population under section 91 (24) of the B.N.A. Act. This section gives the exclusive grant of authority to the federal government in Ottawa, and only the federal government can single out the Indians as Indians and confer special benefits on them in that capacity. Provincial governments are quite free to give special treatment to any number of other special groups in our society. It can extend all man-
Indian Affairs
ner and kind of services to the Indians so long as it is done in a way that does not recognize Indians as Indians. But the moment those provincial governments try to help the Indian people as such-and it is up to them to decide of course-they are legislating unconstitutionally. The tragedy is that the minister's announcement completely ignores this basic fact.
There is no way in which this government can ensure that our special obligations to the Indian people are carried out without doing one of three things: First, amending the distribution of powers in the B.N.A. Act; second, delegating administration of federal legislation to provincial agencies which should now be named, and should have been named long before this generalized statement was made; and, third, carrying out these responsibilities themselves through a new and re-invigora ed Indian affairs branch in full and complete consultation with the Indian people. I submit that the latter is the only honourable course and the only constitutional way that is open to the government at the present time. Unfortunately, it now seems that this government is in the process of completely shattering its own Indian affairs branch. After some years of painful rebuilding, after taking on some of the most dedicated public servants of the country, this government has, by its latest action, destroyed the only administrative vehicle left to it which might have been capable of rendering a measure of justice to the Indian people. This is the point that is raised in the briefs that have been submitted by the National Indian Brotherhood and the one that has come into my hands as a member from the province of Manitoba from the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood over the signature of Chief David Courchene. Here is what the chief has to say on the point:
-when our opinions are ignored, when we are to be bargained over in federal-provincial negotiations like cattle at an auction mart-
They feel they have no other recourse than to protest. The brief goes on:
The just society that Mr. Trudeau alludes to must be based on mutual respect, mutual consideration, mutual understanding, integrity and good faith. This document, this policy, does not reflect any of this. More important it ignores one fundamental fact that is inescapable and that is that if Indian people are to become equal citizens of this country it must be because they want to, not because they are told to. Mr. Chretien's policy gives us little reason to want to.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Perhaps I can make an aside in the middle of Chief Courchene's quotation. The point is

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
that the government has made an arbitrary announcement. It has ignored the recommendations of the various Indian leaders and communities across the country that have resulted from the recent consultations.
In fact, the government has repudiated the policy that it has been talking about over the last few years in this house. The government has said that a new Indian Act was going to emerge from these consultations, that this Indian Act would be an Indian Act in fact as well as in name. As has been pointed out, the present Indian Act was an enactment of the attitudes of the white community to the Indian population. We were assured over the past two or three years that the new act would emerge only after long, continued and very careful consultation with the Indian community. These consultations have been carried out.
A Minister without Portfolio was appointed to carry on these negotiations, and he established an excellent rapport with the Indian community. This responsibility was suddenly removed from him by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when a disagreement developed between the minister of Indian affairs and the Minister without Portfolio. I suppose it was a result of that disagreement that the government rushed pell mell into making an ill-conceived announcement of this kind.
Let me continue the quotation from Chief Courchene because I think it is fundamental to the issue:
I am calling together the Indian leaders in Manitoba-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. If he wishes to pursue his remarks, he can do so with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I just complete the quotation from Chief Courchene because I think it is basic to the argument:
I am calling together the Indian leaders in Manitoba to discuss the statement in depth. It is our intention to prepare a brief that will contain realistic alternatives to social disaster.
We will not meekly accept cultural genocide- we will marshal support from all sectors-we will fight.
That is the opinion of the Indian leaders themselves, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), in one of his typically partisan speeches, quoted extensively from

statements made in this house by my colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself, each of which purported, in his opinion, to express a position that was completely contrary to that which we are taking today. Nothing that we said in the quotations to which the hon. member referred is at variance with our criticism of the statement made by the minister.
We maintain that Indians must be first class citizens equal with all other Canadian ciiizens. We have said that Indians are entitled to be treated as equals, that separate education and health and welfare facilities for Indians are wrong. I said on one occasion, and I repeat now, that just as the United States Supreme Court has ruled that separate but equal educational facilities for Negro citizens are not equal because they are separate, so must separate educational facilities for Indians be considered not equal to the educational facilities of other Canadian citizens. I personally look forward to the day when educational facilities for Indians will be administered by the provinces, as is the case with educational facilities for other citizens.
We have said that the Indians are entitled to see an end to the paternalism that has been so characteristic of the Indian affairs branch. I hope to see the day when the Indian affairs branch as we have known it, and more sadly as the Indians have known it, will disappear. I make no apology for saying this. But none of these things can take place unless and until the Indian people themselves want them to take place and are prepared to give their cooperation and support. Even if we know that opposition on the part of the Indians to a particular proposal is wrong, we cannot impose the proposal upon the Indians. Obviously, if we really believe in consultation and co-operation with the Indians, in letting the Indians make the major decisions on how to improve their living conditions, then we must oppose the method that the minister has in good faith used in bringing forward his white paper.
I am going to put on record the fact that there is almost unanimous rejection by the Indian people of Canada of the white paper that has been brought forward by the minister. I should like to quote from some telegrams I have received and which have been received by the leader of our party. I am sure the minister has also received them.
The first one is addressed to me and is from the president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, Dave Courchene, to whom the hon.
July 11, 1969

member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) referred:
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a new policy on Indian affairs yesterday. As an organization we totally reject the policy as outlined in the statement.
The next telegram is from the president of the Indian Association of Alberta and reads: The Indian Association of Alberta rejects the policy paper enunciated by the Honourable Minister John Chretien. Our association fully supports the position taken by the National Indian Brotherhood- Our association is appalled by the fact that the policy statement of the federal government was written in isolation from the Indian people of Canada without any consideration whatsoever of the issues most sacred to them.
Another telegram that I received from the Fraser district bands representative reads: Delegates representing the bands and band councils of the Fraser district meeting, Vancouver, B.C. June 26 and 27 request that no further action be taken in the implementation of the Indian policy white paper dated June 25 until there have been consultations with band representations on the same manner as for the revision of the Indian Act.
Another one from four chiefs in British Columbia reads:
We the four chiefs of Hobbema reject the policy statement of the federal government in support to position taken by the National Indian Brotherhood.
Chief Nor Yellowbird Chief Same Currie Chief James Bull Acting Chief Maurice Wolfe
I am sorry that the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) had to leave the chamber because I have a telegram signed by the president of the North American Indian Brotherhood of British Columbia, of which he is a member. The telegram reads:
We, the undersigned wish to make the following statements: 1) It is quite evident that the new "white" paper policy made by the federal government is a complete "sell out" of the Indian birthright as the first citizens of Canada.
A little further on the telegram reads:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The new policy does not spell out legal guarantees in terms of lands, education, health, welfare, hunting, fishing and usufructuary rights of the Indians of Canada.
Here is another telegram from the chairman of the Fraser District Bands. It reads in part:
Delegates representing the bands and band councils of the Fraser District meeting Vancouver B.C., June 26 and 27 request that no further action be taken in the implementations of the Indian policy white paper dated June 25 until there have been consultations with band representations on the same manner as for the revision of the Indian Act.
Indian Affairs
The National Indian Brotherhood, the representatives of which represent all the major Indian areas in the provinces, issued a statement on June 26, 1969, and I want to spend a few minutes reading from it. It is signed by W. Dieter, Chief of the National Indian Brotherhood; D. Courchene, Vice President of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood; P. Doubois, Director of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians; P. Paul, Director of the National Indian Brotherhood of Victoria, British Columbia; A. Deslisle, President of the Association of Quebec Indians; W. Nadji-wan, Director of the National Indian Brotherhood and the President of the Union of Ontario Indians; J. Snow, Secretary of the Indian Association of Alberta; L. Stevenson, Director of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians; J. Pete, Chairman of the Saskatchewan Native Development Fund, and M. Bellegarde, Chairman of the National Native Communications Society, Ottawa. That is a pretty impressive list and, for the next few minutes, I shall read from the statement. I quote:
-In their present form, the policy proposals put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs are not acceptable to the Indian people of Canada ... We know it was not the intent of the new policy but we fear the end result of the proposal will be the destruction of a nation of people by legislation and cultural genocide ... an essential first step in developing a new approach to the so-called Indian problem would be to honour the existing obligations; the outstanding promises and commitments made to the Indian people-
At all consultations across Canada the Indian people expressed concern over the abrogation of their Treaty rights by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Regulations-
At all consultation meetings the Indian people expressed a desire to take on greater responsibility in running their own affairs. Yet the new policy will have the affairs of Indian people run by still another bureaucratic structure-
It is apparent to us that while there was a show of consultation, neither the Minister nor his Department really heard and understood the Indian people-
The policy statement was prepared unilaterally.
There was no negotiation with Indian people, nor was any part of the policy discussed with Indian people while the Minister's office was preparing it-
The policy mentions a Claims Commission and a Commissioner to be named soon. Will we be consulted as to the make-up of this commission or will there be a unilateral appointment by government?
Since that statement was made, the minister has answered that question in precisely the way the native Indian people did not want it answered. As my colleague for Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Barnett) has pointed out, who the commissioner is to be and what his terms of reference are to be will be decided by the

July 11, 1989
Indian Affairs
government. In other words, the government notwithstanding what may be the attitude of is to treat our Indians exactly as it has treated the Christian member for Renfrew and Lathem for the past 100 years. The great White Father is to make his decision and the Indian people must like it or lump it. The minister who has displayed good intentions is now shown in the paternalistic and bureaucratic light in which his predecessors have been shown. I continue quoting:
Throughout the consultation period we re-iterated that the Government must afford constitutional recognition of existing Treaties and obligations at which time the Indian people would meet in good faith with the government to clarify the meaning and intent of existing agreements.
Nowhere in the minister's statement was there any indication that the government had the sligh.est in ention of dealing with basic treaty rights which Indians consider were spelled out many years ago. I continue quoting:
The Minister's policy statement appears to be a departure from the year's consultations. We view this as a policy designed to divest us of our aboriginal, residual and statutory rights. If we accept this policy, and in the process lose our rights and our lands, we become willing partners in cultural genocide. This we cannot do.
I submit that nothing said in this house by any hon. member at any time will contradict the truth of the statements I have just read. I hope the minister realizes that consultation does not mean simply listening politely to representatives of Indian peoples, as the minister and his officials have done. It does not mean the minister, after listening, will make a unilateral decision, as has happened in the past. In a participatory democracy, about which the Prime Minister spoke eloquently during the election campaign, people have the right, not only to be heard but to participate in final decisions affec.ing their lives and welfare. The record is clear. The government has not adopted this kind of approach. All too often in the past the Minister, in the final analysis, has consulted his departmental officials and adopted their views. All too often he has embarked on a policy which did not meet the needs and wishes of the Indians themselves. It is they, after all, who are important and it is they who have the right to say what their future shall be. The minister is a reasonable man with good in4entions. I urge him to adopt policies leading towards real consultation. They are the only policies we can really tolerate in the sort of participatory democracy the Prime Minister has spoken about in the past.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the minister begins his remarks I wonder,

nark (Mr. McBride), whether hon. members would be agreeable to allowing more than 20 minutes for the minister to complete his remarks. He ought to be given all the time he needs and I think the 20 minute limitation ought to be suspended.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I thank every hon. member who has contributed to this debate which, in many instances, has been rewarding. It is refreshing to realize that the members of all parties in the house consider our goals to be the right ones. The problem seems to lie in how we are to implement our plans and how we are to discuss this matter with the Indian people of Canada.
One thing that stands out after a careful review of statements made by Indian leaders and by hon. members in this debate is that many have not read carefully the government's statement. In this connection the first point I wish to make is that the government's statement was a proposal. May I quote from the foreword, which is as follows:
In the pages which follow, the Government has outlined a number of measures and a policy which it Is convinced will offer another road for Indians, a road that will lead gradually away from different status to full social, economic and political participation in Canadian life. This is the choice.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I quote again from the foreword:
The government commends this policy for the consideration of all Canadians, Indians and non-Indians, and all governments in Canada.
What the government was doing in issuing this statement was putting forward its view after having been in consultation with Indians for over a year, having listened to what they considered to be the evils and the faults of the present system and having formed its own view in the same connection. The government's view which was incorporated in the policy statement, was deeply influenced by everything that the Indian people have been saying about the Indian Act, about the department about their separate status, about discrimination, not only in the period of consultation to which I have referred, but for many years.
The government's view, of course, also arose out of an analysis of the merits of the situation in each of these particulars. It so happened that the results of this analysis coincided almost exactly in every instance
July 11, 1969

with the views the Indian representatives had been expressing for years. However, the point which appears to have been missed is that the government is offering it as a view, a proposal, something upon which the consultations will now take place. The government considered that it had the duty to put forward proposals for public debate by the Indian people and by all the people of Canada. The language of the policy statement was carefully drawn to make this point.
Again, I quote from the document on page 6:
The government believes that the framework within which individual Indians and bands could achieve full participation requires:
There follows the six points which indicate the government's view of the principles involved, followed immediately by this sentence:
The government would be prepared to take the following steps to create this framework.
Following this are the four steps which the government would be prepared to take if, following consultations and public debate in Canada, these seemed to be the appropriate things to do. Similar references can be found throughout the document, but the emphasis is on consultations and participation of the Indian people themselves in the development and implementation of the proposed policy. Reference is also made to financial support to Indian organizations so that they may have the capacity to fulfil this role. In general, the whole thrust of the paper is the offering of a policy for consultation and debate.
Another misapprehension which seems to have arisen is that the negotiations and arrangements may be pressed too fast. The five year period that is mentioned in the statement is, I think, the key to this concern. Here again, however, a careful reading of the document will indicate that this is not a firm deadline. The actual language is as follows:
The government hopes to have the bulk of the policy in effect within five years.
Obviously this is not a hard and fast matter. It is a hope. If, in fact, it cannot be realized, it will not be realized. This apprehension has also been linked with the subject of land, which is probably the most sensitive area to Indian people-and appropriately so. Many have assumed that the five year period implies some distribution of land to individual Indian people within that period. Nothing could be further from what is proposed.
In the item under "immediate steps" in the document on page 6 where we talk about our
Indian Affairs
hope that within five years we could phase out that part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development we state, and I quote:
Indian lands would require special attention for some time. This process of transferring control to the Indian people would be under continuous review-
What we tried to indicate was that we saw the land question as one taking many years and that the Indian people ultimately would assume their rights in this respect. The present system of land control has satisfied no one. It has been under attack for years and the government agrees with these attacks. The system is paternalistic in the extreme. What we seek to do is to eventually transfer the lands of which the Indians now have de facto possession. What has been suggested is not the distribution of land to individuals but the transfer in law to the bands of Indian lands, now controlled by them, subject to the legal requirement of the minister's consent.
We seek to do it under the proposed Indian Lands Act which would have wi;hin it a number of protective devices which would ensure that the nature of Indian ownership of land would only change if a considerable majority of the Indian owners so desired and would additionally protect minority rights within these communities and, finally, probably have some novel provisions found in legislation in other countries to control transactions between Indians and non-Indians, should those arise in the future by provision for court review if either the Indian vendor or the band felt that the transaction was not a fair and proper one.
These are the matters upon which we want to consult with the Indian people: Do they want legal ownership of their own lands? Do they want to be free of ministerial supervision? What kind of protection do they want? What other provisions may there be of which we have not thought?
To sum up, I feel that there has not been a complete reading of the government's policy statement by many, and that many of the misapprehensions would have been found to have been answered within the document. It is a proposal for consultation. It happens that the government's view reflects much of what has been said in recent consultations by Indian people and many members in this house, including those who have been prominent in this debate and as recently as the day on which this policy was announced. As I recall it, the comment of members opposite on that occasion was that the government's policy

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
was not very novel, but that it was what had been advocated by Indians for years. We do not intend to rush, the Indian lands question is one which we have contemplated from the outset and would take a number of years to work out in consultation with the Indian people.
I urge the house and all Canadians, Indians and non-Indians, to look again at the language in the foreword of the policy statement in which we concluded, and I will repeat it:
The government commends this policy for the consideration of all Canadians.
It is our sincere hope that everyone will take time to read the policy statement carefully. We will be involved in extensive consultations with the Indian people in the years ahead. We want to offer the Indian people a very real opportunity to participate in shaping their future.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Finally, it is quite clear that the more generalized concerns about Indian rights and trea'ies are clouding consideration of the specifics of the government's proposed policy. We believe that the specifics of our proposed policy have to be considered for their value to Indian life today and in the future. It is important that the future not be sacrificed by undue concentration on the past. However, we have not neglected the past. We understand and appreciate the feeling of the Indian people with regard to possible past injustices in regard to treaties and, as indicated in the statement, we propose to appoint a commissioner who, in the quality of his person, will satisfy everyone as to his objectivity to meet with Indian representatives and any others. He will consider these matters very carefully and make his recommendations to the government as to what action the government might take in this regard.
I would, therefore, urge the Indian people to make use of this means of putting forward their views and feelings with respect to their treaty rights so that a greater understanding may be had by the government and by all Canadians, but not to let this interfere with getting on with providing a better way of life for Indians today and in the future. This is a very serious and important problem that the country faces and I hope that no one in this house or in the country will take a narrow or partisan approach to it. Hon. members have spoken about consultation, and have said we should have more consultation about the implementation of this policy. I agree, and I 
point out that this is mentioned in the policy statement that I made. It is clear that we want to consult.
I have been visiting some of the provinces. I want to meet representatives of the provincial governments at this stage, not to negotiate but to give them information and to reply to the questions that they wish to raise. I may say they have many questions that they want to ask. I have met with some representatives of the Indians and have listened to them. They have put many specific questions to me and I have tried to reply. I am planning to visit all of the provinces within the next few weeks for information purposes.
We are not rushing anything or anyone. We want to reassure the Indians on the land question. It was alleged that we wanted to see the Indians sell their land for two bottles of wine, or something like that. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. We want to give them what every other Canadian has in this country, namely, the right to make decisions for themselves.
At present Indians have to seek permission from the Minister of Indian Affairs if they wish to lease their lands. I do not think they should be obliged to do so. I feel very strongly about this matter. The procedure they must follow is through the district agency and on to the department in Ottawa, to my desk, and then back again from there. Sometimes this procedure takes weeks and weeks, even months and months for minor decisions to be made. I do not think it is right, and I want to change it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know that the members of this house agree with me on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: These Indian people are human beings and I want to get rid of our paternalistic approach to them. It is said that they are afraid we want to dump them. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to dump any of the programs that we have for Indians. But we do want Indian children to receive the same education as their neighbours.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said there could be no equality of services when separate services were provided to white people and to Indian people. That is right. We want to give the Indians the same kind of services that the other citizens of Canada have. I repeat that we do not want
July 11. 1969

to go ahead with this program too quickly. We will consult with the Indians. If they have some good suggestions to make we will listen to them. We will send a special team of people to meet Indians all across the nation, to try to find ways for Indians who live on reserves to make their own decisions.
I do not want to have to make decisions for them any longer. But if they suggest that the present system be retained for a period of years I may agree. However, I hope they will realize it is in their own interests to take their future into their own hands. They have many new leaders. During the past ten years there has been a great improvement in the education of Indians. Ten years ago only 15 per cent of Indians received education above the fifth grade. Now, 95 per cent of them go above the fifth grade.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is he sticking to his proposal that any grants to the provinces covering the costs of services to the Indian people would gradually be phased out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that it will take some time. I have not negotiated anything, but I hope there will be a day in Canada when there will be no special programs attached to a group of people because of their race.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How long this will take I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I am ready to nego iate and to discuss it with the provinces and with the Indians. I know the Indians have to catch up. I realize this. It is a collective responsibility of the people of Canada to make sure that they catch up. But we should not deal with these problems simply on the basis that these people are Indians. We should deal with these matters on the basis that they are human beings.
Often the problem of the Indian is the same problem as that of the Metis or of the white people who live in the north. Sometimes it is a problem of regional development rather than a problem of racial development. Anyway we have to correct the situation. It will take some time, but I believe Canadian Indians are citizens of the provinces on the same basis as other citizens, and I want to assure them of that.
I have seen a situation in which a provincial government has refused to build a road
Indian Affairs
to an Indian reserve simply because it said, "We build roads only for the public." The province did not want to build even one mile of road to reach a reserve. I do not think that is right, because the Indians who live in a province are citizens equal with others within the province.
It has been said many times that Indians do not pay taxes. When they go to buy gasoline, or into stores to buy other things they pay the indirect taxes that all other Canadians must pay. They contribute to the provincial treasuries in the same way as other citizens. I think it is fair to ask the provinces to extend their services to them. Now, we do not want to transfer responsibility. What we want to do is to ask the provinces to treat the Indians as citizens of the provinces, and we are willing to contribute financially to achieve that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to press the minister unfairly but I am wondering now whether he expects the Indian people to feel easy about the services that the provinces, particularly some of the provinces, would be able to provide without a full assurance from the Government of Canada that it will enable those provinces to provide services which are now the responsibility of the Government of Canada, and which services will increase in expense?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that we want to contribute, to make arrangements with the provinces, and we will negotiate that. But I hope that there will be a day when Indians within the provinces, will be considered as full citizens of the provinces and will be treated in that manner. I think this is the goal we have to achieve. As I said, the problem is also a problem of regional development. It is not a problem related to the Indians alone. In the northern part of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the white people who live there often are faced with the same problems. The Metis are often in a worse situation in these localities than the Indians.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired unless there is agreement on the part of hon. members that he continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you. I shall not take too much more of the time of the house. But we do want to discuss these possibilities with

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
the Indians. I think we must help the Indian people obtain economic equality. We want to offer them economic and social equality in Canada. We do not want, however, to destroy them as Indians. I believe it is possible in Canada to be a full Canadian and at the same time be different.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Indian culture is worth preserving. These people were in Canada before we arrived here. They have contributed to making Canada the country it is. We must help them retain their traditions and their own culture, because in themselves they have good values. We can help them. There is no such thing in Canada as "assimilation". I do not want anyone in Canada to be assimilated. No one will assimilate me. I am a different person, a Canadian who speaks French, but I want to share the advantages and the responsibilities of being a Canadian. I know that it is possible for the Indians of Canada to be Canadians of Indian origin and share in the advantages and responsibilities of having Canadian citizenship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress once more that we will be flexible. We do not want to impose anything on these people we want to negotiate and counsel. If people have good ideas concerning how the Indian people may be permitted or helped to catch up further I would be glad to hear them. These people, however, are not the only ones with problems. There are the Metis who have been left out because there are laws which pertain to a certain number of citizens of Canada. Therefore, I maintain the Indian Act is not one which should be retained in Canada because in it we take a distinction between people because of their colour. The language, colour or religion of people should not make any difference. What is important in respect of a human being is the grey stuff he has inside. It is grey for everyone.
We will take whatever time is necessary to implement this policy. The Indians are concerned about their land. I am concerned about it too. I do not want to see it fall into the hands of some speculators. We must design the Indian Act to protect the land of the Indian people. At the same time we must give them an opportunity to make their own decisions in respect of the development of these lands. We shall do so in consultation with them and with the provincial governments. I want to say again that there will be

a good deal of consultation. I am not referring simply to negotiation. We want to inform the people. I was glad to see a few days ago that the Indian people asked for more time. I think this is a very good request on the part of their leaders because it is necessary that they look into all the implications. We will take all the time that is necessary.
It is important that the government and all the people know in which direction we must go. For a period of a year there have been consultations with the Indians. They say that they want to make their own decisions. They ask us to get off their backs. We want the same thing for them. We want them to make their own decisions. This policy is designed to give them that opportunity. So far as implementation is concerned, there are many ways in which this can be done. We will listen to them and offer them some solutions. There are some solutions which we have offered to them. But if they should wish to retain the same system for many, many years, I would be disappointed because I think with the new possibilities and their new leaders they are able to make more decisions. I believe we should let them do this.
The problem is one of human dignity. I think this policy in general terms has been approved by everyone in this House of Commons. So far as the implementation of the policy is concerned, we will consult with the Indians and give them an opportunity to make their point of view known both to the Canadian public and to the government through more consultation. I think, however, that never in the past has there been so much consultation with the Indians; never in the past has there been a government which has given so much opportunity to the Indian people to make their case not only to the government but to the Canadian public. During the past year 18 consultation meetings were held. We have paid people to make sure that these consultations would be covered by the press and television so that not only the Indians and the employees of the department but also the general public would be informed. I believe this has been a great achievement because never before have we heard so much about the Indian problems. This was due to the fact that, as a government, we were not afraid to put the case of the Indian people before the public. We did not carry on the consultations through the back door. We opened the door to the general public in Canada.
Before ending my contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to cover
July 11, 1969

one more point. A reference was made to a message my deputy minister sent to the employees of the department. I was quite disappointed about the remark that was made in this regard because we had announced the intention of the government, if the provinces and the Indians agreed, to extend provincial services to Indians and at the same time the department would be phased out. It was of the u'most importance that the government should inform these people who have devoted many years of their lives to working very hard for the Indians that their rights as citizens, and as civil servants, would be protected. I am saddened that a member of the New Democratic party would make reference to that because these people deserve better treatment. We must make sure that all the teachers, for example, who have worked for years and years on the reserves devoting their time to the Indian people will not be left out on the streets because we are implementing a new policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The action that was taken was taken to reassure these people that we would protect their rights as employees and as people who have served their country and the Indians. I wish to stress once more that we will continue the consultations. I will be in British Columbia next week to carry on discussions with representatives of the provincial government. While I am there I will stop at three different cities, not to have consultations but information sessions with the Indian people in which I will answer their questions and make sure they understand the policy.
I hope there will not be too much of a partisan approach to this problem because it is an important problem. I do not believe that in our society we can accept a situation in which there are people who are considered to be second class citizens. We must offer these people full citizenship in the Canadian society. At the same time, however, we will respect the treaties we have signed with them. We will respect the special rights we have given them by treaty. One will see by the policy statement that we have taken steps to make sure that these rights will be protected. But these things must be analysed not only by the government but by the Indians themselves.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is now the policy and what the Indians have asked us to do. They have asked
Indian Affairs
us to provide them with funds. This we will do. At the same time, we will have a commissioner look in o these matters on behalf of the Indians of Canada and make recommendations to the government. The Indians will draw their own conclusions. Following that it will be up to the parliament of Canada to make a final decision. I thank every member, Mr. Speaker for being gracious enough to extend my time. I hope in the weeks ahead every one of us will try to persuade the Indian people of Canada that we want to offer them a choice, and that they should accept that choice, because they should not be ashamed to become full citizens in the Canadian society.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister would permit me to ask him a question before he concludes his remarks. It seems that one of the nubs of the disagreement which has developed over the policy statement is the manner in which it was prepared. Is the minister now prepared to discuss with the native Indian people the possibility of enshrining within the constitution, and this is what a great number of them want, these aboriginal, hereditary or treaty rights-that is a misunderstood term-favourable to Indian people? Is he prepared to discuss this possibility and make a commitment that if it is desirable to the Indian people we will put those rights into the constitution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian constitution should be drafted in such a way that the rights of every citizen are protected. We want to respect these treaties and we will. To suggest that we should have in the constitution a provision to make the Indian citizens of Canada something other than full citizens is wrong. What we must do is prove to the Indians that we respect the treaties. If we have not respected these treaties, we must make sure to correct these injustices. When we have corrected these injustices by respecting the treaties the Indians will become equal citizens in Canada. That is a desirable step in our society.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the minister accept another question? Before posing it, I should

July 11, 1969
Indian Affairs
like to indicate that the latter part of his statement this afternoon was much better than the policy statement delivered the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we do not re-open the debate. The hon. member has already had his time and has been recognized now for the purpose of asking a question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My question, Mr. Speaker, is, how does the minister answer the criticism of the Indian leaders who have almost universally expressed the idea that the policy statement enunciated ignores the recommendations they have made during recent consultations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This often involves the kind of dilemma faced by the government. We have consulted with them. They have made their representations and we have noted and studied them. I have studied them myself and they have been studied by officials and employees of my department as well as by other officials of the government. I said to the Indians that we will propose a policy which they may consider. We had to say something and I spoke on behalf of the government. We now say this is the direction in which we sish to proceed. Let us study it along with the Indian people of Canada and the provincial governments, and then implement a proper policy. If we were proposing legislation today, there might be a valid criticism. We are not ready to legislate. We are ready to discuss this policy and bring forward legislation next fall, or perhaps two or three years from now. I do not care very much when, as long as everyone will agree that we are on the right path.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to ask another question relating to a subject upon which neither one of us has touched. It has to do with consultation. I should like to ask the minister whether in the course of these consultations, and in light of the fact he has indicated a flexible approach to policy, he will be prepared to make some sort of payment and set up some sort of procedure which might result in the culmination of a national conference on Indian affairs such as the one held from April 28 to May 2? Will he guarantee some procedure to provide the Indian people with the wherewithal to meet with him to express their opinions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have said in the house many times that we are ready to provide the Indian associations with funds to assist them in their job with their own people and to consult with the government. I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement in this regard. I have made a proposal to the Treasury Board and I hope soon to receive a definite answer. I have referred to the special committee on Indian rights and treaties. Funds will be made available to that committee, not directly through me, but through the commissioner who will be appointed soon.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that hon. members will not be dissatisfied if I say that pursuant to Section 13 of Standing Order 26 I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded. This house stands adjourned until Monday, July 14 at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
At 5:50 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, July 14, 19G9