1971-11-24

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I sent to Your Honour. In Hansard of yesterday, which reached us this morning, a statement is recorded that was made yesterday which I am afraid got lost in the chaos but which in my view constitutes a question of privilege, at least for many of us in this House of Commons. I raise this matter not in any desire to enter into a confrontation but in the hope that it might be resolved quickly. As recorded on page 9805 of Hansard for yesterday, the Prime Minister, in the course of answering a question, said:
If individuals in the Public Service, egged on by the opposition in many cases-
Then there follow about a dozen lines of various interjections, after which the Prime Minister again got the floor and said:
If individuals throughout the Public Service decide to take justice into their own hands and set themselves above those elected to represent the people, I think this is a very serious thing for the country, not for the government.
My point of privilege, sir, is that many of us in this House have been here for many years and if there is one thing that we have learned in Ottawa it is that we have a Public Service than which there is none better. To my knowledge, individuals throughout the Public Service are as loyal as they can be to their ultimate employers, the people of Canada, and in particular to their immediate employer, the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He has to indicate for the benefit of the Chair in what way what he is saying now can be a breach of parliamentary privilege. He has indicated that perhaps someone else's privileges might have been breached, but I should like the hon. member to indicate why he feels there is a breach of either his own privileges or those of hon. members generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since we in this House have many dealings with the Public Service and since they cannot speak for themselves I think it is a matter of privilege on our part when those in whom we have confidence are maligned in this way. I feel that at the earliest opportunity this statement by the Prime Minister, which was so broad in that he referred to individuals throughout the Public Service, should be corrected. I do not move a motion that it be referred to committee for investigation. I simply make an earnest plea to the Prime
Minister that he now correct the statement he made yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a very easy ruling to make. I suggest to the hon. member that there is no relationship at all between the suggestion he has made now for the consideration of the Chair and a question of parliamentary privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that the matter might be a question of debate, but it cannot possibly be considered by way of breach of parliamentary privilege. That is the ruling I have to make.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:: That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House, Wednesday, June 30, 1971, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think what I should probably do at the outset is to make the suggestion that, because the report to which this motion refers is one of great fundamental importance and of great concern not only to the Indian people but to the country generally, Parliament might consider voting on it today. During the course of the debate, if it is not adjourned, perhaps the House leaders might meet and come to some conclusion about a time allocation order so that Parliament can express an opinion with respect to this unanimous report by one of its committees on this subject matter inasmuch as I am sure none of the members of the government would disagree with the opinions expressed in the report.
Within the last few days the subject of educational opportunities and facilities for our native Indian people has been brought into pretty sharp focus. True, it has been a matter of concern to the parliamentary committee that made the report for some two or three years, during which it held extensive hearings, listened to numerous representations and obviously, from the tenor of the content of the report, considered the subject in even greater depth than many committees consider the subject matters that are referred to them. It is also a matter that has been inquired about in the House from time to time since the report was tabled.
Perhaps I might refer to one specific point which helped to bring the question noticeably and pointedly to public attention. I refer to the publicity in which the Indian
24372-63*

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
Association of Alberta has been involved within the last few days relating to an earlier presentation the association made to the government of Canada, to all parties represented in the House, I believe, and to members of the standing committee. The members of this association made a very worth-while, well thought-out, well documented presentation in March, 1970, seeking to have established an Indian educational and cultural complex in the province of Alberta, operated by and for the benefit of the Indian people in that province. The plan for that complex was a very impressive one and very imaginative.
No member who sat in on any of the meetings or made any examination of the plan had anything but the highest of praise for the concepts behind it. It reflected the concern and the depth of feeling that only a group of people can have about themselves. It reflected a depth of feeling that only a group of people can show when they are intimately concerned about their own well-being and their own future. I think we all know, Mr. Speaker, that in order to try to develop, stimulate and promote any pride in a group of people or in their culture we must have a preliminary step such as the educational-cultural concept contained within this plan, with the hope that it will provide greater opportunity for the individuals who take part in the educational system to absorb a larger measure of knowledge than otherwise might be the case, and to have a greater degree of self-respect.
The government response to this plan was one of relative silence except the general cliche retort that the matter was "under study" and that in due course, or whenever a conclusion was reached, a public announcement would be made. I understand that on the 29th day of July this year the cabinet made a generally favourable determination with regard to educational-cultural institutions and programs for Indian people operated by and for themselves and for their own advancement. Apropos of that decision they concluded that since the Indian Association of Alberta, in March, 1970, was the first to present a proposal for a cultural-educational centre the pilot stage of that proposal should be the first to be considered for approval by a particular standing subcommittee of the cabinet.
The concept within that cabinet decision was that in the fiscal year 1971-72 $2 million would be available. We are now two-thirds of the way through that fiscal year. Some supplementary estimates were tabled a few days ago, and one would assume that, if the government intended to put money behind the concept, behind its decision, some provision would have been contained in those estimates for the first stage of the proposal by the Indian Association of Alberta. I have not been able to find any such amount in looking through the supplementary estimates. We all realize the supplementary estimates are phrased in such a way that it is often difficult to extract full knowledge of what is contained therein, but as I can read the proposals in those estimates there is nothing pertaining to this matter.
The cabinet decision of July also determined that $10 million would be available over the next five years funded equally between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of the Secretary of State. Involved in that decision was the necessity of a decision on the mechanics necessary to implement the plan. In other words, to carry forward into actual

accomplishment the decision that the cabinet made on July 29 a decision had to be made on the putting into effect and administration of the plan, not for the purpose of denying what cabinet had decided but for putting into effect what cabinet had decided, by the interdepartmental committee on Indian and Eskimo policy.
I should like to direct the House to yesterday's Hansard where this question was dealt with in what I think was a rather shallow approach on the part of the government and the minister in particular. As found on page 9802 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition asked this question:
I specifically ask why a meeting of the interdepartmental committee on Indian and Eskimo affairs-
I assume he was talking about the interdepartmental committee on Indian and Eskimo policy which would presumably be one and the same thing.
-called to consider the recommendation of the standing subcommittee on the Alberta proposal, was cancelled?
The minister replied as follows, and perhaps for fear of being accused of only presenting that part which supports a particular position, I should read it all.
Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on that committee, so I do not know if the sittings have been cancelled. I can tell the hon. member that we have been discussing this subject for months with the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State and with the representatives of various Indian organizations in Canada but no conclusion has been reached yet.
I think it is well known that the minister does not sit on interdepartmental committees. These committees normally operate within the Public Service structure. I point out to the House and the minister the simple fact that the chairman of that interdepartmental committee on Indian and Eskimo affairs is the minister's own deputy minister, Mr. Robinson. He is the chairman of that interdepartmental committee on Indian and Eskimo affairs. Yet the minister had the effrontery to stand up in the House yesterday and say what he did. Technically, in replying to the question, he told the truth. But how does he know if what he said is right? He does not sit on the committee. What is going on, Mr. Speaker? Does the deputy minister operate in a vacuum? Does the minister now know what his deputy is doing in attempting to put into effect government policy?
The cabinet made a decision on July 29 and said, "Yes, we endorse the concept of educational-cultural centres for Indian people; yes, we think the Indian Association of Alberta's first stage of such a proposal should be endorsed and accepted; yes, we think we should put up $2 million in 1971-72 and $10 million in certain subsequent years." I would think that a minister who is at all concerned about what goes on in his department would know what his deputy minister is doing, especially if that deputy is the chairman of an interdepartmental committee that is supposed to put into effect a government program. Perhaps the minister is ignorant of what is happening in his department. Perhaps he is not all that concerned about what goes on. Perhaps somebody in his department is trying to subvert the decision of cabinet and deny to these people the opportunities that would be available to them as a result of the cabinet decision.
November 24, 1971

I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indulged in a sort of specious covering-up. He should not have done that. He is a nice gentleman, a kind gentleman, a decent sort of chap, Mr. Speaker, and really he should have known better. He should have told us what the interdepartmental committee was doing and what the deputy minister was doing with respect to cabinet policy in that area. Were they putting it into effect or were they denying cabinet the right to put that proposal into effect?
One could make allowances for what happened if this were a relatively minor, insignificant matter, but it is not. It involves a very fundamental and important question, namely, the educational opportunities of a few hundred thousand people in this country, the educational opportunities for a whole growing generation of Indian people. Education is the fundamental base which must be provided before the Indian people can fully advance, make progress and develop some self-respect. It is only in this way that they can be given the chance to make a go of it by themselves and for themselves.
In view of the importance of the subject, surely the minister ought to have some knowledge as to what the deputy minister is or is not doing in this area. He should know, especially, if the deputy minister is operating in such a way as to obstruct government policy or put obstacles in the way of its implementation. It is either that, or the minister is somewhat dumb about what is happening within his department.
There has been deliberate delay, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps there is some real reason why cabinet can make a decision on July 29, set out within the cabinet minute relating to that decision the full details regarding funding, the concepts and extension of this program over a four or five year period, and then delay the implementation of that program. Having spent years considering the matter, having spent months, as the minister said, in talking about it with the Secretary of State and with the Indian people, and having got to the point of making a decision to put the plan into effect, perhaps there is some reason why they do not want to do so at this time.
Knowing the way this government operates, and the precision of mind it has about events that are likely to happen next year, I am inclined to think they are more concerned about the impact such a program will have upon the Indian people at election time than now. Is that what this is? Election bait? It would not surprise me one bit. For the minister to operate in that way would be quite in keeping with the activities of a number of his colleagues who are more concerned about politics and political support than they are about benefits to the general public. I cannot see any other reason for it except incompetence, and the minister is not incompetent. We all know that. That sort of reasoning is a pretty big insult to the intelligence of the native Indian people. How can you expect them to fall for that?
I do not want to get too far into the area dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am referring to cabinet documents and the disclosure of what they contain or the leakage of them to the general public. I would not do this at all except Your Honour said this might more appropriately be a subject matter for debate than a question of privilege. There is
Indian Affairs
something revealing in the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who we know is the head of the government. I will not read the quotation again. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did that when he raised the question of privilege. It is true that the comment was made with regard to a query relating to the Gray report and not about this cabinet document of July 29, although they both fall in the same class. In other words, they are so-called confidential documents or documents which the government classed as confidential but which subsequently became public.
The remarks of the Prime Minister, which possibly are reflected in a decision of the government to put off dealing with this very important educational-cultural project, were both offensive and derogatory to a great many people in the Public Service. They indicate that the Prime Minister is very ambidextrous. He is able to use the tar brush and the whitewash brush with equal dexterity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member's motion relates to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have read that report. I have it before me. I consider it a very important matter and I am sure the hon. member does also. Perhaps he might like to limit his remarks to the subject matter of the motion which, as I have said, relates to a very specific report of the standing committee dealing with very specific problems.


Frank Howard: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of that, as is every member of the House. The document to which I referred, namely, the cabinet committee minute on social policy, a record of the committee decision regarding native cultural-educational centres, has a direct relationship to the report that Your Honour mentioned and which Your Honour has read. Your Honour may not have read the cabinet document in relation thereto but that document, which was classified as confidential, sought to put into effect one of the aspects mentioned in the committee report. Admittedly I am referring to a matter that was raised yesterday. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has similar views about the leakage of this document and whether he wants to indicate what a small-statured man he is by casting the same reflection on those people in the Public Service and absolving and whitewashing the cabinet, all the executive assistants and all the staff within the ministers' offices, none of whom are exempted from the concept that they might have leaked this particular document.
This is somewhat connected to the report of the committee in light of the fact that there has been what may be classified as a school strike in northern Alberta. In other words, a group of citizens, parents belonging to the three bands in question, decided to keep their children from attending school. Your Honour might wonder why this was done. It was not an ordinary action. It was an extraordinary action which I believe was predicated upon an extraordinary situation. The decision to keep the children out of school was taken in consequence of serious objections about living conditions, sanitary conditions and school facilities on those reserves. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni was there. He attended meetings of the people and took a close look at the situation which had

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
resulted in the decision of those parents to keep their children out of school.
The parents took that decision because they saw in it the only possible hope they had to bring pressure upon the minister to carry out his duties and responsibilities which up until that time he had abdicated and refused to carry out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gibson:: He had not.


Frank Howard: Somebody on the backbenches over there who has regaled us with his ignorance before has done it again. I tell the House this, Mr. Speaker: the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as a representative of the Crown has certain duties and responsibilities to discharge with respect to these three bands. He did not carry them out and that is why the parents took their children out of school. I say to the minister: you are responsible for Indian affairs, how about accepting that responsibility? That is what these people are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: Look in the mirror.


Frank Howard: There is another question
involved here. It is a fundamental one, aside from the aspect I have raised. It is the question of treaty rights. Let those howling jackals in the background remember that this is fundamental before they start crying about responsibilities. The Indians in these three bands looked at the treaties which we signed and concluded that there is contained in them a responsibility to build schools on the reserves and to pay for the services of teachers. They are not talking about the type of schools which might have been built in the days when those treaties were signed. They are talking about modern-day schools. That is what the committee report talked about too, Mr. Speaker. It talked about a modern educational system, about the responsibility of the federal government, and said this matter should remain the responsibility of the federal government. Moreover, the committee recommended unanimously that the government should cease and desist from its attempts to slough off these educational responsibilities on the provinces.
This is why the people belonging to these bands decided to take their children out of school. It was in an effort to get a fair shake. The minister has classified their action as blackmail. He said he was being blackmailed and that as a consequence he did not intend to do anything further. Mr. Speaker, since when has it been blackmail to ask someone to live up to his honour, to respect treaties which are in existence, to carry out his responsibilities and discharge the high duties of ministerial office in an effective manner? But the minister howled "blackmail" and shut his door and stayed in Ottawa while saying on the floor of the House, as I gather he said elsewhere: "My door is open any time". I mentioned this to one of the members of the Indian Association of Alberta yesterday and he said:

"You bet the minister's door is open. And it opens from the inside."
The minister did not care enough about his responsibilities to go to the communities involved and see the situation at first hand or to talk to the Indians concerned and find out what was happening and whether he could do something directly. The cry of blackmail is simply the refuge of a person found delinquent in his duties. Oh, they had a meeting. They had a meeting in Winnipeg on mutual ground. I understand it was promoted by people who were neither in the government nor in the Indian Association of Alberta nor in any of the three bands involved in an attempt to find some area of neutrality within which an attempt could be made to resolve the problem. I understand that the minister attended but that he did not engage in any meaningful conversation with the people there. Rather, he repeated the declaration he had made earlier: You send the children back to school and I will then come and attend to you; when you alter the manner in which you are presenting your legitimate demands and let me carry out my duties and responsibilities, then I will come.
Certain allegations were made in the House yesterday. Whether those allegations had been made or not, whether or not there is any connection between the decision of the parents in those three bands to keep their children out of school in an attempt to force the minister to meet his obligations and the decision taken by the government not to put into effect the first stage of the Indian educational centre complex to which it had agreed on July 29-


An hon. Member:: Get to the point.


Frank Howard: The minister denied there was any connection. As reported at page 9803 he said in response to a question by the hon. member for Athabasca about this very matter, whether or not there was a connection between the two:
Mr. Speaker, the two parts of this question are totally unrelated and I have already indicated why the program is not ready yet.
The second part of the answer is not true to fact. If you go back in Hansard you will find the minister gave no reason for the program not being ready. He said he had been discussing it for months but had not made a decision. It was not ready because the minister had failed to reach a decision. He wanted to hold it off for the sake of one political advantage or another.
The point is this. The minister said there was no connection. But something very revealing happened. Hansard does not record this because Hansard does not contain pictures. Yesterday I sought to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to give the minister authority to leave the chamber so he could proceed to Alberta to meet with the Indian people there, and expressing the hope that such meeting would result in a favourable solution to the problems confronting the Indian people. I did not succeed in obtaining unanimous consent to move that motion, but the revealing part, the part which Hansard did not and could not record, was that while I was presenting that motion the minister, with a wave of the hand up to the gallery, indicated that they were here. And do you know who was in the gallery, Mr. Speaker? I am told it was executive officers of the Indian
November 24, 1971

Association of Alberta. My motion dealt with the possibility of the minister going to Alberta to talk to the people in those three bands whose children were out of school. The minister said that there was no connection between one subject and the other, but the moment I raised it there was a connection. The officials of the Indian Association of Alberta were here. So there is a connection in the mind of the minister. There is a connection in the mind of the princely secretary to the Prime Minister. What is his name?


An hon. Member:: Lalonde.


Frank Howard: A secretarial prince, I am told. So let me repeat that there is a connection in the mind of the government between one situation and the other, and one was used in retaliation for action taken in the other, if it was not for political purposes.
On October 6 the president of the Indian Association of Alberta, Harold Cardinal, sent a telegram to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and to M. Lalonde, secretary to the Prime Minister. So that it is on the record and I am not accused of extracting something that I distort-


Mr. Osier:: Is that your own copy?


Frank Howard: Certainly. It is in my hand; and if I may enlighten the hon. gentleman, who appears to have such a lack of knowledge of these matters, it was given to me yesterday. We in this party take an interest in the education of Indian children even though Liberal members apparently do not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Your halo is off centre a little.


Frank Howard: If hon. members opposite would open their ears and close their mouths, perhaps they would learn something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has the floor and is addressing the House on a motion that is legitimately before the House. The hon. member should be given the opportunity of making his presentation. There are so many conversations going on at the present time, even as I am trying to bring order to the House, that it is difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member's speech.


Frank Howard: I had noticed that fact myself, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to comment on it or to do anything embarrassing, because the great bulk of these conversations come from gentlemen in the Liberal benches opposite, which is an indication that they are not interested in the subject matter under debate.


Mr. Prud'homme:: What is the subject under debate?


Frank Howard: If my hon. friend will listen to the telegram, I will read it. To the parliamentary secretary let me say that, unlike him, I have not stood in this House, as he did the other night, and told a deliberate falsehood about manpower figures. However, I do not want to digress.
Indian Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Obviously, even Your Honour is held in great disrespect by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: They are even applauding that remark Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration rises on a point of order. However, before recognizing him, I should like to remind hon. members that it would be preferable that the conversations I now hear on both sides of the House be carried on behind the curtains. It is extremely difficult to follow the debate when the members are busy talking.
The hon. parliamentary secretary now has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I can understand why the hon. member wants to have as many falsehoods as possible appear in Hansard, but I should like him very much to tell the House where, when and how I have misled the House in answering a question?


Frank Howard: That degree of sensitivity indicates guilt to me, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my arrogance will never equal that of the hon. member and I simply wish to point out that he is deliberately making an untrue statement when he says that I have attempted to mislead the House the other day by quoting some figures. I think that the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena is suggesting that the parliamentary secretary has deliberately misled the House. He has, of course, no right to say that. It is unparliamentary. The parliamentary secretary has said that the hon. member has deliberately misled him and the House. I wonder where this kind of exchange is leading. I suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that he should try as much as possible to concentrate on the motion.
It was my impression that this was an important matter and that the hon. member might want to deal with the report that he has moved. I suggest that he has no right to suggest that the parliamentary secretary or any other member has deliberately misled the House. I repeat, that is entirely unparliamentary and the hon. member has no right to say it. In the same way, the parliamentary secretary has no right to say what he said. I would invite both hon. members to keep that in mind, and I suggest that at this point we should return to the motion before the

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
House, which some time ago I thought had to do with an important report about which I have not heard very much during the last tew minutes.


Frank Howard: The first part of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, was quite correct and I withdraw my reference to its being deliberate. It has been drawn to my attention that I have only a few minutes left, so I will not bother reading the telegram. I was interrupted many times in my attempt to read it. Let me simply say that the response that the principal secretary, or whatever he is called, to the Prime Minister gave to the president of the Indian Association of Alberta was both offensive to and derogatory of the president of the association and contributed to the gulf of misunderstanding, which is a point I also made yesterday.
Let me refer to what the report of the committee is attempting to do, what it is trying to correct, and to put this in general, historic perspective. Indian children have for many years gone through an educational program in which they have been treated to a second or even third-class education since the qualifications of their teachers were of much lower standard than those of the teachers available to the province. Any teacher who could not fit into the provincial scheme by reason of not being qualified, however incompetent they might be as teachers, could always find a haven in the education branch of Indian affairs. That was the situation some years ago.
In many respects the Indian people were punished for using their own language in certain schools that were operated by the federal government. They were given the feeling that as a group of individuals they were inferior. Their needs now probably require a much greater degree of education than the needs of the rest of society in order to counterbalance this inferiority feeling and to assist them to develop self-respect. We must try to establish for them a pride in their inheritance and reverse the damage done by teaching them trades and skills and by giving them the qualifications necessary to take their part in the economic activities of this nation.
The report of the committee also recognized that we must try to depart from the so-called general, white, middle-class standards and values of teachers generally who teach in Indian schools, that we should try to attempt to teach Indian standards to Indian children rather than ignoring them. We should try to teach skills and trades that will reverse and correct a situation where the dropout rate among Indian school children is now four times the national average. We must try to correct a situation where 50 per cent, to use a general, rounded figure, of the adult Indian population is unemployed and unable to find work.
I do not want to go through the committee's report point by point, but it does have a number of very worth-while and valuable sections. One recommends that over a phased period of five years we start pre-school instruction to children in the three-year age group, recognizing the necessity for bending over backward to ensure that the younger children are fully prepared to enter the educational system proper. It also recommends that language instruction at the pre-school level and in the first and second years of primary school should be in their native tongue initially, with either English or French as the

secondary language, and that the curriculum in the federal program should include and emphasize more the question of Indian history, the question of Indian culture, its music, its art and its value system in order to instil the degree of pride which is necessary. Another section of the report relates directly to the decision of parents who keep their children out of school. It reads:
-the government must immediately and in full consultation and partnership with the Indian and Eskimo people of Canada develop a federal education system as free from the deficiencies afflicting our present program as is humanly possible, and to this end your committee recommends-
Then they make certain recommendations which are contained in the report. People in a free society-this is what Indian people are in theory-can advance and be free only if their institutions are free. They can develop self-respect only if they are shown self-respect; for example, if the educational system in which they work and learn promotes the concept of self-respect. The Indian people have been the group most disadvantaged and discriminated against in Canada's history. The government, with its preoccupation about other matters, refuses to recognize the cultural and aboriginal rights of the Indian people and attempts to fit everyone into a slide-rule school. As I have said, the minister is a decent guy-but why doesn't he try to do some decent things?


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good deal of pleasure to rise in support of the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The report in question was studied by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. After the hearing of many witnesses it was unanimously agreed to by the committee. I am anxious to hear the comments of members on the other side of the House on this question.
I believe it is fair to say that in a few areas this government's notion of a just society is a shambles and a farce in respect of the native people of Canada. In its insensitivity and basic intention, the government has attempted to impose upon the native people policies which do not meet their real needs or their legitimate aspirations. This approach and lack of action has been confirmed by the failure of the government to engage in genuine consultation with representatives of the native people and to develop a substantive program to help overcome their many difficulties.
I think it is fair to say that 15 or 20 years ago it was thought that integration of Indian students with students in our urban or large centres was perhaps the answer and would produce a significant number of Indian graduates. I think 15 years ago the Indian people themselves thought this might be the solution to an educational program which previously had not been successful. However, after a trial period-and I believe 15 years is a reasonable period-of attempting to integrate Indian students with other students in our schools this program has proven to be a disaster. We need only consider the number of dropouts of Indian students. When we see a drop-out rate of 94 per cent this is in no way an indication of a successful educational system. I think we can also say with some degree of assurance that the present policy of the government in no way promises to relieve this problem.
November 24, 1971

Mr. Speaker, I have met hundreds of Indian people. I have been in their homes, in their community halls and other places. Some of the meetings were attended by 100, 200 or 300 people. On these occasions one could look around and ask oneself how many teachers, engineers, lawyers and doctors were in the group. One might ask oneself how many of these people got past grade 12 or even grade 5.
Then one must ask the reasons for this. The reasons are, obviously, that the solutions so far put forward have been an absolute failure from the point of view of graduating Indian students into the professions I have mentioned. Some people in the past have expressed their discrimination against Indians by suggesting that the fault lies with the Indians themselves. They suggest, also, that perhaps Indians do not have the intelligence, that maybe they do not have the desire or the ambition. I think this kind of answer is too easy and too slick and it is not true.


Mr. Alexander:: You are right.


Paul Yewchuk: I think it has been shown by many research people that the intelligence of the average Indian is no different from that of the average person. Given the fact that their intelligence is the same, we must accept the fact that the Indian people are interested in sending their children to school in order that they may obtain the education necessary for them to enter the professions and trades in order to look after themselves and their families. Given that situation, we must come back to the question of why they are not getting through school.
The answer, obviously, is that there must be something wrong with the system to which they are exposed. What is wrong with the system? It could be that these people have never been meaningfully involved in the system of education. We might consider the fact, for example, that in some parts of the country the Indian people cannot sit on school boards. This means that they have no influence over the kind of teachers hired or the kind of curriculum to which students are exposed. In general they have nothing to say about the subject matters which might be of interest to students.
As a result, the Indian people over the past few years have said, "This is enough," since they have suffered this kind of injustice for 200 years or more. They say it is time they took things into their own hands. I think that is fair enough. They say to us that we have been running their educational system for 100, 200 or 300 years and it has been a complete failure in respect of Indian students graduating from school.
They also say they want a chance to do it their own way. They want to have a say in who the teachers are. They want to screen the teachers in order to see whether there is the kind of prejudice which would make them unsuitable for teaching their children. They want to know whether the teachers have an understanding of the Indian way of life, so that they may be effective in an Indian community. The Indian people want to have an influence on the kind of curriculum their children are exposed to. They want to ensure that there are none of the old prejudices against Indians such as we read of in textbooks which portray the Indian as a savage, lurking around in a loincloth with feathers on his head. This is still the kind of image that many of our books depict about the Indian
Indian Affairs
population. Just imagine your child, Mr. Speaker, seeing portrayed in his school this image of his father and grandfather. I think it is very easy to understand that it is a degrading experience for a child to have this kind of image wrongly and constantly portrayed.
We had some success a year ago in the area of giving Indian people a little more say in their educational system. The school at Blue Quills, northeastern Alberta, was turned over to Indian control on an experimental basis. An education council was set up by the Indian people which is the equivalent of the school board and has had complete control over this school for the past year. They are now in their second year of teaching and I think I can say with assurance, after talking to some of the teachers, to some students and to some members of the education council, that it shows great promise. Innovations brought in by the people who are directly involved have already, in such a short time, shown evidence of tremendous progress in the education of the students who are attending the school.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Let me turn for a moment to the strike which is now going on in northeastern Alberta, at least technically if not in fact. I think this is one of the greatest blots on the performance of this minister.


Mr. McCleave:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: The signs of discontent were there a year ago because the Frog Lake Indians pulled their children out of school for a week or two as an indication that they were serious about wanting better facilities with which to educate their children. They wanted the things which I have been discussing. But the minister paid no attention to them. The strike was ended but the situation brewed for another year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Yewchuk: They wanted to give the minister another year to negotiate, to try to communicate with him and to make him understand the problem. They wanted him to agree sincerely to try to do something about the problem. No progress was made. I think this is unfortunate.
The chiefs and the people of the three reserves involved feel that it is most unfortunate that before this government listens one has to resort to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the only thing which made this minister notice that there were Indians in northeastern Alberta. I think this is a shameful record.
In raising in the House the matter of education in northeastern Alberta on many occasions we tried to point out to the minister that settling this question at the beginning of the strike would have been a simple matter. All the Indians wanted at that time was for the minister to go down and say to them sincerely, "I see that you have a serious problem and I will try to do something about it".


Mr. Chretien:: Not true.


Paul Yewchuk: That is what they wanted him to do. But he refused even to talk to them. He refused to acknowledge the fact that there was a problem.
9850

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Don't mislead the House.


Paul Yewchuk: He simply said, "You are a bunch of blackmailers". That was his response and I think it is shameful. To get a little closer to what has been happening in the last two days with regard to blackmail, I say that if anybody has been guilty of blackmail it is the minister, because he has given his assurance to the Indian Association of Alberta of participation in certain projects such as the educational cultural centre which was constructed 40 miles west of Edmonton. This was approved by the cabinet. The Indian Association of Alberta spent approximately $160,000 in research and development for this project and then they waited for the rest of the funds. They hired academics, consultants, and so on, and when the time came to pay them there was no money to do so because the minister had changed his mind. He said that the government had not yet decided whether they were going to go ahead with this project.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the $160,000 spent on this project was money allocated by the department. So there seems to be a discrepancy there. In view of the telegram sent by the Prime Minister's secretary, to which the hon. member for Skeena referred, there is no doubt in my mind that what the minister was saying to the Indian people was, "If you want to get your money you had better send your children back to school". If that is not blackmail I do not know what is.
There were a couple of other programs for which money was not forthcoming as promised. I am referring to the sports program which was designed to develop athletes among the Indian population for competition in the Canada Games and even possibly in the Olympic Games. The funds for these programs were withheld. There was a joint program between the government and the Indian Association, namely, the community development program. Funds for that were withheld. I should like the minister to explain the reasons for withholding these funds.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister is not listening.


Paul Yewchuk: To take the matter a little further, the Indian people were at all times willing to negotiate with the minister and to prove this point they appointed two mediators, one from Ontario and one from Manitoba. These mediators succeeded in arranging a meeting between the chiefs from northeastern Alberta and the minister. The meeting took place. The purpose of the meeting was to have a preliminary discussion on how the problems could be resolved. The chiefs came to the meeting keeping in mind that it was to be a preliminary discussion. What did the minister do? He went there with seven or eight of his advisers and made a settlement with one of the chiefs from the smallest reserve, the one with the smallest demands. By this method he managed to drive a wedge into the strike. He sent the children of one reserve back to school and on the heels of that action the strike quickly broke down.
I was glad to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) sitting with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) a few minutes ago because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern development referred to the strike as being blackmail. I hope that he

had a chance to consult with the Minister of Labour on his view that the strike was blackmail, because how does this strike differ from any other strike?
The minister said he would not talk to the Indian people because if he did, all the Indian people in the country would go on strike and make all sorts of demands. This is possible and it might be a good idea. What is wrong with a strike by the Indian people to achieve that which they feel is necessary for themselves and their families? I cannot see how that can be more wrong than a strike by the postal union, by the farmers union or by any other union. This is simply one of the methods used in our society to help achieve settlement in areas where one is not forthcoming by any other method. It is a democratic method and I support it wholeheartedly.
I want to make a few more references to the fifth report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What does it actually say? It reads in part:
-that something was drastically and basically deficient in an education system or systems with a school drop-out rate of more than four times the national average serving a population of which 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the adult males were unemployed or underemployed-
In the last couple of months, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great fuss in this House about a national unemployment rate of 7 per cent. The Indian people have been living with an unemployment rate of 40 per cent to 50 per cent, and in some communities it is 90 per cent or 100 per cent. Nothing is being done by the minister to solve this problem. He simply says, "We are doing what we can and some day we will solve it." That is not good enough.
Over the past three years the government verbally has indicated some good intentions. Members of the government told the Indian people that they wanted to talk to them, that they wanted the Indian people to tell them what they desired in order that the government could develop appropriate policies. Consultations were held with the Indian people and the government brought out a white paper-but it bore no resemblance to what the Indian people had requested during the consultative meetings.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You supported it in this House.


Paul Yewchuk: consent and at the request of the majority of Indian parents in the communities concerned.
It also said:
In those schools remaining under the control of the education branch-
Which is in the vicinity of 35 per cent of the schools.
-the committee believes that the objectives of the federal schools should be the creation of models of excellence which will furnish to Indian and Eskimo young people an education which will provide to them equality of opportunity and the ability to be employed at every level of the economy of the regions in which they live.
Just to touch on some other points, I think it is fair to say that the crux of the whole report is contained in the following phrase:
That the government should continue its policy-
I do not believe it is the policy at the present time: unfortunately, this wording is not exactly right.
-that no transfers of education programs from the federal level of provincial systems take place without the express and clear approval of the majority of the parents in each community concerned.
I must take issue with the report in this respect because it says that the government should continue its policy that no transfers be made. This is not the government's policy. If it were, there would be no strike in northeastern Alberta. I remind the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) that the strike there is because the Indian people refuse to have their children transferred to schools situated in larger towns off the reserves. The strike started because the government would not co-operate with the Indian people in achieving their desire to have the schools on the reserves improved and updated. So, Mr. Speaker, this is an inaccuracy in the report. The report also makes reference to cultural and language instruction. It recommends:
That all curriculums within the federal program be revised to include:
(a)	Substantially more Indian history including Indian contributions to the economy, science, medicine, agriculture, exploration, etc.,
(b)	Special courses in Indian culture, music, art, handicrafts, etc. and that pressure be brought upon the respective provincial systems to inaugurate similar reforms wherever Indian children are being taught.
The report recommends that language instruction policies should be reviewed. It says:
That the language of instruction at the pre-school level and up to the first or second year of primary school should be in the language of the local Indian or Eskimo community with secondary and tertiary languages English and/or French being introduced gradually through the pre-school and primary period and that courses linked to the local Indian or Eskimo culture continue to be taught in the local language throughout the primary level of school.
This is a very important matter because in many cases Indian communities are isolated; the children have not been taught either English or French. When they go to school their entire day is spent in learning English or French and as a result they lose a year or two because the first couple of years are taken up in their attempts to pick up the language of instruction. The children become discouraged because listening to a language they do not understand does not stimulate their interest sufficiently to
Indian Affairs
create the proper motivation for them to stay in school as long as they should. I would refer hon. members who wish to know about the rest of the recommendations of the committee, to Votes and Proceedings of June 30, 1971.
I want to conclude by saying that because of poor planning, insensitive programming and severely limited opportunities, the standard of education available to most of the native peoples of Canada is abominable. Ninety-four per cent of the Indian and Eskimo children drop out of school before they reach grade 12, and the federal government is apparently attempting to phase out its program of support for Indian and Eskimo students who reach university. This is a disgraceful situation. It is in large part the result of the imposition on the native peoples of an educational system which is foreign to their culture and which does little more than cultivate alienation, frustration and resentment.
I would strongly recommend the establishment of a special task force, under the direction of qualified native people, which would develop teaching programs, curricula, text books and teaching aids which are relevant to the needs of and sensitive to the way of life of the native peoples. I would also support the establishment, wherever appropriate, of school boards composed entirely, or in large part, of the native peoples themselves with the power to hire teachers, design curricula and make similar decisions. Such school boards for the first time would involve the native peoples in their own educational programs and would greatly contribute to making their education more relevant and attractive to them.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two comments about the minister, who seems to be losing interest in my remarks. I feel that he is not responding to the needs of the native peoples. He will not talk to the people whose affairs he is supposed to administer. It would be an understatement to say he has lost credibility with the native people. Therefore, I think he should be replaced. I think that the minister should be replaced by the minister responsible for housing. I have spoken to Indian people and they tell me they have had dealings with that minister, that he is a minister they can trust and that he understands their problems with more sympathy than the present minister. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) before he loses more credibility than he is at present.
In conclusion, government policy which seeks to achieve a healthy, productive and economically secure life for the native people of Canada must respect their cultural heritage and aspirations. The Canadian Indian must be free to choose to live in or away from his native community without prejudicing the opportunities available to him to enjoy the standard of living and quality of life of other Canadians. In the formulation and operation of such policy our native people must be fully consulted and involved. The obligations of history must be met in a new approach to the problems of the native people of Canada, an approach which is sensitive, fair, constructive and is developed in active partnership with them.
24372-64 J

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, for the past one and a half hour, we have been hearing discussions on Indian affairs in Canada.
I have been listening carefully to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who has raised the matter of the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.
I sincerely believe that the Indian problem is one of the most serious. I would even say that it is too serious to be made the subject of a political game in this House, and that we should not use the Indians as a political balloon. It is nice to say, for the record and for newspapers, how much we are concerned with Indians and Eskimos, but we should still keep a certain sense of honesty.
Last year I had the opportunity of going to Yellowknife where some Indians met the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I am not here to commend or flatter the minister when there is no reason for it. But last year when I went there, I noticed that the minister was seriously looking into problems met by Indians in northern Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. And I must say it publicly.
In the House reference is made to Indians in order to prove that the government has done nothing for them. Some members even attack the government, blaming federal officials and claiming that only one political party is on their side, etc.
Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of this political clowning. Indians deserve much better treatment than what they are getting nowadays in the House of Commons.
Last week while in Edmonton I was invited to appear on the Dave Ward show. Mr. Dave Ward, coming from an Eskimo family, discussed the Indian-Eskimo issue in Canada. These people are not asking us for our culture but rather want us to help them keep their own. They ask us permission to be themselves.
People say that Indians do not go to university, do not become lawyers, doctors or chartered accountants. However, those who want to become lawyers or go to university can do so. They are not forced to do it. It would not be a good thing to make it compulsory.
Eskimos and Indians in my area travel from the northern reaches of Hudson Bay by plane at the government's expense, to study in Rouyn-Noranda. They have no obligation but they are told: If you want, come. Those who are willing to study can do so. As for those who do not wish to study, let us help them remain where they are and keep on fishing and hunting.
I was listening recently to a program televised from Winnipeg during which I heard an Indian from northern Manitoba who was working in a plant in Winnipeg say that he was not interested in working there. He wanted to be able to live at home, in the woods and close to a lake, fishing and hunting because he has been brought up this way, this is his culture, what he has been trained for.
I understand that thousands of dollars are granted every year to Indians to help them live in suitable dwellings in northern Canada. There are certainly shortcom-

ings. Nothing is perfect. If the progressive Conservatives are so kind to Indians, why did they not settle the Indian problem when they were in power?
When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who is sitting over there, was Prime Minister, people wearing feathers on their head sat in the galleries to protest against the government not taking action in the area of Indian affairs. Nothing could be done at the time but today they want to blame the whole thing on the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying that he is inefficient and should be replaced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Andras), or by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). While we are about it we could replace him by just any one at all. It would not improve matters one whit.
Let us at least be objective. Let us make suggestions. We are dealing with education. There is an education problem. Are any of our teachers, whether from Ontario, Alberta, prepared to go and teach in the north of Manitoba or Quebec or wherever? It is a problem of teachers.
I think that instead of interfering to such a degree in the field of Indian education, the government should have left that to the Protestant and Catholic missionaries who looked after almost all Indians a few years ago and gave a better education than any government could give. Moreover, the missionaries were on the spot the year round. But they were left out. It would have cost much less to the government to help those missionaries-either Catholic or Protestant-who were ready to serve all Indian and Eskimo families. But we discouraged them, forced them to leave and replaced them by bureaucrats whose work is unsatisfactory most of the time because of their inefficiency.
I should like to repeat what Mr. Dave Ward said last week in Edmonton: "We do not ask you to give us your white culture. We do not want to become white people; we want to stay as we are. We do not want anything to be forced upon us. We want to be free; that is all we ask."
But in the House of Commons, for God's sake let us stop fooling with the Indian or Esquimo people and using them as a political stepping-stone to serve the political interests of some people. When a member rises in the House to say he is the only protector of Indian and Esquimo people, the only one to know the Esquimo problems, I feel disgusted. Truth still has its rights as well as honesty.
It is a good thing to make suggestions to the hon. minister. Should the hon. minister blunder, let us tell him. But let us not use the Indians in order to say: Listen, the Progressive Conservatives are better than you Liberals. The New Democratic Party members are superior because most of them are Indians.
The Indians can be used to serve one's petty political interest. In my opinion, the debate should be upgraded and not downgraded. We should offer logical suggestions. I repeat that I think the most logical suggestion was made last week by Mr. Dave Ward when he said that we should enable Indians who want it to further their education and those willing to remain as they are to keep on being hunters, fishermen, trappers and craftsmen. We should
November 24, 1971

help them be themselves and not force them to be like us. This is what they want.
I therefore invite the hon. minister to consider not only the economic aspect, but also the social and cultural aspects of the Indian and the Eskimo situation, so that they feel more at home in Canada since, after all, they are similar to us and are living in the same country. Let us treat them as they want to be treated and let us stop blindly blaming those people who at least have the decency of doing their utmost to improve the plight not only of the Indians and the Eskimos but of the whole Canadian population.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think the minister should be allowed to make his speeches.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) for the courage he displayed in conveying his opinion whilst endeavouring this afternoon to raise the debate above petty politics.
I think it is most unfortunate that people would use this most difficult social problem in Canada for partisan politicking.
Since 1968, we have had hundreds of meetings and consultations with Indians. I have not taken the initiative of inviting members of the opposition to attend them.
When I was in the constituency of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I invited him to accompany me to the meeting even if he is a member of the opposition so he could discuss with the Indian population.
When I was in the northern part of Alberta I invited the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to come and discuss with the Indians.
It is a shame today to see those people stand up and try to-


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He can't take it.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not hear the minister correctly. He says he invited me to a meeting somewhere. I deny that I received any invitation from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the hon. member for Athabasca is that he is always late. Last week he came in the House and asked a question relating to a problem in his own riding. The kids were already back at school and he was not even aware of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Indian Affairs


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is debate.


Paul Yewchuk: After the minister made that comment in the House the other day I went to my office, made a phone call to the reserves involved and learned that the kids were not at school.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Danforth:: The minister should get his facts straight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think the minister should be allowed to complete his remarks.


Mr. Woolliams:: He should stick to the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The point the hon. member for Athabasca raised was a point of debate. I do not think it was a question of privilege. If hon. members raise points of order or questions of privilege every time there is a difference of opinion, the House will not make any progress in its debates. Different interpretations might be put on statements of fact by various members of the House. If an hon. member is not satisfied with something another hon. member has said then, as long as the original remarks do not reflect personally on the hon. member, the hon. member who is not satisfied should seek the floor on another occasion and express his opinion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course not all the kids were back to school. Yet 92 per cent of the kids at Saddle Lake are back at school, and all the Keeheewin kids are back at school. The kids at Cold Lake are not back in school. That means that 1,000 out of 1,275 are back. From the beginning I wanted to settle the strike and I want to tell the House today that the kids were on strike before I received any news or any demands by the Indians. I myself sent, in September, with the agreement of the Indian Association of Alberta, a representative there. He was supposed to be there in good faith. That is how it was accepted in my office by the parties. This representative, one of my assistants, went there to visit the northern reserve. When he arrived in Edmonton the same people who had agreed to have him go there and investigate facts had a demonstration against him at the airport. This is purely and simply politics of the worst type. This man had gone in good faith. He went to the reserve and when he came back he made a report to me. Within three hours of getting that report I gave orders to do what had to be done at that moment.
I said to the people of the Keeheewin reserve, "It is true; you need a new kindergarten and you will get it." Three hours after I received the report I said that. I sent them a telegram and told them that they will have up to grade 3 schooling on the reserve. That is what I decided three hours after I received the report. But the same people from the Indian Association of Alberta told them not to accept what we were doing because it was purely piecemeal. When I met the chief of the Keeheewin, Chief Gordon Young Chief, a good chief, he asked of me, at the meeting in Winnipeg that hon. members referred to,

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
exactly what I had offered him on October 5. However, people were using the chief to play politics, and that is why I shall go before the committee tomorrow and give all the facts. We should nt play politics with this problem. It is too important a problem.
I have visited Indians in all the provinces and in all the different parts of Canada. I have visited all the Eskimo and Indian settlements in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon never before visited by a minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely that is not correct.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I sat with the Indians for hours and hours and listened to them. But the problem is very difficult; the problem of education is the most difficult problem. It is the government that has asked the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to look into the question of education. They prepared a report which we received on June 30. An order of the House was given to the committee to look into this matter. We received the report a few months ago. We are studying it. There are many good things in the report. The members of the committee have done a hell of a good job. They did not act in a partisan way. I congratulate them for the good work they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have said many times, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said, that what the Indians want is to be socially and economically equal in Canada and culturally different. The government is not shy when it comes to admitting that it is trying to find more money for cultural centres for the Indians. We want to do something. However, we cannot spend millions of dollars without developing some criteria and rules for the administration of those moneys.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Most of the Indian associations in Canada are very responsible. They are doing a good job. They try to do something good for their people. However, rather than negotiate with me in my office or elsewhere, some prefer to state their case over television. If they want to do it that way, that is their problem. However, that is not the way to do it. They say they are unable to meet the minister. They say they appeared over television because they did not receive a phone call to attend a meeting. They say they were not involved in the strike.
I stopped in Winnipeg. I am not shy. I said I would not meet the chiefs of the reserves because in conscience I was not satisfied that the purpose was to solve the problem. They only wanted to use these poor Indians of northern Alberta to serve their own purposes.
I hope that members will not only question me in committee tomorrow but will question the operations on the other side of the coin. I think some people are trying to develop some sort of bureaucracy of their own.
I talked to the chief of the Keeheewin reserve. I told him that I recognized there were many problems on his reserve. I asked him to tell me how many times the community development officers, who are paid by the Indian

Association of Alberta, visited his reserve to help him. He replied that they had never been there. We have negotiated these agreements with the Indians in that province in order to give them an opportunity to run some programs. This was not to help them sit around in offices in Edmonton dreaming up strikes but to go into the field and do the work for their people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is the point that must be clarified. There are people who play politics and try to leak documents. I have nothing to hide. I said that yesterday. I volunteered to appear before the committee to explain the policies because I want this House to understand that this is the most difficult social problem that we have in Canada. We should not play politics with it. I am willing to open all the books.
Some people complain because committee meetings have been cancelled. I agree that one committee meeting was cancelled but another subcommittee was working during that time. The work was proceeding. Some people play politics, but we have not stopped working. I am responsible to all the Indians of Canada and all the Indian associations of Canada. I will not give premium to irresponsibility. I will not put grease on the squeaking wheel. In carrying out my duty I hope to treat all the Indian associations of Canada on the same basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Over the years we have done a lot to try to solve the problems of the Canadian Indians. We have tried to solve some of the problems. What makes me angry is that a member such as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) should stand in his place and accuse me of forcing the Indians to attend a provincial school in Alberta when I know that agreements were signed in 1961 when the hon. member's party was in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Not in British Columbia.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am talking about Alberta. I will come to British Columbia later. When we introduced our policy in the House on June 25, 1969, all the members of the opposition said that it was a hell of a good policy. Speaking for his party, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said there was only one thing wrong with it; it was 25 years too late.


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Take the heat a bit.


Frank Howard: You know that what you are saying is not true. Check the record. Tell the truth.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are trying to solve the problem but it is difficult. Less than three weeks ago I was in New Brunswick. I met with two different bands. One chief wanted his own school on his very small reserve. The other band wanted to go into an integrated system. I looked into the problem of the band that wanted its own school. The chief was not satisfied because the provincial government was not doing a fair job but that can be corrected. I think the
November 24, 1971

fact that the children in northern Alberta are attending a provincial school is not the problem. It is because they are not welcome in the provincial school. The hon. member for Athabasca should speak to his own provincial government to get them to do something about this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have tried to keep the debate above politics. I will keep it that way.


Mr. Nesbitt:: It is good that you have a little humour in your speech.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to state the facts. Some people try to create the impression over the CBC that they will not accept any more money. I know these same people were in the offices of other ministers trying to get some money not later than yesterday. They would like to have money for which they will not be accountable. As a minister of the Crown I cannot accept that concept. We should sign agreements with the Indians but they should be treated like other people. They should provide us with the accounts we require after they have received the money.
I am unhappy because many of these problems have built up over a long period of time. I kept quiet about them. However, people living in glass houses should not throw stones. I think it was a shame that those who appeared on the program last Sunday tried to create the impression that they would not accept money from us. They were referring to money for which they are accountable, not money for which they are not accountable.
I think that when we are contracting with any organization in the land we should apply the same financial rules as to all other organizations. One of my fears is that in a controversy of this sort, when some are playing too much politics, it may harm a lot of other Indian associations in Canada who are doing a damned good job, associations which try to accelerate improvements in their educational facilities through consultation with the provinces and the federal government. I hope that because some people are trying to play politics with this subject we shall not harm the work of those engaged in these organizations, people who have acted very responsibly. What I see at the moment is this: there are some who are finding a new way of building their own little empires without taking into account the best interests of their own people.
When it is said that I used these Indian centres as a carrot on a stick in the Alberta situation, I disagree. Let me tell the House the facts. They said they had that document in their possession in September. In September there were only 250 children, more or less, on strike. The bulk of them were on strike in October. The Saddle Lake people, 1,000 of them, went on strike on or about October 15. So probably a month earlier they had this document which was alleged to have been leaked to them. The strike took place after they had this document, according to their own story. It is a pure lie that we tried to use these centres as a carrot on a stick.
I had occasion to meet with the association at the end of September when we discussed the situation in Alberta. Nobody talked to me at that time about the cultural cen-
Indian Affairs
tres situation. Nobody from there since that time has talked to me about it. I heard that from the Indian Association of Alberta over television. When I met them in Winnipeg they did not raise that question.
It is said I went there to impose my own solution. That is not the case. I listened to them, and what Chief Gordon Young Chief asked me at that meeting was exactly what I had offered him on October 5. But there were some who for political purposes told him not to accept it at that time. That is a shame, because the children have lost one month of schooling.
I have said I will never accept the practice of putting pressure upon the government by using their children in an effort to achieve their goal. Everyone in the House should support that position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If you let that happen one never knows what will be the result. I well know that Indian children in our society are sufficiently handicapped as things are at present and that they should not lose even one day of schooling. Even though we may think our behaviour is very good I know well that the Indian children are often not welcomed in our society. Rather than play politics with this subject the hon. member for Athabasca should talk to the people of his province to make them aware of the problem and make sure that the children are all welcome in the schools and elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Members opposite thrust out great ideas. The hon. member for Athabasca said we should set up Indian school boards. Mr. Speaker, I have already started that process even in his own area; the Blue Quill School is administered by the Indians, and it is the first time in the history of Canada that such a thing has happened. Now I am working on a similar program in northern Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: It was after another strike.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the kind of mistake the Indians made too. I did not agree because of the strike but because the proposal was a good one. I was not impressed for a minute by the strike. I looked at the suggested solution and I accepted it because it was a good solution, not because of the strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But some of the Indians thought the strike was a good tool and they tried it this year once again. But this time the solution was not the right one. I do not think we should keep the Indians on the reserves and not permit them at an earlier age to be with the other students of Canada. I do not want to force the Indians to stay on the reserves as was the old policy. I want to open Canada to them. I want them to have the advantage of attending the best schools available in the area in which they are living, whether federal or provincial. I am working on a scheme right now under which the white people adjacent to a reserve in one part of Canada will go to school on the reserve-a reversal of previous integration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs

Mr. Speaker I think we have done much up to date. I could venture to give figures establishing that we have more than doubled our expenditures with regard to Indians. We went from zero to $1 million to help the Indian Association of Alberta but I do not think this would really bring anything to this debate.
I think the House has lost precious time because we accepted yesterday to appear before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock. As I said, I have absolutely nothing to hide. We must continue to work and try to improve the condition of the Indians and I hope we will do it in a non partisan way.
We hope that the progress already made will not slow down our efforts. No doubt there exist problems with the education of the Indian population, but as the hon. member for Temiscamingue said a while ago some of them are not ready to accept our education system. Some of them are not too interested in becoming university graduates. We must however continue to try and give to those who want it the possibility of becoming university graduates.

We should look at this problem in perspective. Do not forget that 12 or 13 years ago only 15 per cent of the Indian children were going past grade five. Now they all go beyond grade five. The drop-out problem is in grade 12. Of course it is a bad situation, but we have made a hell of a lot of progress. Thirteen years ago there were virtually no Indians attending universities. This year there are 800 Indians in universities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When we compare this figure with the 400 who attended universities last year, we find the number has doubled in one year.
There is much more I could say along the same lines but I do not feel it would be helpful to do so now. I appeal to Members of Parliament not to play politics with this issue. I am very happy to be Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is a tough job. I realize that the Indians had seven ministers in seven years before I became minister. At least I have offered a certain continuity in thinking. But I am not the kind of man who will allow himself to get cornered and who will bow under pressure. It is too bad, but I am not a yes-man. I look at proposals which are made and if they make sense I will approve them. But if they make no sense I shall say no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have heard people say there is a lack of communication with the Indians. Mr. Speaker, never has there been so much consultation with the Indians as in the last four years. I have attended annual meetings of Indian associations across the land. Sometimes I could not accept because of other commitments-as it happened, one such occasion arose last fall. But we are willing to listen. We are willing to discuss. At some point, though, I think the Indians will have to come up with some solutions and propositions. For example, when the Indian Association of Alberta came here in June, 1970 with their red paper

and they made the suggestion that there should be a joint committee of ministers and Indians to discuss all these problems, I agreed. Then they said no, they were not interested any more. So what the hell could I do in a situation like that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not think I have been arrogant. I think I am pretty well down to earth and do not fly in the sky too much. But we have to ask people to be reasonable, to make some propositions to us instead of just asking us to give them all the money. If we were sure that the money would be spent well, that would be fine. But what is going to happen if we create a monster as far as the Indians at the reserve level and the administration are concerned? What is going to happen if we have no control? I am not responsible to some of these self-appointed leaders; I am responsible to the Indians at the band level.
I want to decentralize by giving more authority to the bands. Many housing and welfare programs are administered at the band level by Indians in the band, and this does help solve their problems. But we should not be boxed into a situation where we create a bureaucracy between the Indians at the band level and the federal government. We need the Indian associations very badly so we will know what the problems are, and the provincial governments need them too. There should be these pressure groups, not establishments of the kind that they complain we have here. This is why my aim is to decentralize at the band level, because in this way more responsibility is given to the Indians to solve their problems.
I suggest we should not become too excited about those who try to make political mileage out of the situation, who try to create for themselves a good image on television. It is very seldom that the media in Canada report any progress on Indian problems, which does an injustice to the Indians themselves because on many reserves in Canada much progress has been made. Housing programs have been implemented in British Columbia and in Alberta on the Blood Reserve where a prefabricated housing project is under way. In Quebec at Loretteville not one Indian is on welfare. Other Indian reserves are making similar progress. But no mention is made of this; all we hear about is what remains to be done.
I recognize that we have a long way to go, but nevertheless we have made progress. I think this progress has been made by the government and by the House without partisanship so far, and it is too bad that some people have decided to be partisan at this particular moment.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise at this point in the debate in support of the motion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented to the House on June 30, 1971 be concurred in.
I have a number of reasons for wanting to speak on this occasion. First of all, may I say we have listened to quite a lecture from the minister-


Mr. Nielsen:: A diatribe.
November 24, 1971


Robert Simpson: A diatribe, it is suggested-about people not getting political over problems confronting our Indian people. I do not think that any member of this House has deliberately tried to get political on this matter, but the minister for one should not take that attitude. Neither do I intend to enter into the situation surrounding the school strike in northern Alberta nor to comment on the minister's assertion that he felt he was more responsible to the Indian Association of Alberta than to the people of this particular tribe.
My feeling is that when this strike took place and the minister was invited to meet the people on the reserve, the parents of the school children affected, he had every obligation to do so. The minister said that he felt otherwise, that he had no obligation or responsibility to meet that request. He went on to say he should not meet these people until the strike had been settled. I fully realize that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is not responsible for the actions of his colleagues in cabinet, but it is a little difficult to understand why he feels he should not put in an appearance before a group of people who feel aggrieved until they settle their differences themselves.
As far as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is concerned, there have been many instances of strikes being called and he has decided not to take any action. Similarly, there have been instances where it appears the minister felt that a solution to the strike could be assisted by his appearance, and thus he has taken part in the issue.
How many times have we seen delegations come to Ottawa, line up in their hundreds in front of the Parliament Buildings, and when the television cameras and microphones are ready minister after minister basks in the glory of television coverage as he addresses the assembly? I do not think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should attempt to tell the House that he feels ministers should not take part in these confrontations unless the disputants settle their troubles themselves.
The minister went on to say that the government was quite willing to put up money for certain projects that benefit the Indian people but that the government was also concerned about accounting for the money. The government wanted to be sure that all accounts duly authorized were turned in to the government before any expenditure was approved. I would ask the minister and some of his colleagues on the front benches whether they saw fit to do this in some of the fiascos of the Opportunities for Youth program last summer. If a question should be placed on the order paper asking for accountability for all the money spent on the Opportunities for Youth Program, I wonder whether the government could come forward with justifiable vouchers for all those expenditures.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Sure it can.


Robert Simpson: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) says, "Sure it can". I would be very pleased to confer with him one of these days to see whether he can give me-I have been waiting for it for some time-information on that subject. The government has not yet been able to come up with an answer.
Indian Affairs
I am very interested in this motion. I am sure all members of this House who over the years have repeatedly spoken on behalf of our native people fully realize how difficult it is to obtain action in respect of representations which the Indian people of Canada make to their representatives.
The fifth report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals entirely with the subject of Indian education. In this report we have, I believe, one of the first real breakthroughs to solving most of the problems confronting our native people. On many occasions I have spoken to groups in all the Indian communities in northern Manitoba. As I am sure other members who represent areas in which Indian people live will know, the first thing the elderly people bring to our attention is the necessity for a good education for their children. Immediately I say this I am sure some members who are not involved with these problems day in and day out will ask why, if these people are so interested in the education of their children, we have such a high drop-out rate. This is a good question and it should be answered.
One reason we have such a high drop-out rate is the absolute frustration of Indian children over the years in endeavouring to get an education. All of us know about the system which was in vogue for many years, that of residential schools whereby children were taken away from their parents for periods of up to nine months or more in the year. These children were completely disassociated from their families. I am sure we are all aware of the tremendous frustrations those children faced in being away from their families. Many of them were sent to school at the age of five or six. They left their homes for the first time and in many cases were not even able to understand the English language. In those years this system was not given very much consideration. In fact, as was mentioned earlier in this debate, on many occasions these children were chastised for speaking their own language.
The fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development tries very seriously to deal with many of the problems which for years have confronted the Indian people. I shall not go over all the sections of the report. However, I feel it is my duty to point out very clearly to the House, although it has been mentioned before, that one of the important aspects of the report is that which relates to pre-school teaching and recommends that children have a year or two of instruction in their mother tongue, and when they grow older that they not only be allowed but be encouraged to continue in an educational program which deals with their own culture and background.
During his remarks the minister referred to the number of students of Indian origin who are now at university compared to the few who were in that category a number of year ago. He pointed out that this is a great improvement. It is an improvement, but it is not enough. Unfortunately I was called out of the House for the first minute or two of the minister's address and perhaps I missed something. However, I listened to practically all of his speech and heard no assurance that the government plans to implement any of these recommendations in the near future.

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs


Erik Nielsen: You could have said, "that they would support concurrence".


Robert Simpson: It has been mentioned that I should have said something about the government supporting concurrence. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very good conclusion that they will support concurrence, with the minister's recommendation, because the minister said he is not difficult to deal with and is very sympathetic to the problems of the Indians and their suggestions. I hope he is just as sympathetic to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
A few days ago in the newspapers-these reports have emanated from the front benches and the back benches of the government side of the House-we read the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) in an effort to project to the people of Canada just how the House of Commons could be made much more effective. His suggestions were based solely on the idea, which as I say has been voiced by many people supporting the government, that the House of Commons should be closed from time to time and that more and more work should be given to committees so that the time of the House of Commons would not be wasted in just listening to debate.


Mr. Drury:: Hear, hear!


Robert Simpson: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) says, "Hear, hear". I say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government feels it cannot give concurrence to this unanimous report, then on what basis does it feel that more and more work should be passed on to the committees? For the last three years I have said that the committee system in this House is in many ways a farce. The people of Canada are told that we have committees. Many members, representing all parties of this House, put in many hours on committee work. They do a lot of research and attend many meetings. However, this is not the first occasion on which concurrence has not been given by the government to a committee report. In this instance, after doing all this work the committee comes up with a unanimous report to the government and the government refuses concurrence. Therefore I say the committee system of the House of Commons has fallen into very evil days.
I said that I was particularly interested in speaking at this time because the subject dealt with in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development can be a real breakthrough for the Indian people. Education is the basis for solving their problems. Many of the items mentioned in this report, such as the establishment of day schools in reserves, doing away with residential schools, the establishment of pre-school instruction, allowing the children to be taught in their own language until a certain grade, and the continuation of a well thought-out program taking into account the history of these people and their culture, are so important that I cannot see any reason why the government should not only give concurrence to the report but act on it immediately.

I would like to refer to a copy of a letter which is addressed, I understand, to all or most of the Indian chiefs in Canada. I am not criticizing the letter; I am very pleased that it has been written. It is signed by the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). In one paragraph the chairman writes as follows:
Although the government is free, under parliamentary rules to accept or reject in whole or in part the committee's report, the fact that the report was unanimously approved by committee members from all political parties obliges the government to give it serious attention.
All he asks for in that letter is that the government give this report serious attention. But it is frustrating and disappointing to all members of the House to listen to what was in my opinion a fairly headstrong lecture by the minister, which took about 20 to 25 minutes, in which the minister failed to indicate to the House the intentions of the government with regard to the report.
The minister said that people should not get political over problems of our native peoples. I think it is good that on their behalf we can get political at times, because if it were not for a great number of people bringing this matter into the political arena I suggest that little or nothing would have been done in the past nine or ten years.
The minister also said that he does not feel he should go out and meet groups of Indian people who have a complaint, unless they can settle differences among themselves prior to his meeting with them. Not many years ago the government produced what was reported to be the government's policy on Indian people. Granted, they said that nothing in that policy would be introduced without full consultation with the Indian people, but they stated very firmly to anyone who cared to listen that those were their proposals and they would not change them. If the minister or anyone else wishes to dispute this with me I would refer, after what has happened in the last week or two when we have seen a number of leaks of government documents, to what was perhaps one of the first leaks of government information pertaining to our Indian people. It happened just months after the issuance of the government's policy regarding Indians.
I raised the matter in the House, as others did. At that time we were in possession of a copy of a contract which the Liberal government had entered into with an Indian person in Calgary. He was under contract with the government to assist the government in finding ways and means whereby the Indian people of Canada would accept the policies of the government. When we brought out these points in the House, at first it was indicated that there was no knowledge of this; but when the government was confronted with a copy of the contract which they entered into with this person, they admitted that this had been so. If memory serves me correctly, we endeavoured to find out how many other people had been under the same type of contract but were not successful in obtaining an answer.
When the minister stands before the House and says that he has nothing to hide, I am not arguing with that. But when he says he is willing to do whatever he can for the Indian people, and the government offers the guaran-
November 24, 1971

tee that they will not put the proposed policy for the Indian people into effect without full consultation with the Indian people while at the same time they hire undercover people to try to assist them in finding ways and means of convincing the Indian people to accept their programs, then I say that the government is certainly not being fair to our Indian people.
In conclusion I would like to say that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals with a serious matter regarding our native people. Among other things concerning educational matters in the report there is mention of the requirements on television. Again I come back to the words of the minister who spoke before me in this debate and indicated that the government is willing to do whatever it can for the Indian people. The other day I raised this matter in the House. For two successive days I tried to put the question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and on both days he was in his seat. I was recognized on the third day but the minister was not in the House. Therefore I directed the question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I asked if the government had any plans to provide financial assistance for the provision of television service to Indian communities with large populations, such as Cross Lake and Norway House in northern Manitoba. I can easily understand that the Prime Minister could not be expected to give an answer offhand at that time and I recall that the suggestion was made that I raise the matter on the "late show." But the least I expected the Prime Minister to do was assure me that he would pass my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I received no such assurance from him. Now that the minister is here, I suggest that he and his cabinet colleagues should combine on many of these matters and try to understand the problems that face them.
I suppose we will have to wait to see if the government will concur in the adoption of this report, but while the minister is in the chamber I would like to point out to him that there are many centres in Canada where Indian people reside in large numbers, and that are not served by television. I am certain that if equal populations of nonIndian origin were living in those centres, some television service would be provided for them. I defy any member of this House to point out other areas of Canada with populations around the 10,000 mark which have no access to television. Although many people complain about the type and quality of television programming, the provision of television service for these centres would be of great benefit, particularly for Indian children.
I have nothing more to say at this time. Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that having listened to the minister's statement I think it is a foregone conclusion that the government will concur in the adoption of this report.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker as a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which unanimously approved this report, I can honestly say that it is an important document in terms of defining the limitations and
Indian Affairs
strengths of the educational program to be developed in the future for the Indian and Eskimo peoples.
I was taken aback by the approach of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who attempted to turn the tables on the minister by indicating that school strikes called by Indian parents in northeastern Alberta were somehow related to the problems that the Indian Association of Alberta has with the federal government concerning two particular grants. I do not intend to go into that particular matter but I would like to look back over the few years that I have been in Parliament and point out the dramatic change which has taken place in the education of native peoples north of the sixtieth parallel.
In 1965, when I first became associated with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, statistics indicated that approximately only 25 per cent of the kids in the Territories were attending school. Today, virtually all children in the Territories have an opportunity to attend educational facilities right through from kindergarten to primary school, secondary school and, under the programs of the local governments and federal government, to attend university or post-secondary vocational institutions.
I acknowledge that governments started on these educational programs too late. I acknowledge that initially many mistakes were made. We still have a long way to go, but I would like to underline some of the improvements that have been made in the north. The first schools were of only one or two classrooms, located in small communities stretched across the Arctic and down the Mackenzie, and after the first few grades children were airlifted to larger communities where they lived for eight or nine months of the year in school hostels. This created a breakdown in the pattern of family life.
Many native families continued to trap and hunt and to live outside settlements for the greater part of the year. Now virtually every community in northern Canada has schools that educate up to grade 8, after which students are moved to the larger centres to attend high school. We have also seen the establishment of seasonal-type school hostels which permit parents to continue their traditional way of life, hunting, trapping and sealing, leaving their children in their home community to attend school without a break and returning to live with their families after the hunting season is over.
This committee report is a hardnosed document. All of us who served on the committee tried as best we could, within the limitation of our abilities, to identify the problems and suggest solutions. We know that in the past educational facilities were not adequate in the northern parts of some of the provinces. We know that in northern communities housing, sanitation systems and economic opportunities were lacking to a great degree. What we are honestly trying to find is some balance whereby the native peoples will be able to participate in the Canadian way of life, socially and economically, while still retaining their own culture.
In the last four years I have observed the actions of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). Ever since the day he was appointed to that position he has tried to improve conditions for the native peoples. Three and a half years ago he started a

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
consultation program and either he or one of his colleagues visited Indian communities across Canada and told the people, "Tell us what you want so that we as a government will be able to put some ideas down on paper." We then saw the white paper. This was greeted almost unanimously by members of the House as being a major move forward.


Paul Yewchuk: Nonsense.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Then we saw the reaction of the Indian people. Very quickly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to them, "Come and tell us what you want". The Indian Association of Alberta came to Ottawa and presented their red paper, a well thought-out, well worded and positive document. We have seen the funding of the various Indian-Eskimo associations so that they could take upon themselves some of the responsibilities formerly carried out by government. All that is well recognized. In this process of change there are bound to be problems and confrontations. This is part of the purpose of the funding program-so that the Indian people can finally tell the rest of the country what they want, what they have in mind and how they want to do it.
I can speak only of the various associations in the Northwest Territories, but at one site the only serious contact the Indian people had with the administration was through the local representative or at the treaty parties which took place once a year. These were very minimal situations that I personally have always been ashamed to participate in as a white person. This situation has changed. The Indian people are now putting forward their ideas. Sometimes they shock the white community, and maybe this is not a bad thing. Sometimes they come forward with ideas that government cannot accept because of lack of funds or other reasons. However, in other cases it is possible for the government to work out some form of agreement or arrangement whereby the desires and ambitions of the Indian people, through their associations, can be recognized and adjustments made.
In the educational process, Mr. Speaker, we see some rapid developments. I should like to mention what is happening in a native community called Rae which is 70 miles northwest of Yellowknife. For many years the Indian children of that community either went into the bush with their parents during the school year or were moved to hostels at Fort Smith or Fort Simpson where they were away from their parents for approximately ten months of the year. The government suggested that a new school should be built in the vicinity of the community. The site of the community itself was unsatisfactory because of its location. For three, four or five years negotiations took place between the chief of the band council, other members of the Indian community and the administration, not only to determine where the school should be located but what form it should take once it was agreed that it should be constructed.
A decision on location was reached very quickly by the Indian people. The area was named after one of the great chiefs of the Dogrib band and in order to ensure complete participation by the community, arrangements were made to establish an education committee. This committee visit-

ed a number of educational institutions in the United States and Canada. It brought in its own advisers who were funded by the government. It was agreed that a school designed on the open-school concept would be proceeded with and that the hostels would be of a design best suited to small groups of children; and, more important, that the administration of the curriculum would be the responsibility of the people of the community. Subsequently, the Edzo-Rae school board was established. The school is now in operation, teachers have been hired by the community, hostel supervisors and even the cooks for the kitchen have been hired.
This is the type of forward thinking that can take place and is taking place. As I said earlier, we know it is not going far enough, fast enough. But as Members of Parliament and representatives of our constituents we can continue to encourage the minister, the representatives of his department and provincial governments and show that there is a great need for participation. Participation is necessary so that the benefits will return to our Indian youngsters who have so much to offer to this country and to their own people.
Again, I should like to say publicly that I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has taken tremendous strides in the last 3 j years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Strides backward.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: He has worked day and night in order to understand the problem. He has tried to identify with Indian people. He has tried to say to them, "My door is open". There were a few smart remarks from the other side about the minister's open-door policy, but I have yet to hear of his refusing to see in his office or anywhere else under conditions satisfactory to him-


An hon. Member:: Yes, that is the key.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: -any Indian person or any Indian group. He has gone out of his way to meet all the Indian people. I think the minister explained his side of the story in a way that the people of Canada will acknowledge. He recognizes, as he said, that we have a long way to go and that there is much to be done. There is no way that any of us want to see the various associations of Indian people held back because of the problems of two or three groups.
I am encouraged that a committee of this House can produce positive reports with all sorts of ideas for teacher training, hostels, university education, experiments in teacher training, co-operation with the provinces and the design of curricula to meet the requirements of the cultures involved. All this can be done and we are working toward it with the co-operation and assistance of all concerned on a basis which takes it beyond the field of partisanship. All this can and will be achieved.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that we will continue to have our battles. We have had them before. I have won some and lost some. However, if he continues to show this kind of positive approach to resolving the problems of the Indian and Eskimo peoples of Canada and to working with them, I think we shall very shortly see the results of these programs and his work.
November 24, 1971


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the chamber seems very quiet at the moment although I think I can still hear some faint reverberations of the remarks made a short time ago by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I think many of us rather enjoyed hearing the minister blow his stack, so to speak.


Colin David Gibson: It is the plain truth.


An hon. Member:: Hoot!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The speech he made, Mr. Speaker, if I may paraphrase some of his words, was quite a hell of a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He learned his English here.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think this speech will create some reverberations. As the minister was speaking I had before me a book which has recently been published, called "Touch of Earth," by a young woman named T. C. McLuhan. I should explain to the House that this is a compilation of speeches and statements made by leaders of the Indian peoples covering a span of time from the late 1700s until 1971. I read the following:
Our people no longer believe. It is that simple and it is that sad. The Canadian government can promise involvement, consultation, progressive human and economic development programs. We will no longer believe them-
After generations of endless frustration with the Canadian government, our people are tired and impatient. Before the Canadian government tries to feed us hypocritical policy statements, more empty promises, more forked tonguistics, our people want, our people, the Indians, demand just settlement of all our treaty and aboriginal rights. Fulfillment of Indian rights by the Queen's government must come before there can be any further co-operation between the Indians and the government. We demand nothing more. We expect nothing less.
Those words may be somewhat familiar to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have a strange feeling that although the minister was ostensibly addressing Your Honour, and through Your Honour the other members of the House, he was actually addressing many of his remarks to somebody who does not have a seat in the House at present. That is why I put on the record some of the words contained in this book. If the minister has not already identified their originator, let me tell him that they were written by a Cree Indian named Harold Cardinal who was born in 1945 in High Prairie, Alberta.
The year 1945 happens to be the year when I was first a candidate for election to Parliament. One of the things I vividly recollect hearing during that election campaign in one of the places I visited was that families whose girls were prepared to sleep with the representative of the Minister of Indian Affairs would get welfare, whereas families whose girls would not do that would not get welfare. At that time I resolved that if I were elected to Parliament, and even if I were not, I would do all I could to end that kind of gross human indignity. That year was not long ago. I freely concede that the attitude of many Canadians toward Indians who dwell within our borders has changed considerably since then. Perhaps the situa-
Indian Affairs
tion reported to me then can no longer be found within the length and breadth of our land: I certainly hope so.
If the minister is sincere, as I hope he is and as he certainly sounded this afternoon, he will recognize the import of the words saying that these things cannot be settled until there has been a just settlement of "our treaty and aboriginal rights". Those words tend to put in focus the report of the committee which is before us for discussion. It should be apparent to all members-and as a member of the committee who had some part in the drafting of the report I favour its adoption by the House- that the report ought to stimulate discussion. I hope the document will stimulate discussion and that it will lead people to search out new ideas. In my view that is all the committee basically intended with regard to the initial impact of the report.
The introduction to the statement in the book from which I have just quoted says that in the last several years he, Harold Cardinal, has become a skilful politician speaking out for Indian rights in Canada. The minister talked about politics. If the minister is suggesting that this subject is far too important for what is commonly described as narrow partisan politics, I agree with him. Certainly, all the members of the Indian affairs committee felt in approaching this report that narrow partisan politics had no place in their deliberations. In drawing up the report partisan politics was not a consideration. However, if the minister is discussing politics in a broader sense then I, for one, consider this to be one of the most important and vital political issues within our country today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It should be dealt with in this chamber in that light. In considering this report we are trying to come to grips with a fundamental question. I agree with the minister when he says that much still needs to be done to change the attitude and outlook of many non-Indian Canadians. As he suggested in his speech, there is a great need for this to happen in the province of Alberta. To judge from my brief exposure to the situation in the northeastern part of that province, the minister has put his finger on one of the facets of the problem there.
However, since the minister tried to imply in his speech today, as another hon. member on the other side of the House did, that there was virtually unanimous agreement in the House on the white paper, let me say again that the disagreement in this House was not so much about what was in the white paper as about what was not in it. That is why many Indian leaders of this country continue to distrust the government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said-and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has underlined what he said-that aboriginal rights per se do not exist in this country. That I challenge. Their existence is implicit if there is to be any successful outcome with regard to actions that may be taken to improve educational opportunities for the Indian people of Canada. Let us come to grips with the issue on that plane. Seen in that perspective, the recommendations in the committee report, or any discussion as to what was or was not in the white paper, become relatively unimportant, although I admit that these recommendations and discussions are

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
important. I say that because we live in an ongoing society. Young people are growing up and reaching the age when they want to enter into the fullness of our society as adults.
It is no light thing for young Indian people or for other young people of this country to lose one year's schooling. Let me say in this chamber, as I said in a memorandum I sent to members of the House shortly after visiting northeastern Alberta, that I listened to an earnest discussion taking place among a group of teenage children from that area. They discussed their personal situations and the struggle that was going on there. They said they would gladly sacrifice one year of their schooling if it would increase the chance of their younger brothers and sisters obtaining a better education. I admire those children for taking that position: I think they were right.
In his reference to that situation the minister overlooked the depth of understanding that young Indian people have of just what is involved in this whole question. Maybe they have some of the impatience of youth, perhaps a little of the kind of impatience of youth displayed by the minister in his speech this afternoon, even though they are a few years his junior. However, there does come that old cry that has been echoed throughout the ages, "How long, O Lord, how long?"
One should talk to the older Indian people who know what it was like 50, 60 or 75'years ago. He would then understand that in an age when there is a reawakening of understanding among Indian people of what they are and the way of life they enjoy, they become impatient. They are prepared to make sacrifices to see things happen. One member who participated in this debate referred to sections of the report. I agree with him that this is one of the key parts of the report. He quoted the following words:
In those schools remaining under the control of the educational branch, the committee believes that the objectives of the federal schools should be the creation of models of excellence which will furnish to Indian and Eskimo young people, an education which will provide to them equality of opportunity and the ability to be employed at every level of the economy of the regions in which they live.
That report was tabled in the House on June 30. Members will recall that the House recessed at the end of that sitting day and there was no opportunity for discussion of the report until the House returned in the fall. There was no opportunity for any immediate response from the government to the proposals of the report. I think all members of the committee will agree that we did not expect from the government a full-fledged reply or assessment of the proposals the next day or within the next week. The minister said in his speech-this was probably a slip-that only a couple of months have gone by. We are getting on toward the end of November. The report has been on the table since June 30. That is more than two months ago. Until today, the first response of the minister that apparently relates to the content of the report can be found in a speech that he made in Thunder Bay on September 17, when he said:
Is it not more sensible to make the provincial systems excellent for Indian, Metis and non-Indian students alike? Can we create an additional structure of expertise in a federal school system scattered across Canada?
That appears to be a response by the minister to the committee's recommendation. If I am wrong, the minister has the opportunity of correcting me. If one examines the phraseology, "Is it not more sensible to make the provincial systems excellent for Indians and Metis," perhaps one could retort that the obvious answer is that they should probably both become systems of excellence. If the text which I have is correct, the minister later said:
With the participation of the Indian community we are influencing the provincial systems. We fund the education and, as buyers of service, we can speak effectively to the provinces.
I suggest that statement requires considerable examination in light of the recommendations of the committee report and in light of some of the facts of the situation that some of us know. From time to time the minister has given us various statistics about the percentage of Indian people who are in the general school system, those remaining within the federal Indian school system and how this has been increasing.
I think I am correct when I say that the earliest move which brought Indian children in numbers into the general school system of a province took place in British Columbia. In the 1950s an agreement was made between the Indian affairs branch and one of the school boards in my constituency. This set up the formula, which still basically applies, of a pro rata, per capita grant and a pro rata allowance per pupil for Indian children attending school in a system run by a provincial school board. In that particular instance I think it was done with the knowledge and desire of the Indian people in the area. The tempo of that development increased rather rapidly in the province of British Columbia, as far as I know largely with the consent and in some cases at the request of the Indian people.
I suggest the basic reason for that happening in British Columbia in the way it did is that the Indian people had become fed up with the poor quality and ineptitude of the educational system administered by the Indian affairs branch. They were prepared to try any other possible alternative in order to help their children get a meaningful education. A great many Indian people in British Columbia today still feel that is probably the best arrangement in many localities, particularly where there are small Indian bands living fairly close to a non-Indian community.
I suggest that many of the Indians of British Columbia are now starting to question the desirability of that kind of arrangement. They are beginning to be concerned. This is partly because they are becoming aware of the value of their cultural heritage. They are becoming increasingly concerned that their children will be lost in the shuffle and that they will become little white men.
Concern was expressed to the committee by representatives from many parts of Canada. Many witnesses appeared before the committee. This report resulted from that accumulation of evidence. Despite the fact that the minister said we fund education and as buyers of service we can speak effectively to the provinces, I see very little tangible evidence that this is so in the province of British Columbia. There are some rather weak and fumbling moves being developed within the province which may, hopefully, bring about some enrichment of the provincial school curriculum so that it will include an opportunity

November 24, 1971

for both Indian and non-Indian children to acquire a true picture of the history of the Indian people and some knowledge of their culture and art. Such moves as are being made are pitifully few and increasingly difficult to equate with the real needs of Canadian society today and the growth and aspirations of the Indian people.
In British Columbia as well as in other parts of the country it is being argued that the white community is using this new education policy as a gimmick to divert federal funds into provincial schools for the benefit of non-Indian children. I was approached a year or two ago by a knowledgeable and sincere teacher employed in one of the schools in my constituency. He was concerned that money coming from the Department of Indian Affairs was not being used for the benefit of Indians but to provide fancier school facilities for non-Indian pupils. This question is being raised by many Indians in various parts of Canada, as the minister will find if he cares to listen-whether once again the white man with his ingenuity is not getting the benefit of funds made available by the department to provide better education for Indians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If such a situation is developing, would it not be wise for the Indians to force the hands of provincial authorities to do things right, with the help of the federal government? If these funds are not being allocated in the best way possible, would it not be right for the Indians, together with us, to try to correct this by putting pressure on the provincial governments? Should we throw the whole system away because there may be some such shortcoming as the one to which the hon. member has referred?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is a perfectly reasonable question. I agree efforts should be made to ensure that these funds are spent in the way in which they should be spent. But I had a recent report on a situation which arose in the province of New Brunswick, and the minister can check this out if he wishes. When demands are made by the Indian people in this area they are either ignored or foiled. The minister has referred to the fact that certain provinces allow representatives of the Indian people to sit on school boards. But as far as I know, they are in a minority, possibly with only one representative, and the Indians have no power as a minority of one on a school board. This is why, among other things, many of the Indian people are saying it would be much better, given all the circumstances of today, to have their own schools and their own school boards to operate them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There are some.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister talks about putting pressure on provincial school systems. The committee in its consideration of this question felt that because of the realities of the situation in the various provinces one of the most effective ways of putting pressure on provincial school systems as far as excellence of programs is concerned would be to provide schools which would be models of excellence in certain appropriate locations-federal schools built and operated in the way the Indian people feel they should be and in the way in which the minister
Indian Affairs
says he wants them to be-so that the Indian people may be equal economically while still being free to remain Indians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A question for clarification. Would it not be advisable to seek to get provincial laws amended to enable the Indians to appoint representatives to school board in proportion to their population? We can work in that direction. I do not think that because there is a problem we should turn back the clock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That, of course, is one of the fundamental questions raised in the committee report. Would we be turning back the clock if the Indian people feel this is what they need, if they feel that instead of fading out of the picture the minister's department should set an example for the rest of the country? This is the question which was raised in the report and it is one which has to be answered.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly what I am doing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The committee report recommends-and perhaps it is in error:
1. That the government should continue its policy that no transfers of education programs from the federal level to provincial systems take place without the express and clear approval of the majority of the parents in each community concerned.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly the policy we are following now. There is no transfer without the agreement of the Indians.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This was the assumption in the mind of members of the committee when they drafted this report. But let us consider what has happened since this report was laid on the table of the House on June 30. On September 17 the minister, in effect, challenged the assumption of the report. In the first instance, when the Indians clearly indicated that they did not want to go into the provincial school system, preferring to have their own school on their own reserves, the minister told the House, "It is physically impossible to build six schools in one year." Those are his own words. How much sense does that make in a country which possesses all the materials we could hope for? And the people who are not now working could build those schools.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister says we cannot build six schools in one year. When the minister says we would be turning back the clock, this question arises in my mind-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the impression the hon. member has given. I said I was not interested in building the schools because that was not the solution. The Indians of the Keecheewin are not asking me to build a high school there, nor is that what the others are asking really. They want a better system, and I think this can be achieved in the school they are attending right now.


An hon. Member:: Give it to them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We come right back again to the fundamental question. The minister says, "I think", and so on. The question is what do the Indian people think? They are

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
saying that they have minds, just as the minister or I or any other member of this House has a mind. This is what we should recognize and it is why, in my view, emphasis is placed in this report on the express and clear approval of a majority of the parents. Let us listen to them for a change; we have not done so for the last 100 years.
May I return to the point I want to emphasize, which is that the real stumbling block here, apart perhaps from the fact that Treasury Board will not give the minister all the money he asks for-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not Treasury Board, the House.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the memorandum that I sent to members of the House a while ago I said I hoped the government would request and that the House would quickly appropriate the funds necessary. Has the government so requested? Do they know whether the House will act quickly to appropriate those funds? I think the answer is obvious from the record. Supplementary estimates (A) were tabled the other day. Is there a request to Parliament in those supplementary estimates for funds to build those schools and the schools that are needed in a lot of other places across the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not the solution.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The answer is no. The supplementary estimates themselves prove that. That is one side of the question, but the other and more fundamental part of the question is this. The minister is falling over the stumbling block of the refusal of his government to recognize aboriginal rights, to recognize that it is not a matter of a hand-out being made by Parliament, to recognize that we have been paying very cheap rent for this country for a long time and that it is about time we did something to rectify the situation.
I do not know whether to blame the minister or not. I am not privy to what goes on in cabinet and this has not yet been leaked. All I can go by is the statement made by the head of the government, who time and again has said "Perhaps we will have a look at treaty rights, but aboriginal rights, no".


Frank Howard: He also said that treaties should not be made forever. He intends to wipe those out too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He said we would recognize treaty rights as well.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, he said that, but that anything not down on paper is too vague. We are the only so-called civilized country in the western world, certainly the only country that is the inheritor of the British tradition-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Supreme Court is looking into that, too, at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And it is a crying shame for this Parliament that that question is before the Supreme Court. No matter what the Supreme Court says or does not say, we still come back to the basic political question for decision by this Parliament.


Frank Howard: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was asked to intervene on their behalf and he refused.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Skeena-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the minister resume his seat. If the minister wishes to ask a question, raise a point of order or question of privilege, then the Chair will recognize him. But I would point out that he has intervened several times and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has the floor. If the minister wishes to ask a question, he may do so with the consent of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member would be kind enough, I should like to correct what was said by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt that the minister has the right to do that since the hon. member for Skeena does not have the floor. If an interjection was made by the hon. member for Skeena, that is something that can be debated at a later date. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni now has the floor.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly make my interjection at the appropriate point so the minister can reply.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Skeena and I sit fairly close to each other in the House, but I am sure the minister will appreciate that I am not prepared to answer for any question that the hon. member for Skeena might have put, though I am, of course, prepared to answer for anything that I say.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The better for you, or you will be in trouble.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We are discussing the report of a committee on education and, hopefully, it will receive favourable consideration by the House as a whole. I have tried to answer all the questions that the minister has wanted to ask me, and in conclusion I would like to make a quick reference to the book to which I referred earlier. I think it is fundamental to the growth of the understanding that is required to recognize just what it is that we owe the Indian people. I am not now talking, as I was a moment ago, about what we may owe them for the use of the land that once was all theirs, but about something more important perhaps than even that. There is an introduction in this book entitled "The Spirit of the Earth". While it contains speeches from Indian people from various parts of North America, the book is written by a citizen of the United States. The introduction has this to say, among other things:
It is well understood that the only decent future for us who live in America now is through a rediscovery of our environment. We need to establish a right relationship with the land and its resources; otherwise, the destruction of the Indian will be followed by the destruction of nature; and in the destruction of nature will follow the destruction of ourselves.
(Mr. Barnett.]
November 24, 1971

The Indians, in a sense, knew this all along. For many generations they learned how to live in America, in a state of balance, or, as a Christian would say, in a state of grace. Perhaps now, after hundreds of years of ignoring their wisdom, we may learn from the Indians.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over the ground so eloquently covered by my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), earlier this afternoon. I was glad to hear him congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for its report on education. All of us will have an opportunity to hear from him again tomorrow and to put questions concerning the general situation that is being debated in the House this afternoon, as well as questions concerning education and grants that are in some dispute.
For my part, I have been a very interested and active observer of and participant in native affairs for a number of years, and in my view more solid progress has been achieved in three years than has been realized in the past several decades. This progress is evident not only in education. I am not one of those who sees education as the panacea for all problems, but when the minister is able to say, for example, that there has been a doubling of students at university level this year over last year and that there is increasing improvement throughout the educational system, then I think progress becomes evident.
No one would expect me to stand up in this House and say all is well, rosy and satisfactory. It is not. There is far too much still to be done. However, I believe if we are to be fair to the people of Canada we should try to keep in perspective that which is being done and that which has been done. I think it is only fair to say that more is being done with the help of this minister than in any previous period in our dealings with the native people. He is not a "yes" man, as he told us this afternoon. I believe he is a fair man and is energetic as no one else before him. He is direct, intensely human, and a dedicated minister. I wished to stand up and say this in the House of Commons because I have not always agreed with governments in the past and with ministers who have been handling this most complicated and exciting portfolio.
I think we should admit to ourselves-and I am not saying this is in a partisan manner-that this has been the first government in Canadian history to place such large resources, financial, technical and other, directly into the hands of the native people. This is the first government to have gone that route. Of course, this will lead to difficulties. It will lead to irritations and to many frictions. That is what we must expect.
Of course, controversial incidents will arise. They will arise because this very process of putting resources into the hands of people accelerates their social and economic development, accelerates the whole process that it sharpens everyone's visibility of the inequalities which exist and the injustices which remain. We all see this and we all experience it. In this accelerated process people are confronted with these things as never before. Nonetheless, the most useful thing this government has been able to do has been to hand these resources over to these people and
Indian Affairs
to express its general confidence that they can administer them well and that they will bring about the development which decades of programs and decades of good intentions have not been able to achieve.
As I say, we must expect that we will run into difficulties. I do not want to see this process slowed down. I do not believe it is being slowed down. We must iron out the difficulties as they arise in financial and administrative programs. If they arise in political activities we must iron them out. Certainly, for three years we have launched ourselves as a Parliament and as a government in a process of mutual confidence with the native people. But the government itself cannot complete this process without the full, equal and willing participation of the native people.
The development going on now is rapid enough that I believe we could describe it as explosive when seen in the longer perspective of history and in the longer perspective of the preceding years in the lives of people of native ancestry. However, the method which is being followed is the only sure way. The government has followed this path and I am confident it will stay on that path. It is the only sure way. The native people themselves have told us it is the only way and have sought it as the path to their self-fulfillment, that is, by having resources placed in their own hands.
I should like to pursue that thought a little further and say again that this will present grave difficulties from time to time. This is what we will have to learn to live with while correcting them. The sure way to self-fulfillment, to equality, to justice is through social development, through economic development and through cultural development programs by having resources oneself. This is true because the people then become involved in unfolding their own destiny. They become involved not only in the sense of personal commitment-this is important in itself to release energies-but also as communities and as groups with a very strong communal sense of identity and with a long history and heritage.
It is the sure way because having resources in one's own hands gives people the confidence that the change they are negotiating will not bring about cultural disappearance and will not be the end of the road for the long human history of native culture and experience in North America. In my view, many of the weaknesses in the past in programs, in projects, in expenditures and in respect of high hopes have arisen because programs were delivered to a relatively passive group of people who sheltered sometimes from them for fear that involvement would mean the end of their heritage and that they would go into a stream and disappear. No people in history ever willingly do that.
We would not want to feel, and no cultural group of any origin in Canada would want to feel, that its future was one of disappearance. They want to feel there is a secure place for persons of all heritages to work out a destiny here in this free land. That assurance, in the case of the Indian people, and because of the long history of distrust and because of the long route they have had to travel, can be given only by turning over to them major financial resources and responsibilities. This can be done with confidence provided that between us we can and will work out the procedures that will enable us as a responsible

November 24, 1971
Indian Affairs
Parliament to evaluate programs and to be accountable for the funds and to enable responsible organizations to develop programs which the native people feel will succeed.
This can be accomplished only through a course of consultation and mutual trust. Consultation has taken place between the native organizations, the native communities, the native people and this government in a degree never before realized. 1 think if we want to keep things in perspective and be fair, we will all admit this. Consultations began on the Indian Act. They came to an end with the publication of a policy paper containing features the Indian people did not like. Too much emphasis, perhaps, was placed on legal equality and too little on social and economic development without which legalisms mean nothing. So that paper was set aside by the government as well as by the native people and a new process of consultation and the transfer of major resources to them began to take place.
What are some of the transferred resources about which I am speaking? I should like to mention just a few. There is a funding program known as core funding. I will come back to that later. There is the discussion that has taken place on educational cultural centres, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated in his speech on mul-ticulturalism that the government is taking steps to make funds available to assist native organizations to establish these cultural educational centres. This is one of the soundest and most hopeful concepts that has arisen over the past few years and I for one am satisfied and confident that we will see a major social, cultural and economic transformation take place through the medium of these educational cultural centres.
Another area is the economic development grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Most of us know that the first major grant happened to have been made in Alberta to the Blood reserve. It was in the order of $650,000 to $700,000, to assist a native company on that reserve to develop a major manufacturing facility for sectional and mobile homes.
It was a very hard struggle to put all the pieces together. They were put together with the maximum amount of effort on the part of this government, on the part of the Alberta Indian Association and on the part of the reserve people. It was made to work and, if my memory is correct, the project is working. There is a completely new spirit on that reserve and new urban developments are taking place. The first couple of years' production has been sold in advance. This is a piece of evidence that when native people themselves have the resources and the opportunity, they seize it as well as any other group in this country and they can administer and bring about significant economic, social and community developments of which they can be proud and we too can be proud with them.
I will not go into the economic side any further, although one could quote many examples. There are many new opportunities through revised five-year federal-provincial ARDA agreements specifically designed for the opportunities they can give to people of native ancestry.
(Mr. O'Connell.]
Before coming back to core funding I should mention the funds which this government has made available to native organizations so that they can engage their own professional counsel to consider the matter of treaty rights with the understanding that the federal government will consider these questions jointly and will negotiate, through some joint mechanism, this long and troubled matter in our common history.
Now I should like to say a few words about core funding since I think it is fairly basic to the point I am trying to make about the transfer of governmental resources to non-governmental bodies to enable them to engage in important activities in social and cultural development. Core funding is a program agreed to by the government some months ago to rationalize a system that had been developing for two or three years of making grants to native organizations.
Currently, I believe between 20 and 26 native organizations are receiving substantial sums of money which in their total come to several million dollars so that they can maintain their organizations through which they can then seek project or program funds from other departments of the federal government or from provincial funding departments and agencies or from private sources. These core funding arrangements are on a formula basis. They enable these Indian, Metis and Eskimo associations to have full-time staff, depending on certain variables between the provinces and territories, ranging between six to twelve persons for each association-permanent staff without which they cannot be expected to maintain the developmental process on which they are so keen. For the first time, through the decision of this government, they can have an assured ongoing permanent staff. This is a major transfer of resources. It goes further. They can have not only staff but they are provided with funds for office expenses so that a central office can be maintained with secretaries and equipment.
Also, additional funds are provided for travel expenses for those workers on the core staff, together with additional funds for executive meetings so that persons in their constituency around the province can come to consult. Additional funds are also provided for an annual meeting. Funds are made available to enable these associations to obtain professional and technical advice from persons chosen by themselves. The core funding program of this federal government covers these expenditure items on an ongoing basis so that these organizations can have an assured existence while they do their work.
The concept goes to the next step and recognizes that the communities in the field scattered around the province need to relate to their associations just as the central bodies need to have their grass-roots communications and support. Hence, the core funding includes additional funds for up to 12 persons depending on the variables in the provinces. We could call these additional staff persons communications workers or field workers, if that is a more understandable phrase. So there is the staff in the central office and there are communications workers to keep in touch with the field so that those communities can have a voice in the programs that their associations develop.
These associations are democratically elected. They represent those people and they have facilities to go back
November 24, 1971_______________COMMONS DEBATES________________________________9867
and forth from the field to the organizations to develop their programs in their own best interest. I think this is a most important development in the relationship between the government, this Parliament and the people of Canada in general and our native people. Assistance goes not only to Indians as defined under the Indian Act; this assistance is available to non-status Indians and to Metis and Eskimos in Canada, so that today some 26 or so associations are receiving this kind of support on an assured basis, one that they have never had before which enables them to participate and consult.
Few weeks go by without an airplane bringing to Ottawa delegations of these native organizations to continue this consultative process. Few weeks go by in which officials of various departments of the government are not on other airplanes going into the field in the provinces to carry on this consultative process.
The basic concept of core funding goes yet a further step and I would like to describe it. It puts those organizations which are representing the native peoples into a position where they can seek program funds from various departments and no longer are confined to a single department of the government. It puts them in a position to go on to another department, or another or another, like any other citizen of Canada. It opens up the whole range of government services to native people in a way that has not been opened before.
That is one of the most important and heartening developments of the last three years, since it confirms the conviction of this government that the native people want to be on a footing of equality with all other citizens in this country and wish to have opened to them the whole range of services, not only of this government but of all other levels of government and have access equally to the private sector.
I want to conclude with just a brief reference to the importance the government sees in what for lack of a better phrase I am going to call the question of culture. There is no secure social development without recognition that it takes place through a process that we have to call a cultural process. We know this now and all over the world it is known. If there is any experience that has become common to all of us through the United Nations in the social and economic field, it is surely the knowledge that development is a cultural process. If people do not feel secure on the cultural front, they hang back and will not go into the kind of social change that is taking place all over the world today, and into the economic process that brings such rapid social change in its train.
Indian Affairs
The point that I am coming to, Mr. Speaker, is that the cultural educational centre is a recognition of the cultural dimension. The developments that the minister has already pointed to in self-administration in the field of education also confirm that interest in the cultural process, so that native people will feel that the educational process also gives room for those cultural concerns without which they do not want to go down that path of development.
The final point I want to make on the cultural side is that the core funding, if it does anything at all, says to the native people through their organizations, "Here are resources with which you yourselves can develop the kind of programs, social, economic and educational that you feel will allow this development to take place without threatening, without challenging, without undermining the cultural continuity which you, and we too, want to see assured."
What in effect is happening in a short period of time is that the native peoples of Canada-I include the Metis people and the Eskimos in this summary statement-are making the greatest turning point in their history, and we too are part of that turning point. If I could use a metaphor, it is as if we are all standing together on a shoreline where we are negotiating social, cultural and economic changes. And I am convinced that the generations that follow ours, looking at these changes that are taking place today, will find many footprints on that shoreline and among them, well in the forefront, they will find the footprints of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Paproski:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we have unanimous consent of the House to continue this debate? There are other members on this side of the House who would like to speak on this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a request, but he cannot gain the floor on a point of order to make that request.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to the end of my remarks. I want to reiterate that on that shoreline, as I am putting it, among all the people who have been interested in this field, one of the footprints that will be found in an advanced position-well in advance-will be the footprint of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has presided over more fruitful change in the three years of this Parliament than has taken place over preceding decades.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Thursday, November 25. 1971