1973-04-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the calendar year 1972.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I believe a point of order could legitimately be raised as to the appropriateness of putting this motion at the present time. Yesterday when we were discussing the motion to concur in the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices the point was made that some of the recommendations exceeded the powers of the committee in that they involved the expenditure of money. If Your Honour were to examine closely the second report and the document contained in issue No. 8 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development at page 42- this is the document on aboriginal title which the motion proposes we concur in-and the legal consequences of Indian or aboriginal title and what this document considers to be those legal rights, I think Your Honour would find that the same point arises as was raised yesterday as to the appropriateness of a committee of the House of Commons making a recommendation to the House that would involve the expenditure of money. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, citation 260(1), which reads as follows:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons, for the past 25 years, to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.
Numerous other precedents and citations from Beauchesne and May might be quoted, but I think the general principle is quite clear. I would make the argument that this motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development does involve a commitment for the government to expend money not only to enter into negotiations but to right alleged wrongs by the expenditure of money. I suggest that this would not only be against the Standing Orders of the House but also any authorities on the subject that Your Honour might care to consult. On that basis I think Your Honour might be asked to give a ruling on the appropriateness of this motion and on the appropriateness of a standing committee of the House of Commons making such recommendation to the House itself.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, we pursued this point yesterday. I made my comments then and will not repeat them. I understand that the parliamentary secretary in effect is repeating the caveat that the government House leader entered yesterday in reserving the right not to have this matter taken as a precedent if Your Honour should decide that the debate should continue. I will not repeat the argument. I simply say that the fact that Your Honour, after having been elected Speaker, goes to the other place to claim on behalf of this House the right of free speech, makes it incumbent upon Your Honour, in any case where there is a reasonable doubt and there is no inconsistency with specific rules, to resolve that doubt in favour of the opportunity for debate in the House, and any further attempt by the government to restrict the freest possible debate should not be countenanced.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, may I put to you, in addition to the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that there should be no doubt whatever on the motion before us whether an expenditure is involved, and so I think there is no necessity to rule on the side of parliament as distinct from ruling on the claimed right of government with respect to expenditures. I say there is no doubt because of the very wording of the report that is before the House. Let me read the pertinent words to you, as found at page 241 of Votes and Proceedings for April 4, 1973:
Your Committee accepts and endorses the concept of aboriginal title as set out in the paper entitled "Aboriginal Title" presented to the committee by Mr. George Manuel, President of the National Indian Brotherhood, on Thursday, March 29, 1973, and urges the Prime Minister, on behalf of the government of Canada, to publicly accept and endorse the said concept of aboriginal title-
There is no question of expenditure there. It is simply a declaration of recognition that is asked for. The report continues:
-and to take steps immediately to enter into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title.

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
That contemplates no expenditure whatever. It may well be that as a result of those negotiations expenditures will be forthcoming, but that will be as a result of the negotiations, not as a result of the motion and report now before the House. I think Your Honour has no choice.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members again for the advice they have given to the Chair. This point has been raised twice within the last few days. In the course of giving my views about the motions that are before the House I had expressed the thought that my reservation dealt more precisely with the third report of the committee rather than with the second report. My understanding of the second report was, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, that the first part deals with principles, and if there were fault to be found with the wording of the report it would be found in the last part which reads as follows:
-and to take steps immediately to enter into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title.
My hope would have been, and it is still my hope, that this could have been altered and perhaps have achieved the same result by substituting the following words; "and consider the advisability of entering into negotiations with the Indian people with respect to the said title."
There is not, perhaps, a substantial change there, but at least if those words were included in the report before the House we would have respected a longstanding practice of the House and I think would have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble. I wonder whether the House, by unanimous consent, would not be prepared to make this change now. If it did, there would be no difficulty in proceeding. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, therefore, the report will be changed in that way. This having been done, there is no difficulty at all from a procedural standpoint with the motion and it will be put to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could adopt the same practice as was followed yesterday and suspend the discussion on this motion until after routine proceedings and oral questions have been completed. In addition, in view of the very great interest that has been shown by many people in this subject and as we have to convenience the government in trying to expedite passage of the tax bill and have agreed to take today, a short day, for this debate, possibly there might be agreement to limit speeches to 20 minutes for the first speaker from each party and 15 minutes for each following speaker. It has been shown by experience that speeches are very much better if they are shorter.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the desirability of suspending the debate until we have concluded routine proceedings and the oral question period. However, I would very much prefer to have the regime that was followed yesterday, namely, that the chief speakers from each group have 30 minutes rather than 20. With respect to subsequent speeches, I am quite prepared to agree to any reasonable arrangement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, possibly we could have the usual interesting meetings through the usual channels to see if we can work something out before the debate begins. Otherwise, we might have to agree to something we do not want.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be a very important motion, and because today is a short day I suggest we deal with it in its proper order.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather we have agreed not to agree and there will be discussions through the usual channels. Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that this debate will be postponed until after the question period.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as we are still on the order of motions I should like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I do so for the purpose of clearing the air and removing certain uncertainties, particularly for friends of my friends opposite. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House request the government to table a list of all Liberal candidates defeated in the last election who have not yet been appointed to government positions, together with a list of the positions to which they will be appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there is not unanimity. I have already heard some nays.


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the exceptionally high water levels in the Great Lakes and the consequential danger to property and human life constituting a national emergency. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
April 11, 1973

That this House do declare that the present high water levels on the Great Lakes with the consequential danger to property and human life constitutes a national emergency.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of national interest. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the government immediately take steps to entitle old age pensioners to enjoy, without payment of entry fee, the national parks throughout Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Who said no?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Kitchener has requested that we return to the first item, of routine proceedings, the tabling of reports.


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hymmen.
[Editor's note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions CANADA GRAINS COUNCIL
Mr. Gleave: 1.	(a) What has been the cost of the Canada Grains Council for 1971-72 (b) what is the estimated cost of the Canada Grains Council for 1972-73?
2.	What is the breakdown of these costs for (a) salaries (b) research and studies (c) administration?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) $200,580; (b)


[Stage Direction]
1971-72	1972-73
	$	$
(a)	97,518	105,000(b)	81,882	92,500(c)	21,180	22,500
Council costs are covered by membership fees and a matching contribution (maximum $100,000 per annum) from the Federal Government. Membership fees in 197172 amounted to $119,419 and $116,410 in 1972-73. Salary costs are almost entirely devoted to research.
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Urban Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contract for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
1968-69, nil; 1969-70, nil; 1970-71, nil; 1971-72, nil.


Mr. Stackhouse: How many Members of the 28th Parliament have received appointments from the government since October 30,1972 (a) what are their names (b) what appointment has each received and at what salary?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is exactly the same as the answer to question No. 36 which has just been tabled. I am therefore sending the hon. member a copy of that document.


Mr. Forrestall: How many females are employed under the Public Service Employment Act currently earning in excess of $25,999 per annum (a) what are their names (b) what are their positions?

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: 1. 25.
(a)
Department of External Affairs
Miss B. Meagher	
Miss H. D. Burwash	
Miss M. McPherson	
Department of Justice Mrs. Eileen Mitchell Thomas,
Q.C	
Miss Edyth MacDonald, Q.C..
Miss Norma Christie, Q.C...
Miss Elizabeth A. McFadyen..
(b)
Ambassador to Stockholm
Associate Director-Scientific Relations and Environmental Problems
Director, UN Political and Institutional Affairs Division
Counsel II Counsel II Counsel II
Director, Edmonton Regional Office
Department of National Health and Welfare
Dr. Marie J. Ferrari	
Dr. Mary E. Habgood	
Dr. Dorothy L. Hall	
Dr. Harriet F. Lettau	
Dr. Martha C. Mally	
Dr. Madelaine Maykut	
Dr. Monique Savoie	
Dr. Caroline P. Scott	
Dr. Wilma G. Steward	
Privy Council Office Miss P. A. McDougall	
Statistics Canada Miss Jennie Podoluk	
Department of Veterans Affairs Dr. A. A. Bratjakin	
Dr. E. D. Gardner	
Dr. J. A. K. MacDonell	
Dr. M. Oesterreicher	
Dr. E. Pollonetsky	
Medical Officer 1 Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer 1 Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer 2 Medical Officer 2 Medical Officer 5 Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer 3
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Government Operations)
Director, Consumer Finance Research Staff
Medical Specialist (Medicine), Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue
Psychiatrist, Westminster Hospital, London, Ont.
Senior Treatment Medical Officer, Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg Specialist in Chest Medicine, Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue
In charge of Prisoner of War Claims, Canada Pension Commission, Ottawa


Mr. Scheilenberger: What were the names of all persons employed by, attached to or on loan to the Office of the President of the Treasury Board as of (a) June 30, 1972 (b) October 30, 1972 (c) January 8, 1973 and in each (i) what was the individual's function (ii) what was his salary?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: (a)
and (b) Beaulac, A. G., Executive Assistant, $12,500 to $15,000; Bedard, D., Support Staff-Part time, $2,610; Cornblat, E., Private Secretary, $10,000 to $12,500; Char-lebois, J., Support Staff, $8,903 to $10,603; Dowdall, F. M., Support Staff, $10,942 to $12,024; Francoeur, P., Support Staff, $7,105 to $7,810 + 7 per cent; Gravell, M. E. B., Support Staff, $6,388 to $7,021; Rochon, J. J., Special Assistant, $7,500 to $10,000; Rutledge, B. D., Support Staff,

$5,225 to $5,741; Tourangeau, M. A. M., Support Staff, $7,105 to $7,810 + 7 per cent; Saumur, L. M., Support Staff, $7,105 to $7,810 + 7 per cent; Stikeman, J. A., Special Assistant, $10,000 to $12,500; Ward, R., Graduate Assistant, $125 per week; (c) Beaulac, A. G., Executive Assistant, $12,500 to $15,000; Bedard, D., Support Staff Part time, $2,610; Cornblat, E., Private Secretary, $10,000 to $12,500; Charlebois, J., Support Staff, $9,348 to $11,133; Dowdall, F. M., Support Staff, $11,489 to $12,625; Francoeur, P. Support Staff, $7,460 to $8,200 + 7 per cent; Gravell, M. E. B., Support Staff, $6,707 to $7,373; Mehta, F., Support Staff, $8,569 to $9,415 + 7 per cent; Rochon, J. J., Special Assistant, $10,000 to $12,500; Rutledge, B. D., Support Staff, $5,486 to $6,028; Tourangeau, M. A. M., Support Staff, $7,460 to $8,200 + 7 per cent; Saumur, L. M., Support staff, $7,460 to $8,200 + 7 per cent; Stikeman, J. A., Special Assistant, $12,500, to $15,000.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	Between June 30, 1968 and October 30, 1972, which departments or agencies retained the legal services of Claude-Armand Sheppard?
2.	In the same period, what amounts were paid to the said lawyer by the government, or by any department, investigating commissions, or Crown corporation for (a) fees (b) disbursements (c) travelling expenses?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by all departments and agencies as follows: 1. None.
2. N/A.


Mr. Allard: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what comparative percentage of amounts used by Bell Canada for the financing of its developments was (a) through loans (b) debentures?
2.	How do the amounts obtained and used compare to the rate increases?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister oi Communications):: 1.
The required information is available in Bell Canada's annual report for 1972.
2. There is no direct relationship between amounts obtained and used and the rate increases.


Mr. Lawrence: What departments, agencies or commissions of the government or the Crown in the Right of Canada, other than the Department of Justice or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, retain law firms or lawyers from outside the Public Service in Southern Ontario?
Mr. ]ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): The Auditor General, The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Farm Credit Corporation;



April 11, 1973

National Energy Board; Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Who are the members of the Voluntary Board, ADAPP, Edmonton, Alberta, who received a grant of $34,015 under the Innovative Services Grants Program, Non-medical Use of Drugs Directorate?
2.	How were these members selected, what is their occupation and their current address?
3.	On what basis was the decision made to locate their establishment in Lamont, Alberta?
4.	On whose advise was this program instituted?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Chairman: Dr. Jos. Couture, Executive Director, Indian Education Centre, 117-10 Kingsway Avenue, Edmonton. 1st Vice-Chairman: Mr. Ernie Stokes, Programs Officer, Adult Probation, 105-26 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton. 2nd Vice-Chairman: Vacant. Treasurer: Mr. Allan Welsh, owner of Allan Welsh & Co., Chartered Accountants, 309 North Gate Building, 8th street at Jasper Avenue, Edmonton. Members: Mr. Peter Stein, Assistant Director of the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission, Edmonton. Mr. Pierre Mousseau, Lawyer, 820 Centennial Building, 10015-103rd Avenue, Edmonton. Mr. Gerald Anderson, Farmer, R.R. 1, Lamont, Alberta. Mr. William Marianicz, High School Teacher, Box 354, Lamont, Alberta.
2.	The members of the Board, with the exception of the last two, were invited to serve by ADAPP'S manager, Mr. Douglas Dunn, and incorporation of the organization took place October 11, 1972. Messrs. Anderson and Marianicz joined in January 73 as a result of the keen interest shown in the project by the community of Lamont.
3.	The decision was entirely that of ADAPP, based upon the availability of a suitable farm to house the project.
4.	ADAPP's program originated in a proposal submitted by Mr. Douglas Dunn to the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate. The proposal was reviewed and assessed by the Western Regional Field Staff of the non-medical use of Drugs as well as by the Alberta Advisory and Assessment Committee. The Committee recommended the proposal for funding to the Department of National Health and Welfare on the basis of the recognized need for rehabilitation facilities for drug addicts in Alberta and of the innovativeness of the project's approach to dealing with a specific segment of the addict population.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many public servants are there in each province?
2.	How many public servants are there in the Hull-Ottawa area?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Manitoba for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3 How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Manitoba (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Manitoba for 19-71/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Manitoba have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Manitoba for 1971/72?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Thirteen.
2.	$10,669.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	4,709.
5.	1,054.
6.	$34,430.

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Notes: (1) Parts 4 and 5 Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. (2) Part 6 The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercase agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Saskatchewan for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Saskatchewan (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Saskatchewan for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Ten.
2.	$12,264.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices in centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	2,198.
5.	568.
6.	$20,140.
Notes: 1. Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not invididual cases. 2. Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Alberta for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Alberta (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Alberta for 1971/72? 5 6
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Alberta have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Alberta for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Sixteen.
2.	$11,904.

3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	6,185.
5.	1,082.
6.	$31,780.
Notes: 1. Parts 4 and 5; Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in British Columbia for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in British Columbia (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in British Columbia for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of British Columbia have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of British Columbia for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Twenty-nine.
2.	$11,773.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	3,541.
5.	412.
6.	$44,560.
Notes: 1. Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Quebec for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Quebec (including staffing) for 1971/72?
April 11, 1973

4.	How many cases did the parole stall have under their supervision in Quebec lor 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society ol Quebec have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society ol Quebec lor 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Forty-seven.
2.	$12,164.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	17,577.
5.	1,995.
6.	$60,760.
Notes: 1. Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Nova Scotia for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Nova Scotia (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Nova Scotia for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Nine.
2.	$12,133.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	2,899.
5.	924.
6.	$33,020.
Notes: 1. Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Newfoundland for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Newfoundland (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Newfoundland for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Newfoundland have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Newfounland for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Three.
2.	$11,887.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	924.
5.	179.
6.	$9,150.
Notes (1) Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. (2) Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for-service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Ontario for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Ontario (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Ontario for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Ontario have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Ontario for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Fifty-nine.
2.	$12,075.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	18,839.
5.	4,077.
6.	$143,240.
Notes: (1) Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. (2) Part 6:
3182

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee-for service basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in New Brunswick for the year 1971/72?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in New Brunswick (including staffing) for 1971/72?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in New Brunswick for 1971/72?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of New Brunswick have under its supervision in 1971/72?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of New Brunswick for 1971/72?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Seven.
2.	$10,964.
3.	Budgeting for National Parole Service offices is centralized and, therefore, figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	2,558.
5.	335.
6.	$17,860.
Notes: (1) Parts 4 and 5: Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. (2) Part 6: The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on fee-for-ser-vice basis, that is, $35 for each man-month of supervision provided by the agency and $45 for each community assessment carried out by the agency on behalf of the National Parole Board.


Mr. Stackhouse: What share of the cost of the municipal building in St. Georges de Beauce, Quebec, was paid from federal funds?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Departments of Urban Affairs, Finance, Public Works, Regional Economic Expansion and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are concerned, the answer is no.


Mr. Alexander: To the knowledge of the government, how much money was sent to the United States last year (a) by organized labour in Canada (b)
[Mr. Allmand.l
by Canadian companies controlled or owned by United States interests?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
reports that: (a) In 1969, the last year for which figures are available, the total dues and assessments paid to international union headquarters in the United States on behalf of Canadian members, as reported under Part II of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, amounted to $41,469,000 distributed as follows: Per capita, $26,240,000-63.3 per cent; Strike benefit assessments, $6,708,000- 16.2 per cent; Health and welfare assessments, $4,286,000-10.3 per cent; Death benefit assessments, $2,200,000- 5.3 per cent; Initiation fees, $1,006,000-2.4 per cent; Fines, work permits and other assessments, $1,029,000-2.5 per cent.
Note: These payments do not include interest earnings and dividends on investments by international unions as these are not reported under the Act.
(b)	In 1972, it is estimated that Canadian companies controlled or owned by United States interests paid, net of withholding tax, about $1,460 million to United States residents for payment of interest, dividends, branch profits and business services.


Mr. Nielsen: Of the 40 university students who will be participating in the program of welcoming groups of Young Voyageurs to the National Capital Region this summer (a) in which provinces or territories are such students normally resident and, in each case, how many (b) what will be their period of employment (c) what will be their wages?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: (a) The
Ottawa Regional Office of the Public Service Commission is responsible for recruiting and hiring students for summer employment. Thirty-three students have been hired by that office for the Hosting Service of the Young Voyageur Program. Twenty-six of these students are from the province of Ontario and seven are from Quebec, (b) Five students will be employed from May 1st to August 31, 1973; the remaining twenty-eight will work from May 15 to August 31, 1973. (c) The salary scale for students employed in the Hosting Service of the Young Voyageur Program varies from $1.90 per hour to $5.15 per hour. Rates are paid in respect of the number of accredited years of schooling relevant to the student's present course. There is an additional rate of 11 cents per hour to 16 cents per hour for extra duty pay.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in Information Canada?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in Information Canada?
April 11, 1973

4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister oi Labour):: 1. Information Canada commenced operations April 1, 1970. Six months after this, on October 1, 1970, there were 411 full-time employees.
2.	Salary Number of 4. Salary Number of Range Employees	Range Employees$ 15,000-16,000	1	$ 18,000-18,999	216,000-17,000	10	19,000-19,999	617,000-18,000	3	20,000-20,999	1019,000-20,000	5	21,000-21,999	320,000-21,000	1	22,000-22,999	423,000-24,000	3	25,000-25,999	225,000-26,000	1	26,000-26,999	328,000-35,000	1	27,000-27,999	1521.	28,000-35,000	2


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of National Health and Welfare on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1,1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) 5,427 (estimated); (b) 7,164.
2.	Unable to provide salary figures from 1963 records available. January 31, 1973: (a) 5,257; (b) 1,399; (c) 508.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What funds were made available for the government's policy for museums which was announced on March 28, 1972?
2.	What applications for funds have been received from museum groups in Manitoba?
3.	What projects have been approved to date?
4.	What funds have been paid to those projects approved?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	$8,100,000 in 1972-73
2 and 3. Requests for Assistance-Manitoba S. S. Keeno-ra (Selkirk): *Eskimo Museum Manitoba Automobile Museum Foundation $10,000; 'Manitoba Museum of Man & Nature Travelling Planetarium $145,800; 'Winnipeg Art Gallery $147,900; Manitoba Historical Society (MacDonald House) 'Pioneer Home Museum $6,500; Fort Gary Historical Society 'Historical Museum Association (St. James- Assiniboia) $5,500; 'Ukrainian Cultural & Educational Centre $23,000; 'Manitoba Museum of Man & Nature-
Order Paper Questions
Associate Museum $30,000; 'Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences in Canada $8,500; 'Leaf Rapids $127,780; University of Manitoba (Virgil School of Art), 'Manitoba Agricultural Museum Inc. $87,630; 'Transcona Museum $9,500; *St. Boniface Museum $25,500; 'Hillcrest Museum $1,750; Jewish Historical Society of Western Canada, Rapid City, Historical Society of St. Claude, La Societe Historique de St. Georges, Archibald Historical Society, Swan Valley Museum, Keystone Pioneer Museum, Fort La Reine Museum, Woodlands Pioneer Museum, Cook's Creek Museum, Snow Lake Fun Festival, Prairie Living Museum, Wellington Crescent House, C.P.R. Station House, Association of Manitoba Museums.
Items approved.
4.	$629,360.


Mr. Laprise: Were any thefts of mail bags reported in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 on Air Canada service between Rouyn-Montreal and Montreal-Rouyn and, if so (a) how many (b) how many reimbursements were made (c) what was the average amount of such reimbursements (d) how many were not reimbursed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: (a) 1968, Nil; 1969, Nil; 1970, Nil; 1971, 1; 1972, 3.
(b)	and (c)
No. of	Indemnity	AverageClaims	Paid	Amount$	$1968	Nil	Nil	Nil1969	Nil	Nil	Nil1970	Nil	Nil	Nil1971	11	450.00	40.901972	43	779.77	18.13Totals	54	1,229.77	22.77
Generally speaking, information such as requested in
(d)	would not be available. We are, however, aware of one such case where the sender has not submitted a claim for loss.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $216,000 to Step Lite Manufacturing Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on October 25, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the
3184

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $216,725 was announced on October 25, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on October 7, 1971 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario. The agreement was amended on August 17, 1972 and the offer revised downwards to $192,604; and was reported in the August 1972 Parliamentary Report, (b) $72,294, August 30, 1972. (c) J. Jancar, President; B. Carswell, Secretary Treasurer; Helen Jancar (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information. (e) N/A. (f) 88. (g) Nil; (See (k)). (h) Nil; (see (k)). (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $166,045 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Not in manufacturing production since January 1973. (1) May 13, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $404,000 to Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on July 4, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $404,250 was announced on July 4, 1972. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on June 26, 1972 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario, (b) No payment made to date, (c) S. W. Lindal (Chairman), W. T. Flyg, B. G. Lawson, J. A. Lawson, R. M. McLennaghan, I. M. Lindal and D. F. Lindal. (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 86. (g) Not in commercial production, (h) N/A. (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on
which the grant offer was based are $975,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern. (1) March 27, 1972.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $51,000 to Quexoil Limited, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on April 15, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $51,000 was announced on April 15, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on January 26, 1971 for a facility at Cobden which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario, (b) $42,960, November 15, 1972. (c) W. E. Blake, R. D. Davenport, S. N. White, N. D. MacEachern, W. Thornber, P. V. B. Grieve, (d) Under the Business Corporation Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 31. (g) 10. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $150,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern. (1) September 14, 1970.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $75,000 to Nortrac Manufacturing Limited, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on November 10, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the

April 11, 1973

project 0) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $75,700 was announced on November 10, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on October 6, 1971 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) Initial payment of $58,189 was forwarded in April 1972. (c) F. Fassbender, J. Smeaton, W. Holmes, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 32. (g) 15. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $117,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern. (1) January 11, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $72,000 to Shuffleboard International Syndicate, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on October 31, 1970 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $72,540 was announced on October 31, 1970. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on October 21, 1970 for a facility at Pembroke which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario. The offer was withdrawn on March 9, 1971. (b) No payment was made, (c) Mr. Charles Street, Mr. Wally Wagner, Pyramid Holdings Limited, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a Corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 30. (g) Nil. (h) Nil. (i) and 0) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization
Order Paper Questions
cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $104,500 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Facility was never established. (1) August 8, 1970.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $77,000 to Shuffleboard International Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on July 15, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $77,238 was announced on July 15, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on June 23, 1971 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario, (b) No payment has been made, (c) Mr. Charles Street, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Pyramid Holdings Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Nominee-Mr. Ron Seiger, Mr. Wally Wagner, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information,
(e)	N/A. (f) 32. (g) Nil. (h) Nil. (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $132,383 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations. (k) In receivership. (1) April 22, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $79,000 to R. E. Hodgins Industries Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on November 2, 1970 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1,

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $79,200 was announced on November 2, 1970. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on October 1, 1970 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) $66,624, paid on April 18, 1972. (c) Mr. Robert Hodgins; Mrs. R. E. Hodgins; Mrs. Lois Hodgins; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 13. (g) 15. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $160,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) A going concern. (1) April 13, 1970.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $39,000 to Hanson Mills Limited of Hull, Quebec, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on August 27, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $39,686 was announced on August 27, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on August 13, 1971 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) $30,333-This amount was paid as follows: $5,373 on February 21, 1972; $24,960 on July 28, 1972;
(c)	The Directors of Hanson Mills are: J. H. F. Kenny; H. J. Knight; A. B. MacLaren; L. Kenny; J. G. Aylen; R. W. Harris; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 26. (g) 40. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is
[Mr. Dick.l
related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $84,860 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) A going concern. (1) February 15, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $113,000 to Waltham Creative Printing Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on August 27,1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the comapny a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $113,000 was announced on August 27, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on August 13, 1971 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) No payment to date, (c) W. Edwards, President; P. Edwards, Secretary-Treasurer; J. Edwards,
(d)	Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 24. (g) Not yet certified in commercial production, (h) Not yet in commercial production, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $434,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Not yet certified in commerical production. (1) May 18, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $126,750 to Union Carbide of Canada Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on November 26, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what

months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who Eire the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $126,750 was announced on January 27, 1972; (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on December 29, 1971 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) No payments to date, (c) J. de Billy; D. F. S. Cole; K. S. Dewar; J. H. Field; A. I. Hainey; S. A. Hayden; A. T. Lambert; F. B. O'Mara; G. W. Patterson; J. F. Shankland; I. D. Sinclair, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 69.
(g)	10. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $845,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) A going concern. (1) October 1, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $132,000 to Edwin D. Kennedy Lumber Company, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on March 26, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973
(h)	how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $132,950 was announced on March 26, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on January 27, 1971 for a facility at Waba (Arnprior) which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario, (b) A payment of $115,310 was made
Order Paper Questions
on March 30, 1972. (c) Edwin Deweese Kennedy; Ruth E. Kennedy; Edwin L. Kennedy; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 21. (g) 25. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $760,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern. (1) August 26, 1970.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $862,000to Acme Seeley Business Systems Ltd. of Toronto, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on March 30, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $862,850 was announced on March 22, 1971. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on January 4, 1971 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) $592,998, March 1972. (c) Directors of the company are: Victor E. Deinlein; George W. Horn; John B. Hinch; Richard B. McArdell; Bertram E. Ellis; Joseph T. Fitzpatrick, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 137. (g) 119. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $2,255,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations. (k) A going concern. (1) September 8,1970.

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $136,000 to Hypernetics Limited, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on April 17, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $136,600 was announced on April 17, 1972. (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on March 20, 1972 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) No payments have been made, (c) Directors of the company are: E. J. Mulvey; E. Ridgen; L. Magor; D. Weatherall; C. Mott; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 55. (g) 6. (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $266,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern. (1) September 30, 1971.
DREE-INCENTIVE GRANT TO S. & P. FURNITURE CO. LTD.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $103,000 to S. & P. Furniture Co. Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on October 10, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $103,050 was announced in the September 1972 Parliamentary Report.

(a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on June 26, 1972 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the special area of Ren-frew-Pembroke, Ontario. The agreement was subsequently amended to confirm a change of name to Spindler Furniture International Limited and revise the offer downwards to $98,550. This change will be reported in the March 1973 Parliamentary Report, (b) No moneys have been disbursed as the project is still under construction,
(c)	Charlotte Spindler; Willi Spindler; Angelika Spindler; Thomas Barker, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) 45. (g) None; facility under construction, (h) None; facility under construction, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $207,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Still in the construction stage at this time. (1) March 10, 1972.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $21,000 to Gary Wilson Tire Service Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on October 16, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $21,969 was announced on October 16, 1972. (a) An Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on July 27, 1972 for a facility at Renfrew which is situated in the Special Area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario, (b) No payments to date, (c) Mr. and Mrs. Gary Wilson, (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information, (e) N/A. (f) Two (g) None-the project is still under construction, (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard, (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible
April 11, 1973

capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $105,700 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 percent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations, (k) Going concern.
(1)	March 10, 1972,


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $303,000 to Hy-Hoe of Canada Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on January 23, 1973 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $303,600 was announced on January 23, 1973; (a) An Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on November 30, 1972 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the Special Area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario, (b) No payment has been made as yet; (c) Mr. A. E. Joslin; Mr. W. N. Brading; Mr. F. J. Greenwood;
(d)	Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A; (f) 36; (g) Nil; (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $978,000 and the Applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 percent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) N/A. Construction of the new plant in Arnprior, Ontario is to begin before April 1, 1973; (1) July 13, 1972.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $145,000 to Jari Industries Limited, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on April 4, 1972 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how
Order Paper Questions
much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $145,965 was announced on April 4, 1972, (a) An Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on February 1, 1972 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the Special Area of Renfrew-Pem-broke, Ontario; Agreement amended November 3, 1972- change of name to Gomes Yarns Ltd.; (b) No payments yet made; (c) A. F. Gomes; A. E. Vick; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A;
(f)	50; (g) None-facility still under construction; (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $325,100 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 percent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) Construction of facility in progress; (1) July 7, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $312,000 to Homco Industries Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on June 8, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: An offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $312,000 was announced on April 27, 1972; (a) An Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on April 10, 1972 for a facility at Westmeath Township which is situated in the Special Area of Ren-frew-Pembroke, Ontario; (b) No payment made to date; (c)
D.	D. Johnson, T. H. McGregor; A. Berday; G. D. Hill, P. H. Davis; W. H. Powell; A. Peterson; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A; (f) 116; (g) 33 as of January 27, 1973; (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to
3190

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard;
(i)	and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $800,000 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the regional development Incentives Regulations; (k) Going concern; (1) January 28, 1972.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $42,000 to Educational Fitment & Millwork Company, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on September 17, 1971 and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receive ship, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, an offer of incentive assistance in the amount of $42,000 was announced on September 17, 1971; (a) An agreement was entered into pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the Government of Canada and the applicant on August 23, 1971 for a facility at Arnprior which is situated in the Special Area of Renfrew-Pem broke, Ontario; (b) $26,583, October 30, 1972; (c) Not incorporated-sole proprietorship-J. A. Murdoch; (d) N/A; (e) N/A; (f) 9; (g) 7; (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $76,450 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 percent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) Going concern; (1) February 16, 1971.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What publicity gimmicks have been used to promote the new postal code?
2.	What has been the cost to the taxpayers in each case?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The promotion of the postal code

is done through advertising, a travelling exhibit and textual material, including a householder information booklet.
2.	The 1972-1973 advertising budget for the postal code was $545,000, the exhibit cost $25,000 and the cost for the textual material was approximately $295,000.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many signs at RCMP detachment quarters, and other quarters, were changed with a wording of "Police" replacing the former complete name of the force?
2.	Since the initial changes, how many of these signs have been reworded so that the full name of the force now appears?
3.	How many signs indicating RCMP force offices or quarters still carry the wording "Police"?
4.	Is action being taken to have all RCMP quarters signs bear the full name of the force and, if so, when will this programme be completed?


William Warren Allmand: For the Ministry of the Solicitor General: 1. Twenty-six signs containing the crest of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the word "Police" were installed on operational buildings replacing signs which contained the crest of the Force and the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Gendarmerie Royale du Canada. In addition, twenty-six buildings housing offices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had the sign with the word "Police" installed because they were new buildings previously unmarked and the Force was occupying them for the first time.
2.	Nil.
3.	Fifty-two.
4.	A new building sign bearing the crest of the Force and the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Gendarmerie Royale du Canada has been approved and will be taken into use as soon as supplies can be obtained.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What lettering is presently being used on RCMP vehicles and is the RCMP crest included with the wording on all vehicles of the force?
2.	Are there any RCMP vehicles being used that carry only the word "Police" without any indication of the force that operates the vehicles and, if so, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: For the Ministry of the Solicitor General: 1. Royal Canadian Mounted Police vehicles now in service may have, as part of the vehicle marking, either the lettering RCMP or the single word POLICE. The vehicle marking, or shield, includes in every instance the crest of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The current use of dual types of vehicle markings results from a changeover to bilingual vehicle markings commenced in January 1972 as new vehicles were brought into service. This practice was halted on April 28, 1972 when only partially implemented because of representations regarding the particular markings and since that date, save in cases of operational necessity, new vehicles have been left unmarked. A new vehicle marking bearing the crest of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the letters RCMP and GRC on either side has been approved
April 11, 1973

and will be taken into use as soon as supplies can be obtained.
2.	No.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1972, how many inmates at the Stony Mountain Penitentiary who were (a) Indians (b) non-Indians applied for (i) parole (ii) day parole (iii) temporary absence and of these how many, in each case, were granted?
2.	Since January 1, 1972, what percentage of (a) Indians (b) non-Indians who were inmates in the said institution who applied for a full or minimum parole were granted such parole?


William Warren Allmand: For the Ministry of the Solicitor General: 1. This information is not available in a readily retrievable form and would require a time consuming search of the personal files maintained on each inmate who has been in the institution at any time since January 1, 1972. While information on the ethnic or racial origin of each inmate is obtained by way of a verbal statement from the inmate on admission and is recorded on his personal file, the Canadian Penitentiary Service does not maintain a data bank or other statistical record of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates; and neither the Canadian Penitentiary Service nor the National Parole Board record or otherwise make any distinction in respect of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates who apply for or are granted either (i) parole, (ii) day parole or (iii) temporary leave of absence.
2.	As for 1 above.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1972, how many inmates at the Prince Albert (or Saskatchewan) Penitentiary who were (a) Indians (b) non-Indians applied for (i) parole (ii) day parole (iii) temporary absence and of these how many, in each case, were granted?
2.	Since January I, 1972, what percentage of (a) Indians (b) non-Indians who were inmates in the said institution who applied for a full or minimum parole were granted such parole?


William Warren Allmand: 1. This information is not available in a readily retrievable form and would require a time consuming search of the personal files maintained on each inmate who has been in the institution at any time since January 1, 1972. While information on the ethnic or racial origin of each inmate is obtained by way of a verbal statement from the inmate on admission and is recorded on his personal file, the Canadian Penitentiary Service does not maintain a data bank or other statistical record of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates; and neither the Canadian Penitentiary Service nor the National Parole Board record or otherwise make any distinction in respect of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates who apply for or are granted either (i) parole, (ii) day parole or (iii) temporary leave of absence. 2
2.	As for 1 above.
Order Paper Questions MATSQUI PENITENTIARY-PAROLE


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January I, 1972, how many inmates at the Matsqui Penitentiary who were (a) Indians (b) non-Indians applied for (i) parole (ii) day parole (iii) temporary absence and of these how many, in each case, were granted?
2.	Since January 1, 1972, what percentage of (a) Indians (b) non-Indians who were inmates in the said institution who applied for a full or minimum parole were granted such parole?


William Warren Allmand: 1. This information is not available in a readily retrievable form and would require a time consuming search of the personal files maintained on each inmate who has been in the institution at any time since January 1, 1972. While information on the ethnic or racial origin of each inmate is obtained by way of a verbal statement from the inmate on admission and is recorded on his personal file, the Canadian Penitentiary Service does not maintain a data bank or other statistical record of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates; and neither the Canadian Penitentiary Service nor the National Parole Board record or otherwise make any distinction in respect of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates who apply for or are granted either (i) parole, (ii) day parole or (iii) temporary leave of absence.
2.	As for 1 above.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1972, how many inmates at the British Columbia Penitentiary who were (a) Indians (b) non-Indians applied for (i) parole (ii) day parole (iii) temporary absence and of these how many, in each case, were granted?
2.	Since January 1, 1972, what percentage of (a) Indians (b) non-Indians who were inmates in the said institution who applied for a full or minimum parole were granted such parole?


William Warren Allmand: 1. This information is not available in a readily retrievable form and would require a time consuming search of the personal files maintained on each inmate who has been in the institution at any time since January 1, 1972. While information on the ethnic or racial origin of each inmate is obtained by way of a verbal statement from the inmate on admission and is recorded on his personal file, the Canadian Penitentiary Service does not maintain a data bank or other statistical record of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates; and neither the Canadian Penitentiary Service nor the National Parole Board record or otherwise make any distinction in respect of the ethnic or racial origins of inmates who apply for or are granted either (i) parole, (ii) day parole or (iii) temporary leave of absence.
2. As for 1 above.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $774,667 to North American Valve & Manufacturing Corp. Ltd., announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who
26087-56J

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions
are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: (k) In receivership, May 25, 1972; (1) July 10, 1970.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant to Gomes Yarns, announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: An amended offer of incentives assistance in the amount of $98,765 to Gomes Yarns Limited (formerly Jari Industries Ltd.) was announced in the November 1972 Parliamentary Report: (a) An amended agreement was entered into on November 3, 1972 for a facility at Renfrew; (b) No payments yet made; (c) Mr. A. F. Gomes, President; Mr. A. E. Vick, Vice-President; Mr. Gomes Ault, Secretary-Treasurer; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A; (f) 50; (g) None; facility still under construction; (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) Information on total [Mr. Dick.)
capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $325,100 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) Construction of facility in progress; (1) July 7, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Was an incentive grant in the amount of $170,825 to Valewood (formerly Sauna of Canada), announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so (a) has the grant been made, was it withdrawn or was it turned down (b) how much money has been given to the company, to date, in what months and in what amounts was the money forwarded (c) who are the directors of the company (d) who is the largest shareholder in the company (e) what citizenship is the largest shareholder (f) how many jobs were to be created at the time of the announcement (g) how many jobs were in fact created as of March 1, 1973 (h) how many employees were there on the company payroll as of March 1, 1973 (i) how much was the initial capitalization of the project (j) how much of the capitalization was put up by the owners (k) is the company a going concern, in receivership, or bankrupt (1) what was the date of the application for the grant?


Marcel Prud'homme: An offer of incentive assistance to 235,477 Manufacturing Limited in the amount of $170,825 was announced in the October 1970 Parliamentary Report but subsequently announced as declined in the November 1970 Parliamentary Report. On February 11, 1971, another offer to the company in the amount of $171,675 was announced; (a) This agreement was entered into, pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1969 between the government of Canada and the applicant on January 29, 1971 for a facility at Renfrew, which is situated in the special area of Renfrew-Pembroke, Ontario. The name of the company was subsequently changed by letters patent to Valewood Products Limited; (b) $132,490, September 10, 1971; (c) Mr. C. K. Williams; Mr. A. C. Williams; Mr. E. A. Greenberg; (d) Under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, the names of the shareholders of a corporation are not public information; (e) N/A; (f) 57; (g) Nil; see (k); (h) The Department's primary concern, for grant purposes, is related to the employment created by a particular project, rather than to total employment in the company concerned. Consequently, no accurate records are kept in this regard; (i) and (j) Information on total capitalization of the project and the applicant's share of that capitalization cannot be provided without releasing information given by the applicant on a confidential basis. However, the eligible capital costs on which the grant offer was based are $384,500 and the applicant's equity is in all cases at least 20 per cent of that amount as provided in the Regional Development Incentives Regulations; (k) The company has been in bankruptcy, effective November 28, 1972; (1) November 18, 1970.
April 11, 1973


Mr. Douglas: 1. What amount of money has been granted to the Medical Research Council of Canada for the past five years ending March 31, 1973?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How much was granted in each of the fiscal years for that period?
3.	What amount did the Wood-Gundy Report project as being required for the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?


Marc Lalonde: 1.
Grants and Scholarship Vote
Administrative
Vote
Total
1968-69	1969-70
26,943	30,891
268	324
27,211	31,215
1970-71	1971-72
thousands)
33,962	35,642
402	473
34,364	36,115
1972-73 Total
37,460	164,898
540	2,007
38,000	166,905
2.	All moneys under the Grants and Scholarship Vote.
3.	The Wood-Gundy Report (1965) made no projection of requirements for the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74.


Mr. Howard: Does the government have any knowledge of the chemicals or substances used in the curing and preparation of tobacco and, if so, are any of these chemicals or substances of a narcotic nature and, if so (a) what is the type of narcotic used (b) in what percentages does it exist (c) is any of it contained in the final tobacco product?


John Mercer Reid: The government has no knowledge of chemicals or substances of a narcotic nature being used in the curing and preparation of tobacco.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	(a) On what date (b) by what authority (c) for what purpose or aim was the Visual Education Centre established?
2.	Is there any relationship between the Visual Education Centre and Encyclopedia Britannica and, if so, what is the nature of such relationship?
3.	What were the (a) total assets (b) total profits of the Visual Education Centre, by year, since its inception to date?
4.	Is the Visual Education Centre engaged in any endeavour other than educational and, if so, what is the nature of such endeavours in each case?
5.	What is the percentage of profit on sale of Visual Education Centre material to school boards or other educational bodies?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
government does not have this information.


Mr. Schumacher: Has the Visual Education Centre commenced any proceedings or actions against individual school boards and, if so (a) what are the names and locations of any such school boards (b) what is the nature of such proceedings or actions in each case (c) have such cases been settled (i) out of court (ii) within the court (d) what are the details of such settlements in each case (e) who represents the
Visual Education Centre in any such actions (f) is such counsel paid out of (i) private funds (ii) tax-derived funds?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
government does not have this information.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-gootenay): 1.	How many loans were made in 1972 for agricultural exhibition associations and what was the amount of each?
2.	In 1973 (a) how many loans are anticipated for agricultural exhibition associations (b) what is the total amount (c) how much will be allocated for labour, buildings, equipment, etc?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Loans made in 1972,-10(ten): Kamloops B.C. $500,000; Vermilion, Alberta $70,000; Calgary, Alberta $4,000,000; Gowi-chan, B.C. $9,900; Pictou, Nova Scotia $242,000; Lethbridge, Alberta $344,250; Lloydminster, Sask.-Alta $150,000; Manitou, Manitoba $100,000; Teulon, Manitoba $50,000; North Norfolk, Manitoba $95,000; Total: $5,561,150.
2. In 1973 (a) 15 (fifteen), (b) $15, million, (c) Labour $6 million. Buildings and Equipment $9 million.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many Citizens' Courts have been established by provinces in all parts of Canada?
2.	In how many of the said Courts, by province, is the Queen's portrait no longer displayed?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. There are 18 Citizenship Court offices in Canada located in Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Waterloo, Sudbury, London, Windsor, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria.
2. None.


Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to the real estate practice of multiple listing commission fixing?
2.	Does this practice (a) restrict competition (b) inflate consumer prices?

April 11, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. In accordance with the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada, consideration is being given to extension of the competition policy legislation to service trades not presently covered.
2. See 1. above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. Martin O'Connell between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Martin O'Connell as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Mr. Martin O'Connell received salary from November 27, 1972 to March 31, 1973 based on an annual salary of $30,000 to $35,000.
2. Travel Expenses: $831.40; Hospitality Expenses: $161.99; Total Expenses: $993.39.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. John Roberts between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. John Roberts as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Mr. John Roberts received salary from January 8, 1973 to March 31, 1973 based on an annual salary of $30,000 to $35,000.
2. Travel Expenses: $418.60; Hospitality Expenses: $38.40; Removal Expenses: $832.00; Total Expenses: $1,289.00.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How much money has been paid under the Guaranteed Income Supplement in each year since its inception?
2.	How many people in each province receive benefits under the Guaranteed Income Supplement?


Marc Lalonde: 1. 1966-67, $39,957,478; 1967-68, $234,835,151; 1968-69, $244,470,268; 1969-70, $263,478,628; 1970-71, $280,005,371; 1971-72, $526,059,572; *1972-73, $739,000,000.
'Estimated figure.
2. As of February 28, 1973:Nfld, 28,288; P.E.I., 9,805; N.S., 50,775; N.B., 38,745; Que., 275,720; Ont. 329,092; Man.

60,941; Sask. 60,356; Alta., 74,296; B.C., 117,355; Yukon, 324; N.W.T. 757; Canada, 1,046,454.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since its inception, has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made any grant to a Canadian chartered bank and, if so (a) to which one (b) in what year (c) in what amount (d) in what Canadian city?


Marcel Prud'homme: No. Not eligible for assistance; (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A; (d) N/A.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many people were employed by CBC during each year 1970 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	What was the CBC budget in each of these years?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Number of continuing CBC employees as of March 31st for each of the years in question: 1970, 8,951; 1971, 8,885; 1972, 9,070; 1973, 9,293 (as of March 23).
2. CBC net operating budgets for each of the years in question, provided through parliamentary appropriation: 1969-70, $166,000,000; 1970-71, $166,000,000; 1971-72, $181,000,000; 1972-73, $207,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF 28th PARLIAMENT TO GOVERNMENT POSITIONS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many former Members of the 28th Parliament now hold government positions, in any capacity?
2.	(a) What are their names (b) what positions do they presently hold (c) with what department (d) what are their salaries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Energy, Mines and resources on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what
April 11, 1973

are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70,1970-71,1971-72, 1972-73 to date and what were the amounts of each grant?
2.	What were the names of the owners of ships and other vessels built under the Program in each of the above fiscal years?
3.	What were the names of foreign-based ship-owners who commissioned construction of ships and other vessels under the Program, who benefitted from a federal export subsidy, and what were the amounts of the export subsidy in each case in each of the above fiscal years?
4.	What are the objectives of the above Program?
5.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


Mr. Harding: What were the costs to the government of rentals of office and storage space, separately for each department and agency, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72?
Return tabled.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Are mandarin oranges imported into Canada from Japan and, if so, in what volume for each fiscal year 1968-69 to 1971-72?
2.	At what landings were these oranges landed and in what area was the bulk of the imports sold?
3.	What was the total dollar value of the import of such oranges for each fiscal year as mentioned in Part 1?
4.	Is it possible to export Canadian apples to Japan and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Has representation been made by the Government of Canada to the Government of Japan with regard to the export of apples to that country and, if so (a) when has such representation been made (b) are there proposals being made by the government at the present time in this regard?
Return tabled.


Mr. Forrestall: 1. What is the total amount of office and other floor space, in square feet, owned or leased by the government (a) within the National Capital Region (b) within the metropolitan area of Hali-fax-Dartmouth (c) within the metropolitan area of Montreal (d) within the metropolitan area of Toronto (e) within the metropolitan area of Vancouver-Victoria (f) within the metropolitan area of Winnipeg (g) within the metropolitan area of Edmonton (h) within the metropolitan area of Calgary (i) within the metropolitan area
Orders for Returns
of London, Ontario (j) within the metropolitan area of Quebec City?
2. For each of the above, what percentage is (a) owned (b) leased?
Return tabled.


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	By department, what projects were accomplished in the constituency of Compton in the current fiscal year?
2.	What are the projected plans by department for the same constituency during the next fiscal year?
Return tabled.	.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, last week and earlier this week I rose in connection with my question No. 278 which was filed with the government on January 12. I have raised a question of privilege in this regard on two occasions, and this is the third occasion. The government is clearly refusing to answer the question. I am reasonably convinced that it has the answer in its files and material. I think it is an affront to myself as a member of the House that the government refuses to give any answer whatsoever to this question, even though the question has been outstanding at this point for nearly four months.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to make a request concerning a question of mine that has been on the order paper since February 7. I am referring to question No. 832 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. My question was initially raised but not answered by the Auditor General of Canada. I believe that the government should be more forthright in presenting the answer to parliament.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to questions Nos. 1,752 to 1,760. Two of these the parliamentary secretary said would be answered today, namely, 1,755 and 1,756. As all of these questions are of the same nature and pertain to people who were Liberal candidates in the last election and have been appointed to various government positions, I really cannot see why they cannot all be answered, not just two. I can only assume that the government is so busy appointing further unsuccessful Liberal candidates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should point out that there are nearly 2,000 questions on the order paper. If every time we reach this order of business we hear speeches from hon. members on why questions have not been answered, we might spend quite a bit of time on the matter. I am not disputing the hon. member's right to rise on a point of order, but I would hope that hon. members would not extend their remarks too much. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is also rising on a point of order.


Mr. Reynolds:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too have a question on the order paper, No. 230, asking for which insurance companies Air Canada acts as agent. The only reason I take the time of the House is that the previous member from my riding, a Liberal, put this same question on the order paper two years ago, and the government is

April 11, 1973
Motions for Papers
still refusing to answer it. It is of great concern to the people of my riding.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 197 and 198 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, does the House agree that notices of motions Nos. 197 and 198 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion 197-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all notes and formal representations made by, or on behalf of, the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States of America with respect to the countervailing duties imposed on Michelin tires manufactured in Canada.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 198-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all notes and formal representations made by, or on behalf of, the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States of America with regard to the so-called DISC Program.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 118, 128, 193, 199 and 200.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared within or for the government concerning the financial feasibility of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports that financial feasi-

bility studies are under way on an interdepartmental basis. No reports have been published. In the forthcoming report on energy supply and demand and related matters, expected to be published by the mid-year, there will be references to northern pipeline financial feasibility. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw it, subject to the hon. member's right to place it on the order paper later.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 128-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for the tabling of all plans, charts, maps, correspondence or any other documents of any nature whatsoever, relating to marine transportation in the Arctic area of Canada of commercial vessels.
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 128, may I say that the papers requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare. We have already invited the hon. member to look into these documents which are available to him. I would ask, therefore, that the hon. member withdraw his motion at this time.


Mr. Forrestall:: I agree to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 193-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Board of Legal Inquiry into damages done to HMCS Restigou-che during refit.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no board of legal inquiry. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
April 11, 1973


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 199-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all notes and formal representations made by, or on behalf of, the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States of America with respect to negotiating revisions to the Canada-U.S. Automotive Trade Agreement.
Gerald William Baldwin: I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, no written representations have been made to the United States government in respect of the operation of the Canada-United States automotive trade agreement and the possibility of revisions to this agreement. However, these matters have been the subject of numerous discussions with senior United States officials who thus are fully aware of Canadian views. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Withdrawn, subject to the right of the hon. member to reinstate it after examining all the subtleties of that answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
BURKE-HARTKE BILI___REPRESENTATION BY


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 200-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all notes and formal representations made by, or on behalf of, the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States of America with respect to the so-called "Burke-Hartke" bill.
Gerald William Baldwin: I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, no written representations have been made to the United States government with regard to the so-called "Burke-Hartke" bill. However, this bill and its implications for Canada have been discussed on numerous occasions with senior United States officials who are thus well aware of Canadian views. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is the same as the one I raised last week with reference to notices of motions Nos. 161 to 185 inclusive standing in my name since February 26. They ask for a copy of the time schedule that is supposed to exist within which pulp and paper mills in British Columbia will have to meet the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations established by the government some two and a half years ago. I am wonder-
Oral Questions
ing why there has been such a long delay in replying to that request.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the intention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to get employables off the welfare rolls by providing work on the government payroll, it is now the position of the minister and the government that its present economic strategy will not reduce unemployment to an acceptable rate?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is basing that question on a press report, and he ought to wait and see the policy announced by my colleague.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it now the policy of the minister to attempt to reduce unemployment by creating a sort of huge LIP style program, does the government believe this is necessary in view of interest rates going up, and will the government accept the proposition that its policies will not create sufficient jobs in the private sector?


John Napier Turner: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has been consulted about the work program proposal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


John Napier Turner: The government is constantly in touch, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO MAKE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH AND LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAMS PERMANENT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the two employment programs devised by the government in the last couple of years, opportunities for youth and local initiatives, and in view of recent comments by the Secretary of State in respect of the possible integration of these programs and the lack of any statutory recognition for them, will he indicate whether the government plans in

April 11, 1973
Oral Questions
this session to bring legislation before parliament in effect to ratify or establish policy on a long-term basis for these two programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his question did state well the government's expressed concern for these programs and the areas in which they have been working. I am afraid I cannot answer the precise question whether we will be making an announcement or taking any action at this time. Such a decision has not been made.


HIGH WATER LEVELS ON GREAT LAKES-POSSIBLE USE OF ARMED FORCES FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES- NEGOTIATIONS WITH ONTARIO ON COST-SHARING
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of the Environment; I am not sure which should answer. It arises from reports yesterday of continuing and increasing flood damage to property in municipalities along the Great Lakes from Windsor right through to Oshawa. Can the minister confirm to the House that the government is currently negotiating an arrangement with the province of Ontario to share the cost of Canadian forces units which would be used to assist municipalities in flood preventive measures? Can he indicate the basis of such an arrangement and whether it will assure that municipalities will be relieved of any part of the cost involved?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with the Minister of National Defence and there has been no request for assistance from the government of Ontario.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not hear the reply. Would the minister kindly repeat it?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me to repeat my reply. I have been in touch with the Minister of National Defence and, as I understand it, there has been no request for assistance by the armed forces in respect of this matter from the government of Ontario.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that reports in the press today attribute to the Ontario resources minister remarks to the effect that negotiations are currently under way between the governments of Ontario and Canada to make cost-sharing arrangements to cover the cost of use of the Canadian forces, can the Minister of National Defence indicate whether in fact such negotiations are taking place?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are no current negotiations specifically with regard to cost-sharing. I have outlined the procedure before. We do operate on a cost recovery basis but we do not charge for salaries or equipment, just for out of pocket expenses.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many municipalities would wish to take advantage of the services of the Canadian forces units, and in view of the fact these units are not being made available because the province has not requested them, will the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of the Environment take the initiative once again to consult with the government of Ontario in order to establish whether some mutually acceptable arrangement can be made in order that municipalities in Ontario can be assisted in this very important matter?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we are in the closest possible consultation daily and hourly with the government of Ontario.


HIGH WATER LEVELS ON GREAT LAKES-NATURE OF SITUATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Is it the government's opinion that there is no emergency on the Great Lakes in respect of the high water situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an opinion and a question in those terms is not in order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of the Environment inform the House what level the lakes would have to reach or what the government has in mind in respect of this problem on the Great Lakes?


John (Jack) Davis: As is
well known, Mr. Speaker, we already face an emergency on the Great Lakes. It remains to be seen, however, as to whether it is a national emergency or a local and provincial one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peel South on a supplementary question, but we should then try to allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue to ask his question in order to complete the first round of questioning.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Great Lakes are clearly international waters is it not a matter of national importance that these international waters be a matter of federal responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is actually submitting an argument or representation to the minister. He has to assume that it has been noted. The hon. member for Ontario on a supplementary.
April 11, 1973


HIGH WATER LEVEL ON LAKE ONTARIO-REQUEST THAT PICKERING TOWNSHIP APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE BY ARMED FORCES BE RECONSIDERED
Mr. Norman A. Caiik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recent communication by the township of Pickering to the department which indicated that the township was willing to assume the out of pocket expenses of the Department of National Defence in lieu of the fact that the province will not do so, will the minister reconsider that application for assistance.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that particular communication.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated a moment ago that we should go to the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the interim report of the advisory committee on unemployment insurance mentions that some employers cheat by giving certificates of dismissal to employees who leave their work simply to rest, because they prefer not to work, could the minister tell the House what he intends to do to identify the employers and bring them to justice if necessary?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the advisory committee has not yet reported to me, contrary to some suggestions by the press. Second, if there is any evidence or incidents of fraud on the part of employers or employees in terms of collusion or otherwise, it is the intention of the commission to investigate and, where substantiated, to prosecute.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ALLEGED ABUSES-REQUEST FOR TABLING
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House when the report of the advisory committee will be in his hands and whether he intends to table it in the House at the same time?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am just as keen as other hon. members to get the report. I have talked to the chairman of the advisory committee. There are many complex matters before the committee and they tell me they wish to have a few more days. It may be that it will come in two stages, first, an examination of the program and its concept at the national level and, second, an
Oral Questions
examination of the program as it is implemented in the field. They are conscious of the need to proceed quickly, but I hope hon. members will permit them time to complete their job.


ADEQUACY OF PROJECTED PLANTINGS OF WHEAT, BARLEY, RAPESEED AND FLAX TO MEET DEMAND-POSSIBILITY OF INCENTIVE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since Statistics Canada has come out with a crop report indicating that wheat, barley, rape-seed and flax will be down this year and down from the minister's own recommendations and also from what the government feels is the necessary level to meet demand, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is contemplating giving any incentive in any form to ensure that adequate acreages of these crops will be planted this spring?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not accurately depicting the results from the Statistics Canada survey since the indications of plantings are significantly up in wheat, up in barley and very close to the same level for rapeseed as in the previous year. The figures are down from the suggestions we made in our March 1 letter, mainly because farmers intend to leave more land in summerfallow than we had suggested. This, of course, can still change depending on weather conditions in the prairie region. The fact is that the distribution of acreage between the various crops is very encouraging, particularly the very strong emphasis remaining on barley. There remains some time for further consideration by farmers of increased acreages in all crops.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since the minister has raised the point that farmers will be planting approximately 24 million acres of wheat and since the government recommended that the figure should be approximately 28 million acres-I disagree with him on this point and also so far as barley is concerned-if the proposed plantings are followed by farmers, and since the amount cited by Statistics Canada will not be adequate to meet demands in the coming year, does the government intend to give any indication that it will increase the initial prices for Wheat Board grains and will it also give a further incentive to rapeseed producers for this coming year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we did already indicate an increase of 15 cents per bushel in the case of barley as a specific encouragement to the production of barley and as I said, the relationship of barley to wheat is very encouraging indeed. The hon. member again is making a mistake with regard to what we suggested to the farmers. If he reads the March 1 letter very carefully he will see we said they should plant a maximum of 28 million-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are already rising for supplementaries but perhaps they might allow the minister to complete his reply. I am not referring to the hon. member. The minister has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is fairly important, I think, that hon. members understand that the March 1 letter indicated that there should be a maximum of 28 million acres of wheat. In other words, we were urging farmers not to go higher than that figure under any circumstances because of the need to stay in barley and rapeseed in a significant way. The total prices of grain, not the initial prices, of course are the main sign of encouragement to farmers with regard to the planting of grain. These prices are very good. There is every indication that they will remain very good, and I will continue to speak to farmers about planting a little more grain and putting a little less land into summerfallow this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


RAPESEED-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF GUARANTEED PRICE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's expressed desire to increase the amount of rapeseed produced, may I ask him whether he is prepared to set up a support or guaranteed price for rapeseed that will make it as attractive to farmers as to grow crops such as wheat which have a support price in effect through the initial price?


Otto Emil Lang: Any question of an initial price or support price for rapeseed would depend upon the disposition of a question to farmers about the manner in which they want rapeseed marketed. I am surprised, though, by the hon. member's statement because certainly in the last ten years or so rapeseed has given a greater return to the farmer than any of the other grains.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the situation we find ourselves in Canada with regard to feed grain stocks and wheat, would the minister not consider making a public apology to western grain producers for his perpetration of the Lift program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us if the recent increase in the interest rates that the Governor of the Bank of Canada announced last

week is altogether in line with the federal government's financial policy, whether the Bank of Canada had informed the federal government of its intention to increase interest rates, and whether this decision was taken unilaterally by the Bank of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the distinct impression that this question was asked a few days ago. If I am mistaken, the minister may answer the hon. member for Shefford. If not, I shall recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a supplementary question.
I checked the answers given these past few days by the Minister of Finance and he surely did not answer that question because none was similar to mine.
Does the monetary or financial policy of the Bank of Canada concerning the increase in interest rates announced last week truly represent the monetary policy of the government or is it a unilateral decision taken by the Bank of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is the prime responsibility of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to which the government has found no objection.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the Bank of Canada had given notice to the federal government of its intention to raise the interest rates, or whether this government has heard of this just like all of us?


Mr. Speaker:: This is precisely the question which has already been put, but the minister may perhaps answer it again.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may I address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last night that the government intends to set up a prices review board by the end of this month, would the Prime Minister advise under what aegis or what legislation this would be done, what the authority would be and how the board would be funded, or is parliament to see this legislation or the proposals for the conduct of the board before it rises for the Easter recess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I believe I would not want to go any farther than what the minister stated last night when he indicated that the House would be seized with the measure and that mem-
April 11, 1973

bers would then see what form it would take. It would not be compatible with my decision to keep a low profile-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mi. Trudeau: -if I were to try to scoop the minister on an announcement such as this.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On Monday of this week the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked the minister whether the increase in bank rates would be reflected in increased NHA mortgage rates, and the minister assured him that there was no connection between bank rates and mortgage rates, and that in fact conventional mortgage rates had been going down during the last few months. In view of the announcement today that major financial institutions have increased their mortgage lending rates from 9 per cent to 91 per cent, would the minister take immediate initiatives to roll back this increase or, like the Minister of Communications did with respect to Bell Canada, stay the action of the banks and lending institutions until further study is made with regard to the increase?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I said there was no connection it so happens that turns out to be true. My understanding is that the NHA move was made prior to the announcement of the Bank of Canada, and there was no prior knowledge by the national housing administration of the increase in the bank rate by the Bank of Canada. As for rolling back rates, I have already dealt with that so far as it relates to the banks.


BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE INCREASE-REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC POLICIES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. As the action which the Bank of Canada took last week has started a general movement toward the tightening of credit throughout the whole economy, does the minister intend to review this action which the Bank of Canada took last week and would he, at the earliest opportunity on motions, outline to the House just what economic goals and just what economic policies the government is now following in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada made it quite clear that the monetary policy of the bank and of the country remains expansionary. I said to the hon. gentleman the other day that when I appear again on my departmental estimates before the standing committee on Monday night, if there is no contrary engagement here in the House, I will be glad to expand on that.
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to try to convey to the House that he believes rising interest rates do not tighten up credit and that this does not constitute a tight money policy, in effect and in action, whether it is his opinion or not?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have asked a very important economic question which the minister has not answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Leader of the Opposition.


George Harris Hees: Tight money Turner! Tight money Turner! Here we go again with tight money Turner!


BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE INCREASE-DROP IN PRICE OF LONG-TERM BONDS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The other day he said in the House that the change in the bank rate would not be reflected in mortgage rates or in the interest rates structure generally. I would like to ask him whether he has taken notice officially of the fact that immediately following the increase in the bank rate the prices of long-term bonds fell, meaning that long-term interest rates went up immediately?


John Napier Turner: I did, and so did the market, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR FREEZE ON INTEREST RATES ON CMHC LOANS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State responsible for housing whether, since increased interest rates are now being charged on money lent on mortgages, he would be prepared to freeze interest rates on all uninsured CMHC loans, that is, loans not guaranteed, to make certain that public housing and low cost housing remain unaffected, because rent increases are now eroding the purchasing power of those on fixed incomes, particularly old age pensioners, from whom we are getting thousands of letters?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have already made clear to the House that rentals for senior citizens under the control of CMHC have been frozen, and I have written to the provincial housing agencies with regard to rental rates in public housing developments and sought their co-operation in seeing to it that there are no increases this year. I have been receiving favourable responses from the provinces. However, the interest rates charged by CMHC for the type of loans mentioned in the question are established in the act relative to the government's borrowing rates. That is determined by the legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope I understood the minister-

April 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North for a second supplementary on this subject and then the hon. member for Hamilton West because, from the number of supplementaries being sought on this subject, I suspect that we could again have a full fledged budget debate during the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a prelude to my question, I hope the minister is not suggesting that the rates are set out in the act. When the matter comes before the cabinet, for the rates to be set by order in council, will he take the position that these rates of interest on money to be lent for public housing and low cost housing under the new program he has been talking about will be frozen at a rate that will enable people on fixed incomes and pensions to be able to afford shelter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the beneficial interest rate charged by CMHC should be related to the government's borrowing rate. I would have much preferred to have an increase in the budget for very substantial subsidization of rents for senior citizens and public housing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for immigration regarding the very unsatisfactory state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. I have to interrupt him because the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and yesterday, and again today with the hon. member for Shefford, questions were raised with the Minister of Finance regarding a formal communication or sanction of the move by the Bank of Canada. I know Your Honour will realize that the question has been put to the minister before, but the minister has not given a clear answer whether the move means that a restrictive monetary policy is now officially sanctioned government policy. I think the hon. member for Shefford had a very legitimate question and the minister did not answer, or perhaps was not permitted to answer. I think it should be on the record whether this policy has been formally sanctioned in communications between the minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I again apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. He has the floor.


IMMIGRATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for immigration. In light of the very unsatisfactory situation with respect to immigration and the accelerating number of appears, and in order to clear the air, would

the minister advise whether in fact he has legislation prepared in order to deal with the appeal board, and how long has it been ready for presentation to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before the committee last Thursday, we hope to present legislation amending the Immigration Appeal Board Act in the very near future, the exact time depending on House business.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. The number of appeals has reached 840 per month, compared with 212 last September. Could the minister advise the House why priority was not given to the presentation of legislation dealing with the appeal board? Why has it been given such low priority in view of this accelerating crisis?
Hem. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, there is no low priority attached to this item. As soon as the bill is put on the order paper we will make an effort to have it dealt with as quickly as possible. I do not think that will be likely before the Easter adjournment, but soon after that we ought to be in a position to deal with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House if this is the same legislation that was presented to the cabinet two years ago and was scuttled by the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West has a further supplementary on this subject.


RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO CHECK ON EMPLOYMENT VISAS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, it is a related question involving immigration. The minister has tried to clear up a problem that exists regarding employers. We understood that he was going to use a gentle hand with visitors but we found they were placed in jail. He said he would not use a heavy hand with employers. Can the minister advise the House of the situation respecting employers prior to the imposition of the regulations covering employment visas? I believe he has an answer which would clarify the situation.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of an employer is that he may not knowingly employ a person who requires, yet does not possess, an employment visa. It has always been an offence to knowingly induce, aid or abet, or attempt to induce, aid or abet any person to violate a provision of the Immigration Act and the regulations thereunder. On the presumption that employers have not knowingly violated the law prior to March 31, 1973, it is not required that they go back through their employment records to check the legality of their employees prior to that date.
April 11, 1973


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the transport committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. member for Crowfoot, by an all-party vote last night recommended that the government restorate rail passenger service in Newfoundland, at the instigation of my colleague the hon. member for St. John's West, does the minister propose to take the necessary action to implement this all-party recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply to the question, but the hon. member for St. John's East knows it is irregular to refer to a decision of a committee or to the proceedings of a committee until a report has been made. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the hon. member's question which I believe is irregular.


An hon. Member:: Say yes, Jean.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would rephrase the question and, as a prelude, suggest to the minister that he confer with the distinguished chairman of the committee to find out what went on last night. Is the minister now prepared to expedite a study, which was commissioned by the department, into all phases of ground transportation in Newfoundland; and if that study has been completed, when will the minister report its findings to the House?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the physical location of the chairman of the committee has nothing to do with my relationship with him. Although I do not know exactly what the committee decided last night, there is no doubt that we will have to study, and ask the CTC to study, the restoration of railway service in Newfoundland.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the bribe of $25 offered by the Royal Bank of Canada to prospective borrowers of $1,000 or more, which was condemned by the Consumers' Association of Canada, can the minister tell the House whether he has investigated this practice and, if so, can he report to the House?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Trinity raised that point a day or so ago. I relayed the position to the bank.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the minister personally urge the Royal Bank of Canada to stop this irresponsible action?
Oral Questions
Would he make a recommendation to the bank on behalf of the government?


STATUTORY HOUDAYS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the most historic holiday we have in Canada, July 1, falls on Sunday this year, and the statute states it must be celebrated on the day on which it falls, can the minister tell the House and Canada on what day the holiday will be celebrated?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the act also provides that when the day is a Sunday the celebration will take place on the following Monday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of the Environment, I am not sure which. Perhaps the minister responsible will answer. In view of the importance of the next Law of the Sea Conference, which will determine for many years into the future the distribution of our marine resources as well as the development of the mineral and petroleum resources on our continental shelf, is it the intention of the government to make a statement on motions in this House, when convenient, so that members will be aware of the stand to be taken by Canada on this important matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can undertake on behalf of my colleague and myself to make such a statement, but it is for consideration whether it might not be more useful to give it in one of the standing committees. In any event, we would be prepared to make a statement.


VIET NAM-DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF ICCS RESPECTING RECENT INCIDENTS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the incidents which took place recently in Viet Nam, could the minister tell this House whether he has had contacts, through diplomatic channels or otherwise, with representatives of Poland, Hungary and Indonesia, and if so, what have been the reactions of these countries?

April 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had some contact because I sent messages of sympathy to the countries whose nationals had been killed in the same helicopter crash. I have under consideration having discussions with their representatives here or through our representative abroad in those countries as to their reaction to this unfortunate tragedy.


Claude Wagner: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Did the minister protest to the NLF and did he receive any apologies for this incident?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We have received from the representatives of the Provisional Revolutionary Government an explanation of the event which is the same as the one I gave in my statement to the House in which they claimed that the helicopter was off course and that there was an accident.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTION THAT BUDGET BE DOUBLED
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that inadequacy of credits made available to the department in charge of administration of the Opportunities for Youth program makes it impossible for the minister to approve more than one-third of projects submitted, could he tell us whether he intends to call for an emergency meeting of the Cabinet in order to consider the possibility of doubling the amounts allocated to that program?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not.


DEFINITION OF &quot;PRODUCER&quot; FOR VOTE ON WHETHER FLAX, RAPESEED AND RYE SHOULD BE MARKETED THROUGH WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board supplementary to a question already asked. In view of the mounting interest in western Canada in the forthcoming vote on the marketing of flax, rapeseed and rye through the Canadian Wheat Board, may I ask the minister what the definition or requirements of a voting producer will be?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot answer at this stage, Mr. Speaker. We are having discussions with various farm organizations concerning the nature of any questions put, and also the qualifications of voters. There have been suggestions as to two basic types, that it be a vote by rapeseed growers only, on the one hand, or a vote by all permitholders on the other. This is the issue to be resolved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. Have any of the other countries represented on the International Commission of Control and Supervision suggested in any way that as a result of recent events they wish to withdraw from the commission or see it dissolved?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I have received no reports or representations of that kind. The commission, of course, is considering the implications of the tragedy for the operations of the commission itself, but that relates to the deployment of the teams.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION REASON FOR REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF WOMEN MEMBERS AND THOSE WITH BROADCASTING EXPERIENCE
Mr. I. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. What was the basis of the criterion that the minister used to reduce from two to one, out of a total of 15, the number of women serving with the CRTC, and to reduce from three to two the number of individuals with broadcasting experience?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that there is constant disruptions in agencies of this kind. We must always attempt to reach the most perfect equilibrium. I would add for the encouragement of the hon. member that vacancies sometimes occur in the CRTC as in other similar agencies. Even if, at times, there seems to be some disruption, the government keeps in mind that it must be remedied as soon as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the importance of the CRTC to the communications industry in Canada and the quasijudicial nature of that body, would the minister check with the chairman of the CRTC so that he may assure the
April 11, 1973

House that all commissioners, both full time and part time, appointed to that body did not hold political office at the time of appointment or during appointment?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think such control devolves upon the minister who makes recommendations to the cabinet, which makes the appointments. I am therefore responsible for this control in the case of the CRTC.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister under active consideration a proposal to allow expenditures undertaken to protect shoreline property from erosion damage as an authorized deduction from taxable income?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that representation very seriously.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to indicate whether he will accede to Air Canada's request to eliminate customs pre-clearance for all airlines on April 29 at Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver? If the minister has not yet made a decision, is he taking into account the substantial inconvenience and expense that will be caused to the travelling public and to Canadian business if this request is approved?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter we are now discussing. The president of Air Canada is now on his way to Montreal. I hope that in a few days I can give a more precise answer to the House.


AIR CANADA
John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have given the minister notice of my question. As Air Canada has just completed a study which could result in the restructuring of the company's financial division, while at the same time the Canada Airline Employees Association is involved in
Oral Questions
negotiations, will the minister assure the House that no restructuring will take place while these negotiations are in progress?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. However, I cannot see very well the relationship between the two matters he has mentioned. I will make sure that this difficulty does not exist, because employee negotiations and the restructuring of finances are two different matters.


INDEMNIFICATION OF THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS- ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MINISTER
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On March 12, the minister stated that certain cases of thalidomide victims in Quebec had been settled by the payment of $3,600 in compensation, and that this compensation did not seem high enough.
On April 4, the minister made a statement on cases yet to be settled, but he made no mention of those where the settlement seems clearly too low and discriminatory.
Can he tell us today whether he has ordered an inquiry into the cases that were settled unfairly?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I never made the first statement for the good reason that I know nothing about the matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that concern has been expressed by residents of Vernon, British Columbia, that proper precautions have not been taken to seal off the Camp Vernon training range to prevent further dangerous accidents similar to the one that killed two boys the other day, will the minister have this matter further investigated and make sure that every precaution is taken to provide maximum safety in the future?


James Armstrong Richardson: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I have told the House that the RCMP are investigating, and we are co-operating fully.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe.

April 11, 1973
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


BASIC RATE OF PENSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON JOINT STUDY REPORT
Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am getting my monthly nibble. My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of conflicting answers given in the House last week concerning legislation arising out of the joint study report on the basic rate of pension, and the fact that the House leader indicated that legislation would not be introduced before the Easter recess, would the minister make a statement on motions before the Easter recess outlining the government's position on this report?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, as I indicated to the House last week this question is now before the government. In keeping with government policy, when I have official information it will be released to the House in the normal way.


TARIFF BOARD
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Tariff Board is a quasi-judicial body that is of significance to the economy of Canada, can the minister inform the House of the qualifications of the recent appointee, Mr. Deachman? How is he qualified to serve on the board?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deachman has been a great public servant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -who developed his judicial qualities to a very high degree in this House. As a matter of fact, he is replacing a very good former Member of Parliament who was appointed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the House whether within his department there is a contingency plan to train public relations men in basic economics?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good idea and I would be very pleased to enrol the hon. member as one of the first trainees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I had hoped that one or two more questions could be asked without supplementar-ies before we call orders of the day and proceed with a very important item of business which I know hon. members are anxious to discuss.


QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment.
In view of the damages caused by flooding in the province of Quebec and elsewhere, and since a spokesman for the Quebec government appeared to imply that it was possible to get help from the federal government to make up for such losses, has the minister received from the government of Quebec an official request for financial assistance?


John (Jack) Davis: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


SHIPPING
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is another high-water question but it pertains to his department. I have received complaints from people along the shores of Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte that the wash from lake vessels under full speed is damaging shoreline properties already vulnerable because of high-water levels. In many cases the wash from these ships is destroying the work already carried out for the protection of buildings and property. Would the minister order that all ships reduce speed within a certain distance from shore, in this emergency situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, last week I issued a communique on this matter. I do not know whether it covers the exact area referred to by the hon. member, but I will check into it so that ships do not destroy the shoreline.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and then proceed to return to motions.


HARBOURS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister received a request from the Northern Development Council of British Columbia for information concerning studies carried out by his department in connection with port development at Prince Rupert? Have

April 11, 1973

studies been carried out, and has the minister sent a reply to the Northern Development Council?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, studies have been carried out. I do not recall having received a request from the development council which the hon. member has in mind, but I will check this and send them copies of the studies.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion about the matter I raised earlier. It is hoped that the following might appeal to the House. As there will not be enough time today for hon. members to be advised of all the facts on this very interesting subject, it has been suggested that the first speaker for each party might speak for half an hour and all other speakers for 15 minutes. As I understand it, the government will undertake to bring the matter back for one hour's debate, hopefully at the same time as the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, at which time members may be able to come to a decision as to what they want to do and whether there will be a vote.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I accept the first part of the suggestion but I am reluctant to accept the idea that we come back for one hour's debate or set a time limit on the subject matter. I am reluctant to accept the suggestion that if it is talked out tonight there should be that restriction if it is brought back as a result of government initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: There is apparently agreement as to the length of speeches. If there is unanimous consent, it will be so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has already been put. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) that the second report of the standing committee on Indian affairs and Northern development, presented to the House on April 4, 1973, be concurred in.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I indeed feel privileged to have the opportunity to move this motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is my hope that the government will allow this motion to come to a vote.


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


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The subject we are discussing today deals with the concept of aboriginal title. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the first time this vital matter has been debated in the House; the first time in over 100 years that it has received the attention and consideration of the House as a whole. Why is this? Is it because it was not considered of significance and importance in our earlier history? No, indeed. It is because this is the first time a government has failed to recognize the concept of aboriginal rights and has rejected the concept outright.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Previous governments may have failed to fulfil their obligations to the hundreds of thousands of Indian people, but they never questioned the principle. Not until 1969, following the introduction of the government's white paper on Indian policy when the minister stated that aboriginal claims to land were not realistic, was a Prime Minister of this country to say of this question, and I quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Our answer, it may not be the right one and may not be the one which is accepted ... our answer is no.
The issue of aboriginal rights is tremendously important. This is not a fad; this is a fact. By our action in this House we acknowledge the significance and importance of aboriginal rights, not only to members of this House but also to the hundreds of thousands of native people in every province and territory of this country. It is these native people, exhausted with constant questions of what aboriginal rights mean to them, tired of telling us of their attachment to the land which once fed, clothed and housed them, who are watching with interest what we do and say in this House. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to clarify the confusion which has surrounded the whole question of aboriginal rights in the past few years. Simply stated, aboriginal rights, native title or whatever expression the government is comfortable with is simply the right of an Indian tribe or band to use and occupy their traditional lands.
In recent weeks the government has elaborated on its stance. It has elaborated on, but not clarified, its position. For instance, the Prime Minister said at the time of the Nishga judgment:
Perhaps you had more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper.
The Progressive Conservatives have no such qualifications-no ifs, no ands, no perhaps's. We will not shirk our responsibility by saying we are merely thinking about the concept. We give wholehearted recognition to the concept of aboriginal rights. I may say, we deplore the failure of the present government to boldly face this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The
Progressive Conservative Party undertakes to settle fairly the outstanding aboriginal claims of Canada's native people. We intend to work toward a negotiated settlement of disputed treaty and aboriginal claims, and we will do so in full and fair consultation with the native peoples involved.

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
We should not confuse the issue before this House today. What we are debating today is recognition of the principle of aboriginal rights. We are not debating the machinery that will have to be established to work out these claims, the details of settlements involved, the kind of research that will have to be carried out, who and how many persons are involved or the length of time that will elapse before all claims are settled. None of these important aspects will be solved overnight. But they cannot even begin to be solved until the underlying, fundamental principle of aboriginal rights is accepted-and that is what we are debating today.
Let us take a brief look at the historical perspective of this question. The concept of aboriginal rights or title was developed in the colonial context of North America. The first major colonial power, Spain, did not initially recognize native land rights but gradually came to understand that recognition was necessary on practical and moral grounds. In the sixteenth century, Spain enacted its laws of the Indies which established clear, legal recognition of Indian aboriginal land rights. The leading American legal scholar, Felix Cohen, considered that the recognition of aboriginal title in the United States had its origins in the Spanish precept.
It is clear that the recognition of Indian land rights goes back to the early periods of colonial settlement and represents practical experience that non-recognition led to a real sense of injustice on the part of the native which endangered colonial settlement. Today, that real sense of injustice undermines any attempt to develop programs which can meaningfully respond to the problems of native communities of Canada.
The concept of aboriginal title which was developed in the context of North America was later applied to other colonial areas. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Indian Claims Commissioner, Dr. Lloyd Barber, have all publicly praised the native policies of New Zealand. The concept of legal aboriginal land rights was fully recognized in New Zealand and, as a result, a better foundation for race relations was laid there.
In Australia we see the other face of British colonial policy-a denial of land rights and a refusal to make treaties. This has led to public demonstrations and the need for reopening the issues of aboriginal land rights there. The new commonwealth government in Australia has appointed a commission to make recommendations on the entire question of aboriginal land rights. There is clear evidence that a policy which fails to recognize aboriginal land rights sows seeds of bitterness and distrust.
All we can do, to quote a phrase the Prime Minister often uses, is to try to be just in our time. We must, in our time, attempt to redress the omissions of the past and lay foundations for the future, based on recognition of real legal rights of native people to their historic lands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Let us not
try to hide from the fact that as a nation we have proudly

proclaimed that we have recognized Indian land rights. Let me quote from a new publication of the Department of Indian Affairs, a booklet entitled "The Canadian Indian-A Brief Outline."
Early in the settlement of North America, the British sovereign recognized, as a matter of policy, an Indian interest in the lands they occupied-which could be extinguished by agreement with the Indians and only to the Crown.
This is similar to statements made in the past by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs in testimony before joint committees and in written statements by the department.
Over and over again during the treaty period in the west, the commissioners speaking for the crown, and the orders in council appointing the commissioners, refer to an Indian title which had to be extinguished. Mr. Justice Hall, in his judgment in the case of Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, states that if treaties were not designed to extinguish aboriginal rights, they were a fraud on the part of the government, and, he said, that was not to be presumed.
The treaties stand as a clear recognition of the aboriginal rights of the Indian people who signed them. They have not always been honoured or fulfilled, but the recognition is there. There are significant areas in this country where no treaties were signed and no reserves established for native communities. Much of this territory was covered by the royal proclamation of 1763 which, by its wording, is a clear recognition of aboriginal rights. It does not purport to create the rights; it assumes the rights exist. I quote:
And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to our interests and the security of our colony that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected and who live under our protection should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us are reserved to them or any of them as their hunting grounds-
According to Mr. Justice Hall, the royal proclamation applied to Hudson Bay territories, or Rupert's Land, and to lands west of the continental divide. Thus we see that treaties which were entered into as a recognition of native title to the land, and the proclamation of 1763 which assumed the existence of aboriginal rights in vast areas of the country not covered by treaties, provide the legal basis for this concept. The federal government was to remain the trustee for this concept, for when the British North America Act was written, "Indians and the lands reserved for Indians" were included under section 91 which sets out the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
So we see the historical position of the federal government was always one of recognition of aboriginal title. This was always the position,-that is, until the government policy statement of 1969. That statement was considered unjust and threatening by Indian people all across Canada. We are only going to make progress in this difficult area if dealings with the native people are placed on a firm and clear basis and not on the shifting sands of temporary policies and programs which are viewed by the government as gifts which can be given or withheld.
I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to some of the convoluted interpretations this government has brought
April 11, 1973

to our clearly defined historical acceptance of aboriginal rights. As I said, the government has elaborated on its stance in recent weeks but still has not clarified its position. If anything, it was further muddled by the appearance of the minister of indian affairs on a national television show last Sunday. At that time he seemed to be seeking a definition of aboriginal rights. He made it clear he would like to hear from the other parties-and he is hearing from them today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I find it ludicrous that a man who has been minister of Indian affairs for five years should have to ask others for a definition of aboriginal rights. What has he been doing for the last five years, if he hasn't learned that? On the telecast to which I referred, the minister said we cannot have a national aboriginal rights policy because different legal situations exist. He might not be able to adopt a national aboriginal rights policy, but let me tell the minister that every government down through the years has recognized the existence of aboriginal rights. How else can we interpret what has gone on in the past?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right on.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Some of the rights have been extinguished, others have been abrogated; but their existence was never before denied. However, the government, as the minister said on Sunday on television, is not prepared to present its current position, though it has abandoned the 1969 policy paper it tried to force on the Indian people. The minister told us he is devising a position which the government is now analysing. In the meantime the native peoples wait, and hope to be consulted. What we are seeing in the interim is a series of ad hoc arrangements with no over-all thrust. The government is content to hide behind a smokescreen of individual arrangements, ignoring the fact that Indians, through their brotherhoods and national councils, have repeatedly requested recognition of aboriginal rights.
I would like to mention briefly, Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments at that time in regard to the James Bay situation. He clearly stated in the TV broadcast that the rights of the James Bay Indians were "not based on the large concept of aboriginal rights". He did, however, state that they were basing their claims on the royal proclamation of 1763. Mr. Speaker, if the royal proclamation of 1763 is not a clear recognition of aboriginal rights as proven earlier-as stated by the Supreme Court of this country-what else is it? How can the minister say the James Bay Indians are not basing their claims on aboriginal rights when they point to the royal proclamation of 1763 as one of their guarantees?
Time and again throughout the television program the minister referred to the rights and responsibilities of the provincial government in the James Bay project. I would like to hear him refer just once to the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government to the James Bay Indians. He has not once commented on it or dealt with it. He has evaded the issue, avoided, abdicated, skirted around and brushed aside the fact that the government has constitutional responsibility for the James Bay Indi-
Indian Affairs
ans and their claims as aboriginal citizens. He retreats behind grants of money to pay court costs and the explanation that he might be regarded as paternalistic if the government tried to exercise its constitutional responsibility. Paternalistic-when you have a constitutional responsibility involving the way of life and continued existence of a people to uphold!
The minister has the audacity to say, and I quote: "If the Indians win, you know, the Quebec government will be in a very difficult position". Let me tell the minister that if the Indians win, it is because they and the courts recognize the federal constitutional position, something that the federal government of this country has refused to do. And let me further advise the minister not to spend his time worrying about the position of the provincial government; it is the federal government which will be in a tough spot trying to justify its action or, more importantly, its inaction.
The minister also used this TV appearance to lecture the standing committee about its attitudes. The minister claimed outside the House-not to the committee itself or to the House but outside the House to the national media-that the committee is irresponsible in its attitudes. How is it irresponsible? I suppose it is irresponsible because it seeks to reaffirm the concept accepted in this country since 1763-over 200 years ago-and recognized as a valid concept in this country until 1969. And for that he considers the committee irresponsible.
Has the minister really looked at the resolution? We have recommended the recognition of the concept of aboriginal rights as set out in the paper entitled "Aboriginal Title" presented by the National Indian Brotherhood, which says that where treaties have not extinguished aboriginal title, settlements be made; and that where fair and reasonable compensation has not been provided under the treaties, the original terms be relied on.
Is the minister not prepared to rely on fair treaties? Is that what he is saying? Because if it is, it is about time he considered his own responsibility as a minister of the Crown. The minister might consider the committee irresponsible, but was he not being irresponsible in some of his statements on television in dealing with this highly emotional and sensitive issue? What sort of game is the minister playing when he makes statements like, "If it means we have to renegotiate all the treaties in Canada, there are some cities that perhaps have been built on land that is perhaps not Canadian land"? Who is making such claims? None of the responsible Indian leaders I have been talking to. What is he seeking to do by such extreme statements? Is he trying to create fear and uncertainty among Canadians in order to produce an over-reaction in the country among people who are not sure of the concept themselves because the government refuses to make its position known? The minister must know how easy it is to inflame prejudice.
Further, he said on that program, "There are Indians in B.C. who say B.C. is all Indian land and there should not be a white man there". What kind of irresponsible comment is that? He does not document that statement. Has the minister looked-really looked-at the British

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
Columbia land claim submitted by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and which has been sitting on his desk since last July having had no formal answer or analysis? I know he has talked to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I also know that the Prime Minister has said, "Perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper". But what kind of answer is that? Has he really looked at the moderate, reasonable position put forward by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs? It is not the type of extremist statement he attributed to B.C. Indians on national television. Here are some quotes from their brief:
We are asking for compensation for loss of those rights of occupancy and use of lands for which loss we have never received compensation and for adjustment of the compensation in those few cases covered by treaties where the compensation was inadequate.
We rely on the sense of justice of the Canadian people and believe that Canadians will insist that their government recognize and deal with our claims because it is just. We have been deprived of valuable rights which we used to enjoy exclusively and of right, and have been deprived of them without compensation. That is not just.
We have not set a total value on our claim. Our suggestion is that the claim be accepted in principle and that machinery be established by which it can be valued in detail. And that an award or awards be made of the amount so established.
That is what I call a responsible statement. We were pleased when the government agreed to arrangements for a negotiated settlement with the Yukon Native Brotherhood. Their claim was presented in February. The B.C. claim was submitted last July and they are still waiting.
If the minister wants further indication of the responsibility of the Indian organizations, perhaps he has read the statement to the committee last night of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, who said they seek redress for unfulfilled treaties through negotiated settlement via an appeal to parliament for fair and reasonable compensation. Their presentation was heartily applauded by all members of the standing committee. And what did it basically involve? A recognition of aboriginal title and compensation for those reserves which have been lost to them over the years, 98 such reserves, regardless of their original treaty rights.
Let me briefly commend the chairman of the committee, the member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), for his clear and forthright statement in London ten days ago when he said that the federal government should recognize the claims of Canada's aboriginal peoples to lands never ceded to the white man through treaties. The native people have a moral claim the government must recognize, the chairman said. I say he is a credit to his party and his committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what we have been talking about-the recognition of the concept so long accepted which will culminate not tomorrow, next week or next year but over a long period of negotiation. In our treaties, under our revered British jurisprudence and through Canadian court decision this valuable concept was never in doubt until this government's white paper of 1969.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what are the alternatives before us? One is to continue the present system. This involves making a people increasingly dependent on a giant bureaucracy which, regardless of its good intentions, has not produced any long-term solutions to an increasingly important issue or seen any significant maximization of the potential of our native people. Are they satisfied with their present status? Are we? Why should they suffer a mortality rate five times the rate for all Canada? Why should their average life expectancy be half that of other Canadians? Their housing is hopelessly inadequate and overcrowded. Their school drop-outs are double those of non-Indians. Their unemployment rate is 80 per cent during the winter and 60 per cent in the summer. Surely the costs, social costs like these, are far more difficult to bear than the settlements the native people seek.
I express my thanks and congratulations to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and to the Secretary of State for the encouragement they have provided in helping the native organizations create the remarkable cadre of leadership which is now emerging. The organizations are now of a calibre where they can produce their own research, their own negotiating teams and their own goals for their people.
There is a second alternative. We must see the settlement of native claims as giving the possibility for laying honourable and decent foundations for the future of native communities. It gives us the chance to put the relationship of the government and the native peoples on the basis of rights, not charity. It gives us the possibility of making social capital available for native communities themselves, under their own control. That gives hope for viable, proud and functional native communities, which surely is the common goal we must all strive for in this country.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an historic day because, so far as anybody knows, it is the first time a formal proposition has been made to the House in respect of aboriginal rights on which there can be a vote. I think we should appreciate the decision made in the country on October 30 last. At that time the people of this land said they did not want a continuation of the power play concept in parliament and placed upon us the obligation to search ourselves diligently for solutions to many of the long-standing problems people have had, but which have been ignored, and the need to recognize that aboriginal rights fall within this category. Had it not been for the decision of October 30 which resulted in a House of Commons of this construction, I suggest we would not be dealing with this subject matter in this way.
The competition for office that took place prior to the last election resulted in the Conservative party moving from a position of aloofness in this matter to one of commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Hon. members say "Oh, oh" about that, but if they look back a number of years they will find that the Conservative party was aloof and apart from this simple question. As a result of that campaign and the election of
April 11, 1973

October 30, the Liberal party moved from a position of absolute rejection to one of qualified consideration. That is not moving very far. None the less, it moved them from the position of objecting to the recognition of aboriginal rights.
I shall read into the record a statement issued on June 12, 1969, about two weeks before the government white paper on Indian affairs came down. It was introduced and made public in an attempt to influence the government and the minister in the development of that so-called white paper. I will read a few extracts from this policy statement issued by the New Democratic Party. I will not read it all, but it is all available. The words I intend to quote have significance today because they have an even stronger ring of truth today than they had in 1969. The statement commences as follows:
In dealing with Indian affairs today we must do so with a more intense look at history than has been the case in the past... in looking forward and providing redress for the multitude of grievances which our native Indian people have, we must always remember the starting point of those grievances-
The one basic area in which conflict arose was that which related in a general sense to the culture of the native Indian and how that culture was defeated by the European. Between the two groups there was a very fundamental difference in the concept of nature, of land, of the resources. The native Indian had a spiritual and communal concept of life which the invaders could not have, for their quest was to conquer and to claim and to own all that they came across in the name of their mother country and/or their religion.
It continues:
The treaties imposed one culture and concept of land on top of another and replaced it.
The treaties were never drafted, prepared or interpreted from the point of view of the native Indian. In fact, his point of view was never really considered-
It continues, but that is the basis of the declaration we made at that time about the need to recognize aboriginal title or rights. I do not want again to go into the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the fall of that year, in which he said absolutely no. It has been quoted by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the minister and the government know of it. I think it is worthwhile to put on the record a statement which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) made in June of last year after he had an opportunity to reflect upon the 1969 white paper position. When speaking of the rejection by the Indian people of the white paper he had introduced on June 26, he said:
They rejected them on the grounds that they gave no recognition to special rights and status for Indians.
He then made statements as to reasons for the rejection of the white paper and wound up with this very significant declaration:
If the government had shown willingness to entertain Indian concepts of aboriginal rights and had in place a cultural program to strengthen and reinforce Indian pride in self, their attitude to the proposals might have been different and probably much more favourable.
That was a recognition, in June of last year, by the minister that he and his government had been wrong in 1969 in rejecting the idea of aboriginal rights. On this very day the alternatives or choices available to us are these:
Indian Affairs
First, we can stand and be counted in a vote on this particular motion, declaring ourselves in favour of aboriginal rights. We can recognize aboriginal title. Second, we can continue to debate the motion till the hour of six o'clock, at which time it will slip from its position on the order paper and come under the authority of government orders. Then at the initiative of the government it will be brought forward again or buried forever. Taking into account what happened in the committee on the night this motion was passed there, I accept the prospect that it will be talked out. This will be an indication that the government and the whole of the Liberal party do not want to stand and be counted on the question of aboriginal rights.
I make that assumption on the fact that the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), on the day this motion was before the committee, put his hand on the paper presented by the National Indian Brotherhood and said, "I can accept this. There's nothing wrong with this, and I agree with it". The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) did the same thing; he said, "Certainly we can all agree with this". Then when the vote came in the evening, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo denied his own inheritance by abstaining from the vote on a so-called, but spurious, procedural ground. I suggest the action taken then by Liberal members of the committee will show itself again today in the fact that those hon. members will talk out this motion. We are prepared to accept that that might happen.
I am prepared right now, if the House would agree, to sit down and we could vote. I will gladly do that. Someone suggested that from the other side. If I could obtain a commitment now from hon. gentlemen on the Liberal benches who were silent on that proposition, could we put the question now, Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent? The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says no. I will gladly relinquish my time to the minister so that he may speak for the whole 40 minutes. We could vote after he had spoken. Is there agreement to that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: The minister again says no. An hon. gentleman over here says no, too. He said no in the committee, but never mind that. They say no. It is on the record that the Liberal party does not want to vote on this. They are afraid of it and want to continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths about aboriginal rights.


An hon. Member:: Another 100 years.


Frank Howard: I hope they do not last that long. If we look back, history will show some fundamental things that have happened in respect of aboriginal title. When the explorers from Europe came to this land, they brought with them a different concept of land title than that which existed and which was in the minds and understanding of the native Indian people who lived in this land. The European brought with him the concept of land ownership that

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
was mixed up in a piece of paper and attached to the individual. Before that time and since that time, because this feeling still exists among the Indian people, on the question of aboriginal rights and title-and that is what this question is all about-the concept the Indian person had and still has about land is that it is a communal ownership and we are only custodians of that land for future generations. We only have the use of it and its resources while we are here, and have no right to destroy it in our use of it and thus deny future generations the same approach to it that we have.
There was a spiritual feeling about land. The feeling the native Indian people had about land was one that made it in tune with nature. There was a feeling, which varied from tribe to tribe, of an interchangeability of life and various forms of life. There was a religious feeling about land, about aboriginal title and about the use of land and its resources. There was respect for life forms which does not exist in our society in North America today. There was a companionship about the land, about what it encompassed and about the life of the human being.
When the European came with his greediness, his pieces of paper, his guns and his different religion-with missionaries paving the way-he brought into force a more demeaning concept of land ownership and title. The native Indian person, in the eyes of the explorer, the European, was a subhuman; he was not considered to be a person. Some while ago I was reading about the time that British Columbia was about to enter confederation. I read the debates which took place in this House of Commons prior to 1871. The debate that took place right here revolved partly around the number of Members of Parliament to be elected from the new province of British Columbia, and the number of senators to be assigned to it as it entered confederation.
The people who stood up in this House and debated whether or not the relationship in respect of the number of Members of Parliament and senators to the population of British Columbia was correct or not, in all instances said they were excluding the native Indian population in that province because they had never been counted as people in determining representation in the House of Commons. That was the attitude prior to 1871 about a group of people who have far more integrity and pride than most members in this chamber. They have greater respect for their history and their inheritance than many members in this chamber. But that was the attitude which existed at that time. They were looked upon the same as one looks upon the trees in the forest-as a resource, not as human beings.
Since that time society has perpetuated this attitude, has carried it forward and has ignored the rights of the Indian people in the process. I say that surely today we are more enlightened. Surely today we have more respect for the positions and rights of human beings. Surely we have an obligation today to deny those ancient mistakes. Surely we have an obligation to our integrity and to that of the native Indian people to correct those abuses and the neglect of people.
A responsibility rests upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a responsibility set out within the British North America Act and a responsi-

bility set out in the proclamation of George III in 1763. There was a responsibility on the founding fathers of this nation to carry into effect and to respect the principal declarations contained within the proclamation of 1763. Yet the founding fathers of this nation ignored them. However, just because that happened is no reason for the minister continuing to ignore his bounden responsibility, under the constitution, to the Indian people.
We cannot return to the past; we cannot go back 100 years or 200 years and start at the bottom. It is not possible. We are here today. This is where we must commence. We cannot erase the calendar, turn back the clock or say we wish it were otherwise. I think we must admit a couple of very simple, historical facts of life, and in admitting those we will recognize aboriginal title. I think we must recognize those historical facts of life, not in a legal sense as the Prime Minister demands and as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apparently demands, but in a moral sense as our conscience demands. We appeal to the government on that basis.
It is an historical fact of life that aboriginal rights and aboriginal title to land were not extinguished in some areas. There were no wars, no positions and no treaties. They still exist. If we recognize they still exist, that is all this motion asks us to do. It is a fact of life in those areas that it was simply a matter of imposition and encroachment by the European on the area under the domain of the native Indian. It is also a fact of life that the treaties are extremely sad documents. They were written in a language which the native person could not understand and could not read. They were interpreted to him by an interpreter, and he was asked to sign something he could not read and which was written in a language other than his own. He had no idea what they contained except his bounden faith and trust in people that what he was told was what would be contained in what he signed, or to what he put his "X". History shows that he was misled into thinking something was going to take place, and it did not.
It is a fact of life that the treaties imposed, without explanation, one concept of land on top of another. The treaties were endorsed and supported by the army and the church, with all the force and the power that the Crown, the kings and queens of England, could muster at that time. If the treaties extinguished any land titles, they extinguished them by theft, by subterfuge, and nothing else. And where there were no treaties, it was just straight theft, with indifference to the position of the Indian people.
This motion simply asks that we declare that we recognize aboriginal title and rights. The minister, in this program on Sunday, asked the opposition to tell him what they think about aboriginal rights, to give him some guidance and to spell it out for him. That is insulting and presumptuous on the minister's part and carries with it the old concept of his party and his government, that he knows best what is right for the Indian people.
I am not the least bit interested in trying to spell out aboriginal rights, because I do not think it is the function of this parliament to make one-sided decisions and then
April 11, 1973

approach the Indian people and tell them, "These are our decisions. Do you agree or not?" We have been doing that tor hundreds of years. I say we should simply recognize the historical facts which I mentioned previously. Aboriginal rights existed. They were not extinguished. We should sit down honourably with the people affected and identify with them what those rights are, spell them out and seek to negotiate with respect to them.
Parliament today is in an unique position, a position that as far as I know it has never before been in. Parliament has before it an opportunity to recognize the abuses and the neglect of the past and to set a course of redress for the future. The burdens arising from our history cannot any longer be carried on our conscience. We must no longer permit ourselves to hide from our obligations nor to deny the spiritual and cultural inheritance of the native peoples. Qualified consideration of aboriginal rights, of aboriginal title, is not enough. It is not strong enough; it is not honest.
This parliament, today, without seeking to talk the matter out, without seeking to go beyond six o'clock and to deny an opportunity for the matter to come back again only if it suits the convenience of government, must demand of itself the unselfish act of searching its own conscience, its own heart, its own integrity and declare that the native peoples of this land have aboriginal rights, have an aboriginal title. Surely nothing less than that kind of honourable declaration should be expected from a group of men and women who themselves carry the title of "honourable."


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this debate, which seems to me to be very important, for as I listened to the two previous speakers and to passed debates of various length, especially since the beginning of this session. I have realized that there are problems not just in the field of Indian affairs, but also concerning "land ownership" which had until now been attributed to the Indians, to the aborigines.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem, and it does not apply just to one area of Canada, but to the whole country, and even if I am not too well informed of what is going on in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the other provinces, I think I know a bit more about what is happening in the province of Quebec and in the eleventh province, which I represent, Abitibi.
Mr. Speaker, there is at the moment large scale development in this area, all of it in territory that belongs to the Indians, to the natives. There as elsewhere, the problem is that the government of Quebec simply told the natives: Move over, we are coming!
Mr. Speaker, the House should pay close attention to this point, and the federal government may be right in fearing an almost inevitable confrontation with the government of Quebec, for it is only recently that the province of Quebec has tried to take an interest in the Indians and to do anything for them. In fact, this only goes back as far as the quiet revolution of the Hon. Jean Lesage. A liberal minister who has since been elected leader of an opposition party and who is now sitting in the National Assembly indicated himself that it was time that Quebec
Indian Affairs
looked after the Indians in its territory, but that interest ran short and was of little profit for the Indians.
I have here a newspaper clipping from La Presse; it is an editorial by Mr. Guy Cormier dated Tuesday, July 16, 1968 which recalls statement by Indian chiefs on that subject. The article reflects the concern of the Indian chiefs at that time. Since then, we know that the government of Quebec put the Department of Natural Resources in charge of Indian and Eskimo affairs and the Indians, the interested party did not waste time to voice their opinion through their chiefs. Here are the words of chief Andrew Tanakokate Delisle:
Quebec also wants to look after the Indians? We will have more offices . .. where as usual, nobody takes responsibilities .. . We are tired to go from an office to another. All we want is to deal with responsible people. Moreover, I note once more that decisions are made without consultation. They talk about our rights. But, in my opinion, the ones who are in a position to speak of Indian rights in this province are the Indians themselves.
Mr. Speaker, when the decision was made by the government of Quebec to develop that large area of the James Bay basin for building a hydroelectric complex, they forgot to consult those most directly affected in that area. They acted with lightning speed merely to fulfil an election promise: new jobs had to be created and it was urgent.
Another chief, the one from Sept-Iles, showed a reaction still less pleasant than that of chief Delisle. Here is what he said:
Among all provinces, Quebec comes first as far as segregation is concerned ... If Quebecers, a minority in Canada, wish to be respected, let them begin by respecting the minorities close to them.
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat the history of the province of Quebec and of Cnada in general. I will limit myself chiefly to the province of Quebec and the James Bay development project, because that question is now in the limelight.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the intelligence of the Indian people should not be under-estimated. Let us not think that the Indians are not cunning. They are aware of the property they used to have.
That vast undevelopped territory may seem unimportant to white people, but if it were developped, we would be surprised to see the wealth it contains. It is not my intention at this stage to give details, as it was done on other occasions and we might have the opportunity to come back to that.
But the fact remains that the inhabitants of that area are aware of the situation. Indeed, the James Bay Indians know very well that they will never be able to stop hydro electric development in that area, especially when it has already been decided by Americans. Nevertheless they want to get at least a compensation for the territory they will lose.
Land has been expropriated for the Forillon park in Gaspesia; I will not question the amount paid but at least we have been paying. Land has been expropriated to develop the Valcartier military base. Once more, we have been paying. Land has been expropriated to build the
3214

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
Sainte-Scholastique Airport and once again, we have been paying.
If land is needed to build hydroelectric plants, we must pay. Let us expropriate, fair enough, but the land should be paid for. Perhaps the land is not as expansive as in other more developped areas but in view of the huge territory which we propose to take from the Indians, I think they should be adequately compensated.
In the February 1972 issued of Le Quebec Industriel, it is reported and I quote:
The James Bay area is a huge territory whose southern limits are some 300 miles from Montreal and the northern limits over 800 miles away. More precisely, the area extends westward to the Ontario border, southward to the 49th parallel, northward to the 55th parallel and eastward to the highwater line separating the Hudson Bay basins from those of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Its longest east-west dimension exceeds 400 miles. The total areas of this region is about 125,000 square miles or almost one fifth of the whole province or again more than the four Maritime provinces put together.
And this is only a small part of the federal constituency of Abitibi.
It is all that territory, 125,000 square miles, that is being hit, that the Quebec government expropriated to create under Bill 50 that huge municipality known as the James Bay municipality and which includes the towns of Chibougamau, Chapais, Matagami, Joutel and in the western corner the rural municipalities of Villevois, Val Paradis and Beaucanton; the municipality covers the whole basin to be used for that hydroelectric development.
Mr. Speaker, it is all that territory that is being taken away in one shot from the Indians living in that area. Some say that they are not numerous, roughly 6,000, but that territory is important to them. They own it by right. It is theirs. It is obvious that the project is important but as I said a while ago the Indians know quite well that they will not be able to, and they do not want to, stop that development. But since that territory is theirs they want to benefit from it and I agree with them on that.
In the daily La Frontiere of September 25, 1968, there was an article by Andre Dionne. It is a very interesting article. It deals with the claims of the Indians and there is even concern because it is thought that Indians will claim more and take action to have their rights asserted. It is not known exactly how far that could go. I quote from the paper:
The vast movement of conscience which characterizes the Indian people of Canada will soon give rise to claims they consider essential to their survival.
Talking only about those living in Quebec, they will very soon submit claims to the government of Quebec-
That was written in 1968, it was already started. It goes on to say:
Those territories are so vast in the province of Quebec alone that a very summary and partial assessment could run up to $4 billion.
That is about the amount Chief Max Gros-Louis put forward not too long ago.
It goes on to say:
The Quebec Indian Association which represents most of the 26,000 Indians of Quebec regards land rights as basic rights. Thus, it is the first stage.

To this end, the Indians have prepared the draft of a brief to be presented soon to the government of Quebec.
Through these negotiations, the Indians can get fair compensation for all the territories which have been taken from them since the 1760 Capitulation, as well as some other rights linked to territories and also for some territories which are not occupied.
During the conquest, French people held only a strip of land along the St. Lawrence valley. The rest of the Quebec territory was held by Indians who owned it, except for the northern part which was held by Eskimos.
On these Indian territories, white men exploit the most important natural resources, namely mines and forests.
The legal aspect.
One of the first arguments and probably the most basic: aboriginal rights.
Legal documents state that aboriginal rights are real rights; moreover, it is a right to the land, a right which confers Indians a legal title.
A second legal text reveals that the Indians or native people undoubtedly owned by right a real territory (real property) in the public and private meaning of the word.
Moreover, these territories were "occupied" in the legal meaning of the word: they were divided by real frontiers.
Each of those areas was entirely occupied by a band.
Mr. Speaker, those texts show without a doubt that the native people have some rights which must be upheld and which no government can repeal without any compensation.
Mr. Speaker, the debate deals today with the integrity of the territories rightfully belonging to the native people and I feel that this right must be recognized.
In a recent statement of the minister to the committee, he scarcely referred to the present conditions in Quebec as a result of the James Bay hydroelectric development.
It seems to me that up to now, this government as well as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) did not want to commit themselves more than necessary. They would rather let the native people fend for themselves and provide the necessary funds for their defence.
I wonder whether we could not go so far as to force the government of the province of Quebec to abide by the treaties concluded when the territory was granted through a confederation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I shall go no further with my comments at this stage, but I feel that the proposal submitted to the committee by Georges Manuel, President of the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada, should be concurred in.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate because, having been in my portfolio for five years, I have been involved in many discussions about Indian rights. It is always with great pleasure that I discuss them because, of course, as usual it is evident that the opposition parties are trying to catch up with what the government has already done. They just do not understand. They are always confused and it is important for us once in a while to come back here and tell them what is going on.
April 11, 1973

Today the opposition tried to ask the House to pass a motion relating to a committee report. The members of the committee, as I said on television, were entitled to expand a bit on the concept involved and to ask a few questions. There is a lot of sense in the proposition put forward by the president of the National Indian Brotherhood, and some questions have to be put by members of the committee. Of course, some questions are not answered by the report, and some implications relating to this matter were not clear in the minds of members of the committee.
However, I think the members of the committee were entitled to ask a few questions and to listen to other groups of Indians in Canada expressing their views. They were entitled to ask other people what they thought about this question and to see what could be done in some provinces about the situation. Everyone knows that not all provinces of Canada entered into confederation at the same time, and different legal situations exist in British Columbia, on the Prairies, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the Maritimes. Certainly there are many implications in this question. It is easy to be in favour of motherhood, and just as easy to say that the recognition of aboriginal rights is a simple matter.
We have already recognized in this land the rights of Indians and we have acted as never before. As recently as last week we established a committee to negotiate the rights of the Indians in the Yukon. Never before was this done. Between 1957 and 1962 the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was in this House. How did he vote on this question? When his party was in power it completely ignored the situation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, come on.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Never before was there a discussion with Yukoners about native rights. Only since last Friday was the committee established to negotiate the rights of natives in the Yukon. For years and years nobody could find a way around some of the difficulties. This government for the first time has found a way to sit down with the Indians in the Yukon, try to correct the problems there and come to an acceptable agreement. We are not only talking, like members of the opposition. When they see that we have made a good move, they come to this House and try to catch up with what is going on. We are not taking our time in talking. We are taking action which will solve the problems of the Indians in Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, come now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just a moment. It hurts to hear the truth, does it not? We are also talking about the B.C. land question. Perhaps the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) can help me in asking that provincial government to recognize the rights of the Indians in the Nishga area. The Indians who obtained a decision from the Supreme Court came to me a few weeks ago and asked me to speak to the B.C. government and claim some of that land for them. I have done so already. I was in B.C. as recently as ten days ago and discussed this matter with the provincial government. I hope the hon. member for
Indian Affairs
Skeena will talk to them too. It is easy for him always to say that he is possessed of all wisdom. I remember only too well that when I was in the House in 1969 to explain the new policy on Indian affairs, the hon. member for Skeena rose and said that the policy was all right; the only thing wrong with it was that it was 25 years too late. Many hon. members heard that. However, when he saw there was disagreement with the Indians, he changed his mind once more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It hurts does it not?


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you should let the minister make false statements in the House.


An hon. Member:: You are not challenging the statement, are you?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the hon. member for Skeena, who likes to attack in debate, cannot accept facts. A few weeks after the announcement, when he learned that the Indians were not happy about some aspects of the policy, he did a complete somersault and said everything was wrong.


Frank Howard: That is not true, Jean.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes it is true. Just read Hansard and you will find out.


Frank Howard: I have.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can send you your statement. The same thing happened with the Tory party. The House leader of the Tories criticized the policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I criticized it myself.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He said it was too late and that we should have done this a long time ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We said it was wrong, too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Never was that said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said it myself.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Sir. I can look back at Hansard to verify that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, look back.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There speaks another guy who cannot stand being criticized. I do not know what he will do if he is elected. He cannot stand complaints.


Mr. Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Just try us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know who will vote for the hon. member; his party has just lost six points in popularity, according to the Gallup poll.
We are going to talk to the B.C. government and try to establish a policy because we recognize that in B.C. the land has not been covered by treaty and that in some parts of the province the Indians are claiming more land.
26087-57i

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
They have come to me. I have received them. The government has agreed that we should discuss this with the B.C. government in order to get those Indians some land. They want to have the lands they now occupy. The hon. member for Skeena has conveyed to this House very well the attachment the Indians have for that land. That is why I went to B.C. I wanted to try to correct some of the wrongdoing of the past. I hope the hon. member, who belongs to the party which is governing in British Columbia, will help so that we may make progress there.
When the Nishga people decided to go to court, their action was not against the federal government; it was against the B.C. government. Now the decision has been handed down by the Supreme Court and the government of the day in that province will have every occasion to prove that they support the concept that the hon. member for Skeena has talked so much about. When you are not in power you can make statements like those the hon. member has made. On the other hand, we have done something about the question and we will continue to take action.
Let me now refer to the claim to land title brought by the B.C. Indians. This is another matter I raised with the B.C. government when I was there. I wanted to see what kind of mechanism could be introduced. Everyone knows that it is not possible for the federal government to give back to Indians in any province some land, because lands within a province are controlled by the provincial government. It is not me who decides that land within the borders of a province is provincial Crown land; it is in the Canadian constitution.
I wish to illustrate some of the difficulties we face when trying to resolve these problems. We are not just making speeches in this House. I wish to point out what we have done, what we are ready to do and what we will do. We will keep on working to resolve these difficulties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very proud to see the Indians appear before a committee of this House and make representations such as they have. I am also proud of the fact that the Indian associations are functioning well. The first time in Canadian history that the Indians received any help to become organized and put their needs before the Canadian public and the government was when we started to give them grants to organize. We provided funding money so that they could come before the Canadian government and state their case.
It is easy to make broad, sweeping statements, but I wish to again state the point I made over television last Sunday. The situation is not the same everywhere. Everyone knows that. We would be hiding our head in the sand if we claimed that one Indian policy and one Indian title could solve all the problems. I have been confronted with many different aspects of the problems.
British Columbia was a colony before entering confederation. Crown land was then in the hands of the provincial government. When the Prairies became provinces, the Indians received land from the federal government. There were other types of government in the Maritimes and

Quebec long before confederation. This created another legal implication. I do not want to be legalistic about this. It is a fact of life. These aspects cannot be dealt with in isolation. You have to look at the problem and make a decision, such as was made by this government, that you will resolve the problems. We will go all out to find a solution that is acceptable to the different areas of Canada. There has been talk about the James Bay project. I am ready to talk about that.


Mr. Fraser:: It is too late.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is not too late.


John (Jack) Davis: It is never too late.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That case is now before the courts. After negotiating with the Quebec government, the Indians decided to go to court. They were not happy with the response they received from the Quebec government. I said this in this House, I said it to the Quebec government and I repeat it today-the best course the Quebec government could have followed would have been to offer a generous settlement along the lines asked for by the Indians. The Indians are still asking for that. We have helped these Indians. Their problem is now before the court. We have financed them all along. We provided them with expert advice and put at their disposal all the documents we have. Do members opposite want me to go before the court in their place? I do not want to do that.
There is also the case of the Nishga Indians of British Columbia. They went to court on their own. They did not even ask the federal government for assistance. At one point I offered financial help. They informed me that they could finance their own case. They did not accept the money. They felt they had a good case and could defend themselves. A decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. Following that, I was asked to intervene with the British Columbia government. Ten days ago I explained the problem to that government. I hope we can come to terms with the British Columbia government because the Indians are asking for land, not money.
There was also a claim by other groups of Indians in British Columbia who have not signed treaties. I have started talks with the British Columbia government because the cut-off land question was made by the provincial government at the beginning of the century. Those problems have never been resolved. It is a completely different problem and I will have to find another mechanism. We have agreed to negotiations in the Yukon. The mechanism has already been established. I hope it will be a framework for a solution that can be accepted elsewhere in Canada. We cannot move on this for political reasons, as some people claim.
One Indian leader who appeared before the committee was flabbergasted because the committee members did not ask any questions. They wanted to have a vote right away. The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) said that he would at least like the privilege of being able to read the document. Five minutes before the vote, he was delivered a French copy. Members opposite claim they want to defend the minority. Was it an unreasonable request by a member of this House, who does not speak English, to read the document before the vote?
April 11, 1973


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is at least misleading for the minister to raise the inference in this House, as unfortunately members of his party did in committee, that there was an instance of prejudice against French-speaking members of that committee. In fact, what was done by myself and my colleagues sitting in that committee was that we went out of our way to delay the vote. We agreed to delay the vote until the evening, in order that there might be an opportunity for the resolution and the document on which it was based to be brought forward in both official languages. I very much resent the slur on the conduct-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. member will be recognized following the minister. If the hon. member thinks there should be some elaboration by way of debate, he can raise his point at that time. I must again ask, on behalf of other occupants of the chair and myself, that members do not use the words "point of order" to raise points which are really points of debate. This practice is becoming more and more unfair as this session continues, especially when a member knows he will be recognized and will have the opportunity to make distinctions regarding what is said by the member who has the floor.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I said earlier, I think this debate today is just an attempt to try to patch up the actions of the government.


Mr. Dinsdale:: What action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: To set up committees, to negotiate human rights in the Yukon and to negotiate the rights of Indians with the British Columbia government. That is action, not debate. Over the past five years we have helped the Indians of Canada to put their case. This was not possible previously. We have developed a mechanism of consultation that did not exist before.
Each year we spend $7 million to help the Indians get organized, travel, put their case and have discussions among themselves. We have tried to decentralize. Many people say that we have not made any progress. We have made a lot of progress, and the Indians recognize this. When I became minister of this department there was a white man in every reserve in Canada who told the Indians what to do. This system has been changed. Band managers are now appointed by the individual bands. We have established management courses for those who head the bands. Indeed, a large part of the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs is now administered by the Indians themselves.
We have done our best. Of course, many problems remain. There is nothing more difficult than to face social problems like that every day. One tries to catch up, but it seems one will never succeed in doing so because of the magnitude of the problem. There is one thing of which I should like to remind the House. When I became minister in 1968, the budget was $120 million. This year, five years later, it amounts to $330 million. I heard the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) say something about a great bureaucracy. I am glad to be able to
Indian Affairs
destroy that myth. The number of civil servants in the Indian affairs branch has not increased in the last five years, if one excludes the teachers. There is nothing I can do about the number of teachers because more children are going to school and we have to provide more teachers for them. But excluding the educational side, there are fewer civil servants in the branch than there were in 1965.
This reflects progress, because the Indians are now taking responsibility upon themselves. In a couple of places on the Prairies there are school boards entirely run by Indians. They operate the schools, hire the teachers, and so on. I hope to place before the committee very soon a new education policy. It is based on a positive study, and it has been the subject of discussion with the National Indian Brotherhood. We have agreed on a new Indian education policy. This is real progress. It is not only talk. It is much more than that. I believe we shall continue to progress.
This question of Indian rights is very important, of course. There is a lot of emotion surrounding it. I am glad everyone agrees that we should recognize Indian rights in this land. We have already done so. But there are some very far reaching implications which prevent our going too fast or in too many directions at the same time. We are trying to establish the right course of action, not only in theory but in practice. In the Yukon I am very hopeful we can come up with a solution which will be a pattern for the rest of Canada, that is, for the Indians who have not signed treaties.


Frank Howard: That is what is wrong with it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I understand that yesterday a very good brief was presented to the committee on this very point. Some of the Indians are very emotional about their treaties and do not want those treaties to be changed. Others say the treaties should be renegotiated. There are questions which can legitimately be asked. I believe the committee should go into these aspects before making recommendations. I believe it should not simply make recommendations in general terms after deliberating for five minutes. There are questions to be asked of the Indian leaders about some of the implications. It is not an easy matter. I have lived with this problem for five years. In one part of Canada there is one interpretation of the value of a treaty. In other parts there is another interpretation.
We have said we shall respect the Indian treaties, and we have established a mechanism to help the Indians to obtain remedies from the Crown for the wrongdoing of the Crown. Already we have begun to settle some of these claims. For example, Commissioner Barber has so far negotiated at least 12 different treaty claims with the Indians. One of those has been settled and paid-I think it is with the Blood Indians of southern Alberta. This is something positive, a mechanism which has not been available for a long period. At first, the Indians were somewhat uneasy about the role of Commissioner Barber. Indeed, it was 18 months before he could really start doing his job. This is not because of fault or shortcoming on the part of anyone. It is because there is a big gap of misunderstanding between the white society and the Indi-

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
ans in this land. That is why it is not possible to do anything too quickly.
What I have always avoided doing is creating a situation in which we appear to promise the Indians that we can solve all their difficulties in one shot. That would be misleading. For too long the Indians were told so many things, given so many undertakings, promise and commitments which were not carried out.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Especially in the last five years.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Look at the facts. In the last four years the committee has researched some of the problems thoroughly and come up with a number of good solutions. They took the work seriously and there was very little partisan politics in that committee. Perhaps I used too strong an expression when I spoke on the television program, but I do not believe that five minutes after receiving a brief certain members of the committee should accept it in its entirety without analysing the implications. That is not in accordance with my concept of the way in which a committee should function. It serves no purpose except to score political advantage. I should like the committee to consider all the aspects involved, more especially since, I am happy to say, there is not a member in this House who does not think the wrongdoing of the past should be corrected.
This is what we are doing at the present time. This is the purpose of our discussions with the Yukon Indians, with the Indians of British Columbia and elsewhere. In Quebec, of course, the case is before the courts and it is difficult for me to comment upon the situation. I think the action taken by the Indians there is the consequence of a mature decision reached among themselves. They kept me informed all along of what was happening, and I kept them informed all along of my intentions. They decided to go to the courts and I am satisfied they have put forward a very impressive case. It is up to the courts to decide the issue.
I would not reverse the position I have taken all along that the Indians in Quebec and elsewhere have been reasonable. They have not systematically opposed any development. They wanted participation. They wanted compensation. They wanted meaningful opportunities as a result of this development. And since the Quebec government did not come through with proposals positive enough to satisfy them, they decided to fight their case in the courts. We, as a government, have helped them-and the Indians have not complained about the help given to them. When a decision is made by the court, our advice will be available. It would be premature for me to say anything further at this time, except that in cases of this sort it is better to settle out of court than to go to court. I say this because I think a good settlement is possible, one which will bring advantages to both parties.

Mr. Speaker, I should not like to go on speaking, knowing that many hon. members want to express their views.
As I said at the start, we have already made great progress in recognizing all treaty Indians. We have said and we repeat that we intend to observe those treaties and fulfill our commitments and in such cases where we did
not do so, or cheated the Indians the government has stated that it will do its very best to right these injustices. That is why Commissioner Barber and myself are ready to deal with any cases submitted to us in due time and place, and we have already begun to do so.
Concerning non-treaty Indians, on the basis of the rights acquired by them in 1763 as a result of the Proclamation by King George III, the government feels that their problems must be solved equitably. This is a new start in that field, something that has never been done before. We have already started negotiations with the Yukon Indian Association. We have started discussions with the government of British Columbia with a view to setting up tripartite consultation mechanisms to solve the problem of the rights of the Indians who did not sign a treaty in that province.
I trust that different situations elsewhere in Canada can be solved through negotiations based on the fundamental principle of the Proclamation of 1873 which gave the Canadian government instructions that we must follow. That is why we have undertaken negotiations with some Canadian provinces which we intend to pursue until such time as we can collectively offer the Indians, as all other Canadians, an acceptable solution.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee on Indian affairs and northern development were right in wanting to study this document in depth, to hear the views of several experts on the matter, instead of merely trying to use this controversial debate to score a few political points.
I for one feel that the committee should go back to work and study once again the overall effects of this document. I know the advisors of the government and others have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister permission to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps we could give the minister another minute.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I should like the committee to make a thorough study of those concepts and to look at all the implications in the different provinces in order to see what can be done in a non-partisan way. After all, there is nothing to gain from being partisan. I wish the House of Commons and this parliament would deal very seriously with the question and back me up if I do something that is right. During the five years I have spent in my present department, I have not found things too easy. But with the help of the House we may still make a lot of progress in this field.

April 11, 1973

We have tried to offer some concrete solutions, and I hope that in our further study we will not become confused with different terms and with the semantics of the problem. We must try to correct any wrongdoings of previous administrations and offer the Indians a fair deal. Unfortunately, a lot of the implications we cannot escape. This is why I cannot agree with all the briefs that the Indians have presented. After all, these are negotiating positions and they do not expect us to accept them in their entirety. Their submissions are the basis for negotiation, and when your are negotiating you do not ask for the minimum but for the maximum. The committee could probably help me achieve a balanced judgment that would serve the best interest of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) wishes to ask a question, but he will need the consent of the House since the time allotted to the minister has expired.


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, it was extended. Would the minister agree to answer a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister's time had been extended, but that does not necessarily imply that all hon. members have the right to ask questions. Does the House agree that the hon. member for Skeena has the right to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not agreed. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that since all parties in the House have now had an opportunity to express their views on this resolution, and since we are all anxious that it be brought to a vote as quickly as possible, if there is agreement in the House that we now proceed with the vote I am prepared to sit down.


Marc Lalonde: If you have anything to say, say it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I was not in the chair when the hon. member made his proposal, so would he please repeat it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my proposal was that if it was agreeable to the House that we proceed immediately with the vote, I will surrender my time and sit down now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member might make that suggestion, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair to find out whether another hon. member wishes to speak. I do not think the procedure that we have followed in the past should be forgotten, namely, that any member of the House is entitled to express his view on any subject matter before the House. If the hon. member wants to take the risk of not participating in the debate, he can do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend in the Liberal ranks is rising to speak and
Indian Affairs
thus prevent a vote by talking the motion out, so I shall proceed.
I was interested to hear the minister say that his government had recognized the rights of the native people as never before. I am moved to comment that his method of recognition is so original that it is invisible. Certainly he has not been in touch with very many of the native groups which have made special recommendations. I have just had a note that the Union of British Columbia Chiefs have yet to hear from this government. Although the minister said he has been in touch with the province of British Columbia in regard to their representations, he has not been in touch with the native people themselves.
I also think it was a signal accomplishment for the minister to be able to speak beyond his time in this House without referring for one instant to the resolution that is before us, because what the resolution asks, and all that the resolution asks, is that this House recognize the concept of aboriginal rights so that the proceedings of the committee and the deliberations of this House will have some authority and we can proceed with our discussion knowing we are discussing something that has point to it, knowing that this is not just another aimless study of the matter.
I want to put this debate in context. I think we recognize, as my colleague from Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has suggested, that governments in other countries are taking native claims seriously and are starting down the road to settlement at the very time that we in Canada, under this government, have been turning away from the road to settlement and backing away from some recognition of aboriginal rights.
I think we acknowledge, and without very much pride, that the native people of Canada in times past were victims of white trickery, when land rights and other rights were often traded for blankets, beads and other pittances. I suggest that the treatment accorded to our native people now is no less shameful. There has been the fraud of consultation in preparation for the white paper, now thankfully withdrawn. There has been the establishment of the claims commissioner who has to his credit now one settlement of one ammunition agreement concerning one treaty in Alberta, but who has clearly been established to delay settlements of claims, not advance them.
There has been the shameful treatment of native people in the area of James Bay, an area where the minister has a clear responsibility to help an unsophisticated group of native people who are threatened by a government-sponsored corporation. The minister's only response has been to give these people a little conscience money to get them into court, so that he and his colleagues can escape discussion of the question on the ground that it is sub judice. I hope that the minister might apply some of his own responsibilities to end native people's representations with the moral fervour that he has brought to the suggestions of the government of the province of Quebec regarding what they should do after the fact.
That is the context of trickery within which we now debate. I think the significance of that is not merely that the government is acting, if I may use the minister's own

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
word, irresponsibly; the real danger is that the native people cannot be expected to put up forever with this kind of duplicity. No group would. But the native people have before them the temptation to respond with violence when gentler methods fail. They have the lessons of other countries where other minorities have felt they were being deceived, and so responded violently.
I think the minister drew a red herring deliberately when he suggested because there are regional differences we cannot act in support of this resolution, indicating a commitment to the principal concept of aboriginal rights. There is a need to establish aboriginal rights under a national policy which recognizes the elementary principle that aboriginal rights exist. It is simply a falsehood, I suggest, to say that we cannot proceed now to enunciate that commitment of having a national policy because individual settlements that might occur will differ from region to region.
It seems to me the one remarkable fact about Canada's native leadership is the strength with which they have resisted the temptation to abandon consultation. They have put up with far more than many other groups in Canada would have accepted. I ask if you can imagine the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce coming back in good faith to deal with a government which has consistently deceived them? Yet the native people, with their present leadership, have come back and are prepared to negotiate in good faith in spite of the way they have been treated before. I simply suggest that their moderate response cannot be counted on forever.
There is a matter related to this which I want to raise. It has to do with the fear, by many white Canadians, that Canadian Indians have been so broken down by the paternalism of the department they will never be able to stand on their own feet. If that is true, it is a tragedy. If it is not true and if, as we believe, people who have been victimized by paternalism can be brought back to pride and independence, then surely it is time to start. If we hope to end a system of paternalism whose cost is extravagant both in dollars and in dignity, surely we must begin by dealing seriously with the native people. That is what this resolution proposes, a beginning. It proposes simply the recognition of a concept of aboriginal rights and a recognition that there is a claim here to be settled.
The minister, for reasons of his own, is proposing that the resolution involves much more than that. In his celebrated television interview he said, "There are some cities that have been built on land that is perhaps not Canadian land." He went on to suggest that there might be a claim for the whole of the province of British Columbia. That is simply a scare tactic. It is simply a device, well known in this parliament and that party, of taking the most extreme possible consequence, pretending it is the norm and using it to scare people, thus avoiding honest debate. This is the resort either of a desperate government which knows it has no case, or an arrogant government which does not care about the facts and which would dismiss contrary opinion by saying, as the minister said of one of his colleagues during that television interview, "He does not know very much."

The tragedy is that the minister can scare Canadians. If he wants to arouse false fears, this clearly is an issue where he can do so. Not only can he arouse fears, he can animate a prejudice against native people which we would be some time settling down. I personally hope the minister will abandon that course on which he has begun and will focus on the issues we must face, rather than the fears he can arouse.
I want to repeat the fact that acceptance of this resolution means only the acceptance of the concept of aboriginal rights. No cities are in danger. No province is to be given back to the Indians. At this stage there is not even a commitment to dollars; there is simply a commitment to deal in good faith and as equals with people who have claims older than any other claims this parliament considers.
This will be a long process, a process of years rather than months. That is one reason it is so urgent to make a formal beginning now and not to continue to delay.
The issues involved are serious. The settlement, when it comes, could involve the payment of millions of dollars- the end of the costly and colonial dominion of the department of Indian Affairs, the recognition of historic rights and the re-establishment of the dignity and sense of worth of hundreds of thousands of native people whom our society has abused.
These issues are more than serious; they are also inescapable. At some time some parliament of Canada must face the issues involved in aboriginal rights. No magic is going to spirit these issues away and no mere lawyer, even if he is also a prime minister, is going to dismiss them with ingenious argument, because these issues are based on claims which are rooted in the history of the country and perhaps in her conscience. If they cannot be resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in other more inflammatory ways.
So the real question about aboriginal rights is not whether we will face them, but when and in what spirit. Delay might appear to buy time, but it is more likely simply to destroy the good will which still characterizes most of the native leaders of Canada, in spite of the treatment which too often they have received.
Of course, the people who must be convinced about aboriginal rights are not the native people but the whites. The time will come when parliament and the government will have to advise native leaders about certain realities within the white community, namely, what we think we can afford. No doubt that will be difficult, although it will be easier if native leadership is reasonable, as generally it is today, than it would be if we drive out reasonable leadership.
But the case which the government and parliament must make today is to the white Canada, and there is no doubt that many Canadians outside the native community are concerned about the concept of aboriginal rights. I think their concern is based upon two fears: first, a fear that any settlement might be too extravagant for the national treasury to bear; and second, a fear that any payments made under a settlement would be wasted, spent foolishly by people who have not yet learned to
April 11, 1973

manage their own affairs. I want to address myself to those two concerns.
First, it is important, as we begin the formal stage of this debate, to make it clear to everyone concerned that there are limits upon the settlement the national treasury can afford. We do not intend to give away the country, or give it back, depending on your point of view. What we seek is a fair and reasonable settlement and it must be fair and reasonable to both sides.
On the question of costs, the point deserves reiteration that we are involved in costs now, heavy costs. In direct dollar terms, the annual budget of the Department of Indian Affairs, as the minister so readily boasts, involves the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In indirect dollar terms there is the high and recurrent cost of provincial welfare and other programs serving native populations. In human terms, which dollar calculations cannot compute, we pay the staggering price each year of human potential wasted or destroyed by an imposed system which neither challenges the individual Indian citizen nor allows him to follow the course he would choose.
So there are high costs today, and while a settlement based on recognition of aboriginal rights would not suddenly eliminate those costs, or perhaps even eliminate some of them, it would lead to the extinguishment of some existing claims and could lead to the breaking down of the hand-out psychology which has made too many native people the wards of state instead of contributing citizens.
This brings me to the second fear of many white Canadians, the fear that native people cannot manage their own affairs or do not want to. It is an inescapable fact, in my province at least, that this fear is greatest among people who live closest to reserves. They have simply seen too much evidence of Indian people whose behaviour confirms the unhappy stereotype of the lazy Indian. It is my experience that the anger of the whites toward the lazy Indian is mild when compared to the anger and resentment of industrious Indian leaders and people. It is also an inescapable fact that, while examples can be found of lazy Indians, so can examples be found of industrious and creative citizens. We meet them virtually every time the standing committee assembles and every time we visit reserves. In a sense, the industrious Indian is the more to be marvelled at because he has overcome a system of paternalism which is designed to break down dignity and independence. Anyone acquainted with the treatment of native people in Canada must at least accept that lazy Indians are lazy because we made them so.
This is a condition which white society and the predecessors of this parliament have helped to create. We have established and imposed a system which has locked too many Indian people into the stereotype and into the fact of aimless dependence upon the state, and the architects of that system are at least as much to blame as its victims.
There is no point in laying blame upon the past, but surely we cannot refuse to deal with the just claims of Canada's Indians simply because some of them have slipped into the trap of dependence which our society helped to set for them. To do that would be to guarantee that Canada's Indian people will never escape a welfare
Indian Affairs
trap unless they do it violently. Indeed, that might amount to an invitation to violence, because our refusal to deal reasonably with the moderate men and women who constitute much of the modern leadership of Canada's Indian people would almost certainly undermine the authority of these leaders and set up less responsible replacements.
At the least, such a response would break the growing spirit of Canadian Indian people to stand on their own and make their own contribution as individuals and as a people to the development of Canada. In fact, one consequence of the eventual settlement of aboriginal claims is that Canadian native people will then be forced to stand on their own, because once the settlements are made, the claims are gone. If money received in settlement is wasted, that will be it. There will be no big brother to go back to. Knowing this, knowing that the settlements which are reached will have to be lived with, will itself force native people to face basic questions about their status, about the reserve system, about other matters, and force them to face those questions with a seriousness which cannot exist in the present phony atmosphere of so-called consultation, when they naturally believe their opinions are being sought only to be ignored.
What the settlement of aboriginal claims will mean to the Indian people is not simply money or land but, more important, responsibility in a much fuller sense than exists in the paternalistic system we have today. Beyond that, a recognition of aboriginal rights is a matter of simple justice, made more urgent by prolonged delay. These are the people who first occupied this land. We took it from them, seldom by conquest, sometimes by agreements which were unfair then or are inadequate now, sometimes without settlement at all. After taking this land, we took their dignity and independence. In simple terms, we owe a debt. If we believe in any sort of justice in society, we must recognize our obligation to Canada's native people.
The way to begin that movement toward justice and responsibility is to deal with Indian people as though they are capable of responsibility; to deal with them as we would deal with other Canadians who have a claim. This resolution today asks no more than that, and we in our party believe that the Parliament of Canada can do no less.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have had discussion with some members of this House, obviously not all, to see whether we might reduce the time allotted to speakers from 15 minutes to 10 minutes henceforth. I understand that would be an agreeable course of action. I wonder whether I might put that proposition to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Is there agreement to reduce the time of speeches to ten minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to this motion for
3222

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As chairman of that committee, I would like to spend some time to bring before this House some of the problems and concerns that have been presented to us in our hearings over the last two months and, in particular, those dealing with the subject of aboriginal rights for both status and non-status native peoples.
I think it is fair to say that not a week has passed during this session without some question relating to the native people of Canada being raised in the House. The problems of the native people of James Bay, the Nishga court decision, the question of aboriginal rights, the inadequacies of our present Indian Act and the depressing conditions and circumstances that Canadian natives are forced to live in have all been raised at one time or another. Outside this House, throughout Canada, we have been increasingly hearing the pleas and representations of various native groups, both status and non-status, and those of other concerned citizens, that we correct the injustices that have existed over the past 100 years.
Over the past four weeks we have watched the developments that have taken place at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. To many Canadians this situation is remote and far away. Yet if we listen to Canadian Indians and Eskimos, the grievances voiced at Wounded Knee sound very similar to those voiced here in Canada: recognition of the sovereignty of the Indian people, the enforcement and fulfilment of existing treaties and the restoration of a permanent, non-diminishing land base. For too long we as Canadians have been ignorant or oblivious of the plight of the Indian, the problems that exist and why they are there.
The failure of our economic system to provide justice to our native peoples is accompanied by the failure of our educational and social systems. Until recently almost all our history has portrayed our country's first inhabitants as the ignorant, backward, warring, noble savage. It is with this image that most of us have grown up. But how accurate is it? In the accounts of the early Jesuit missionaries we hear stories of a parental love for children that is unequalled anywhere today. In the testimony and briefs presented to our committee we have been told of a society and culture that far surpasses the idealistic hopes of many today. To give you some idea of how the native peoples of today have viewed their past, I would like to quote from some of the statements that have been made: We, as Indian people, has a system of collective ownership of land. We felt that land belongs to everybody and that everybody must benefit from those lands. It was the Europeans who, when they occupied this country, introduced individual ownership . .. (As Indians) we had our own God and our own religion which taught us how to live together in peace. This religion also taught us how to live as a part of the land. We learned how to practice what is now called multiple land use, conservation and resource management. We have much to teach the white man about these things when he is ready to listen.
It is clear that we, the white men, over the past 100 years have failed in dealing with the Indian peoples of Canada. Instead of solving problems that arose in the past, we have created more. However, today in the 1970s we have not only the experience of mistakes to guide us but also many strong status and non-status Indian associations who are committed to solving the present day problems of

their peoples. I think if there is any significant accomplishment we have made in respect of the Indian people over the last five years, it is the fact that these associations have been encouraged and developed.
I believe a large degree of the salvation of the Indian people will rest with these associations. In recent years these Indian and Innuit associations have been increasingly voicing the position that only the Indian people will be able to bring happiness back into their own lives. And central to this position was, and is, the need to receive a just and fair settlement and the fulfillment of all existing treaties; and for those Indians that were not covered by treaties, for Indians in most of British Columbia, in the Yukon, in Quebec and the Maritimes, and for the Innuit, a just settlement on the question of aboriginal title. For the native peoples, both status and non-status, land is a very essential and necessary ingredient in their way of life. I would like to quote two passages from two separate briefs we received which, again, eloquently demonstrate this fact:
Without land, Indian people have no soul-no life-no identity- no purpose. Control of our own land is necessary for our cultural and economic survival. For Yukon Indian people to join in the social and economic life of Yukon, we must have specific rights to lands and natural resources that will be enough for both our present and future needs.
Then again:
We are people of the land. We have come from the land, and we love the land, but the land is no longer what it was. The land is now a part of the white man's new economy. It is tracked over, marked off, sold and scarred for the minerals and oils that lay beneath it.. . we are accepting that the land is no longer usable in the old way. We must seek a way to live in the new economy for which our land is being used. We are not seeking a way to sell our land. We are seeking a way to use it in the new way. Our culture does not allow us to sell our land. The land is a part of us, and we are part of the land.
Out or an awareness and concern for the position of Indians and Eskimos in regard to aboriginal rights, and a position of hesitancy on the part of the government, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development set down its terms of reference quite quickly on this question. I shall read from the first issue of the minutes of proceedings of the committee:
Your subcommittee recommends: that the committee undertake a study of aboriginal rights of the Indian and Eskimo people; that the committee inform the national and major Indian associations across the country of the intention and to hear evidence and receive submissions.
Among some members of the committee, including myself, there was a feeling that under these broad terms of reference, and after a complete and thorough study, we might be able to produce a report that would give the government some concrete guidelines of where and how to move on the question of aboriginal rights. I do not think this was in any way an idealistic thought, because the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the last parliament carried out significant work and made useful recommendations, to which the minister has made reference, in the area of Indian and Eskimo education in Canada.
April 11, 1973

There was also cause for optimism about having a meaningful input after the government continued to pursue the direction it took in 1971 by broadening the terms of reference of Dr. Lloyd Barber's Indian Claims Commission to include non-treaty claims, and when it acknowledged the position presented in the submission of the Yukon Native Brotherhood and agreed to the establishment of a negotiating committee. The non-decision of the Supreme Court in the Nishga tribe's case was also reason for greater interest, not only in the cause of aboriginal rights but also in the need for our committee's report. Throughout these past two months we have received numerous presentations dealing with the question of aboriginal rights. As a result of the presentation of the National Indian Brotherhood we now find our second report before the House. However, we have had several further submissions dealing with aboriginal rights and we expect to hear several more.
The court's non-decision points up the need for Canadian law to recognize the question of aboriginal rights. To do this, some legislative action is required. I think it is generally agreed that parliament, in negotiating with native peoples, should reach a firm decision. It was pointed out by Professor Peter Cumming of Osgoode Hall law school, one of the witnesses before the committee, that "as parliament has complete control over any legislative settlement of aboriginal rights nothing is really 'being given away' through the recognition of such rights and the negotiation of a fair settlement." He feels that "there is much to be gained by the suggested approach. The unquestioned intention of the government is to improve the well-being of the native peoples. The unquestioned fact is that the native peoples remain the most underprivileged minority group in Canada."
The implications of the adoption of a position on aboriginal rights have been widely imagined. First and foremost, native peoples such as the Nishga, who have occupied land from time immemorial, will finally have rights. Secondly, and of major significance, the government and the native peoples will have a starting point from which to negotiate and reach a settlement. Any type of settlement will be worked out by parliament. In all the presentations about the settlement of aboriginal claims there was a real awareness that to achieve justice for all, a great deal of give and take on the part of all parties would be needed. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are on the verge of rising, so I conclude my remarks.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for her contribution to this debate. She has placed into focus, in quite precise terms, the most important issue with respect to our native peoples which faces the government and parliament today. And she did so in a way that makes it possible for this parliament to make a final decision on a basic issue that must be resolved if we are to deal justly with the long neglected native peoples of this country. I can understand the emotional response of the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Chretien) to that presentation, because its logic was inescapable.
Indian Affairs
I would hope, and this is why we have agreed to shorten the debate, that we will have an opportunity to reaffirm the vote that has already been taken by the standing committee. The government supporters who abstained from the vote were obviously confused with respect to the government's position on aboriginal rights. This motion now presents an opportunity for the government to withdraw from the position it outlined in the ill-fated white paper of 1969 and to accept the principle of aboriginal rights.
All hon. members of the House will agree that one of the great social tragedies of Canada has been our treatment of the native peoples. We destroyed their way of life and we gave them no opportunity to become established in the white man's society. As a result, they are marginal people. Because they were disease-ridden for a long time, they were a vanishing people. Demoralization is still rampant, as expressed in some of the indices of social destruction among those people. I agree that there has been an improvement over the past two decades or so. There has been a concerted attack on the health problems of the Indians, so that they are no longer a vanishing people. They now have the largest birth rate of any group in Canadian society.
There have been important breakthroughs in our approach to education. The minister referred to this in his speech as though it were something that happened in the past five years. But I would remind him that what has happened in his department is its adoption of the excellent education program that operated in the Department of Northern Affairs from the mid-1950s on, when Indian Affairs was incorporated in that department. Another important breakthrough gave the Indian population the right to vote in 1959, and the Innuit population the right to vote in 1962. For those who say that the Progressive Conservative government had no interest in these matters, I point out that these fundamental breakthroughs came during the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
As a result of giving the Indian population the vote in 1959, they have now become an important part of the political process. This is reflected in the responsible, intelligent, capable leadership that has emerged, because now they have their day in court. They have been given the opportunity to make their contribution to the political process because they were given the basic right of citizens in a democracy, the right to exercise the franchise.
In 1963, the next major breakthrough in the progress of our Indians towards full Canadian citizenship was to have been the establishment of a claims commission. The resolution was on the order paper. Then the government changed, and for the past ten years the Indians have been wandering in the wilderness in this regard. Admittedly, the pressure had come from south of the border where the principle of aboriginal rights had been accepted without equivocation. But instead of proceeding to deal with the recognition of long neglected claims, the two succeeding Liberal governments resorted to conferences and, I suggest, devious conferences in many respects.
We had a joint parliamentary committee that went across the country over a period of 12 months. One of the most persistent themes presented to that committee was
3224

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
on the question of aboriginal rights. When the minister and other government spokesmen say that this question has not been adequately considered, I suggest there is evidence piled upon evidence that the decision is long overdue.
I would also remind the minister that while it might be possible to establish some rights under the treaties, where treaties exist, this will not be a successful solution of the problems of the Innuit people because they never came under any treaties. Until this parliament and government establish and accept the principle of aboriginal rights, there is no possibility of justice so far as the Innuit people are concerned with respect to their outstanding claims. The alternate solution of the government is to perpetuate the program of paternalism that has caused the perpetuation of poverty and the continuation of degradation among the native people of this country.
I shall not speak any longer this afternoon because my position on this matter is well known. Also, I want to have the opportunity to vote on the motion and endorse the principle that has emerged from the parliamentary committee on Indian affairs, and give the government an opportunity to put into effect a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said:
In a democracy it is all too easy for the majority to forget the rights of the minority and for a remote and powerful government to ignore its requests.
That is a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada. That government, Mr. Speaker, is no longer a powerful majority; it is a very slim majority clinging, by expendiency, to power. One of the reasons government members on the committee were reluctant to support this resolution is very obvious. It is that he who runs may read-and they have not received the word from this Prime Minister. I suggest to the government that they have the opportunity this afternoon to get themselves off the hook on this subject.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada over native peoples rests on section 91(24) of the British North America Act, "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians." By judicial definition, Eskimos have been included in the category of Indians.
During its two-year study of the Canadian constitution, the Special Committee on the Constitution of Canada, of which I had the honour to be the chairman from this House, heard witnesses from Indian associations across the country. I think it is fair to say that interest among committee members on this subject was high. I understood the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale), who just sat down, to refer to the work of this committee. It is unfortunate that he adverted only to the number of witnesses who appeared across the country and not to what they said nor to the recommendations of the committee. In light of the hon. member's comments I think it is worth while recalling what the National Indian Brotherhood said through its official spokesman before that committee. As reported on page 16 of the official report of that committee, he said:
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
However, we are not yet in a position to recommend in its entirety the proper legal framework for our development as a people.
The issues at stake are far too important for unprepared or unwise action. Aware of the principle that they themselves must forge their destiny, the Indian people must be given the time to assess not only in legal terms but in social and modern terms who they are, what they have and where they want to go before any action which will dramatically affect these considerations, including the constitutional change, is taken.
And further on:
To require us to act in any definitive sense in regard to the constitution at this point, therefore, is premature and unfair. To act without decisions from the Indian people is unacceptable.
We need time and this is the central message of this brief.
In light of those comments by the National Indian Brotherhood's spokesman, the committee recommended that there should be no constitutional change with respect to section 91(24) of the British North America Act until such time as the native peoples' organizations have completed their research and study into the whole question of treaty and aboriginal rights in Canada.
I heard some of the remarks made by opposition members while I was reading this passage of the report, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite were suggesting that the government was lax in not having answered the problem earlier. In the light of representations of the National Indian Brotherhood to a committee of this parliament when they asked us to wait until they were ready to make their proposals, and the fact that it has only been in the past two weeks that the proposals have come forth, we could not have dealt with this matter earlier. It is appropriate, now that they have had time to formulate their proposals, that we come back to this issue in parliament. I think it is a tribute to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) that she has brought this matter forward, but I wish she had shown more understanding of the resolution she is presenting.
I had planned a considerably longer speech, Mr. Speaker, but in the few minutes remaining of the ten which are now allotted I should like to refer to the recommendations made in the National Indian Brotherhood document which has been endorsed in its entirety by the opposition members of the committee. There is a four-point proposal. The first point reads as follows:
(a)	a recognition of the obligations to deal with Indian claims in non-treaty areas of the country. In the areas where Indian people have lost or are gradually losing the use of the land either the full use of the land must be protected or restored or the claims based on Indian title must be dealt with to the satisfaction of the Indian people involved.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this says "to the satisfaction of the Indian people involved". This can be interpreted benignly, and we all agree that the claims should be settled to the satisfaction of the Indians. But the Indians are in a bargaining position, and in a bargaining position there is a range of things that people will accept. That is the whole point which the opposition misses.
Do I have to remind hon. members opposite that this is our country too? Would it not be advisable, in a document which they are asking the Parliament of Canada to approve and accept and endorse, that we say what we mean? Do we mean it is only Indians that should approve, or do we mean also the government and Parliament of
April 11, 1973

Canada. Members opposite are indulging in the irresponsibility of opposition, it seems to me.
The second point is as follows:
(b)	in the areas where Indian people still have the use and control of their lands, no encroachment is permissible without the consent of the Indian people involved.
The problem here is that it is not clear how this would differ from the first point. It is not clear how one would distinguish between areas where the Indians are nominally still in possession and where they might be seen to have lost or be losing the use of their lands. There is considerable ambiguity in the line to be drawn between this point and the first point. This should be stated in unambiguous language before we can deal with it. You are asking us to give them carte blanche. If we are going to have a document of the kind to which we are giving consideration, I think we should scrutinize it very carefully.
The third point is as follows:
(c)	if treaties meet adequate standards of fairness, a recognition of treaty promises as they were understood by the Indian people. If the treaties fail to meet adequate standards of fairness this failure must be acknowledged and fair and adequate arrangements made to the satisfaction of the Indian people involved.
I would agree that it must be to the satisfaction of the Indian people. I trust it would also be to the satisfaction of the Parliament of Canada. The question'that arises is how this fairness is to be judged and what mechanism is to be established to judge it.
The fourth point is as follows:
(d)	a recognition of the obligation to restore or, with the consent of the Indian people, to compensate for the loss of specific rights (such as hunting, fishing or trapping rights) which are either preserved in treaty areas or which exist in non-treaty areas as part of unextinguished Indian rights and which have been curtailed by government action.
Before we could give our adherence to such a proposal, we would have to know more particularly whether the rights to which the proposal refers are, for example, rights which are extinguished for the benefit of the Indians themselves. In many cases where there are regulations which may limit hunting or trapping, these are made for the protection of the species which, of course, is for the protection of the Indians themselves. Is it being suggested that when there is such legislation which is for the benefit not just of the white man but also of the Indian, there should be compensation given to the Indian? Perhaps that is the principle this House would want to adopt, but I think we should know whether it is or not.
Despite the fact that there are certain over-generalities in these proposals, we must recognize that the very presentation of this document to the committee and to the House, with the assistance, I might add, of federal money which has been given to these people to enable them to do this, constitutes a major event in our country's history. It marks the first time that such a complete statement has been made by what is now, I think, the national Indian organization as to what they want us to agree to. But we must keep in mind that this is a bargaining position which they are putting forward. We must respond to that bargaining position, but I do not think the Indians expect us
Indian Affairs
to respond by agreeing to everything put forward, as the opposition suggests.
I was hoping to discuss at some length the case of Calder v. The Attorney General of British Columbia, and many other matters as well. However, as there are others who wish to gain the floor to speak on this motion, I will yield.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this sitting continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The motion proposed by the hon. member comes under Standing Order 6(5) (b), which reads:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: More than ten members being opposed to this motion, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that the Liberal party opposed it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hon. members opposite are trying to play politics, as usual.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly).


John Mercer Reid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been the normal practice of the Chair to alternate in the recognition of speakers. As Your Honour previously recognized the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) it seems to me, in all fairness, that Your Honour ought to recognize a speaker on my side of the House.


William Arnold Peters: Then they should stand up, instead of sitting on their fannies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member should point out the standing order to which he is referring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are in the
chair, and not the hon. member.


Roch La Salle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I realize there are some problems as to whether an hon. member of the opposition or a government member should be recognized. In order

April 11, 1973
Indian Affairs
to settle the problem, I would suggest you recognize one who is half way between, that is an independent member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I might do so after six o'clock. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly).


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, this is my third attempt to speak in this debate. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) indicated in his speech one hour ago that there were white men on every reserve when he was appointed in 1968. Let me tell the minister that there was not a white man on such reserves in 1968, although there were some before that date. I live in an area where there are many reserves, and many of the Indian agents had started disappearing from the reserves in the fifties and early sixties.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is right. Let us keep the record straight.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: The minister also indicated that Indians of this land have been told many things. I immediately ask, who has told them so many things, if not previous Liberal and Conservative administrations? The minister also mentioned British Columbia and said that the province does not want to settle some of the land claims of the Indians. Let me ask this of the minister: What about the Northwest Territories, where the federal government has complete jurisdiction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply, if the hon. member wants me to. I have offered the Indians the choice and they have decided to choose their land-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just let me complete my answer. Do not ask questions if you do not want answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Meadow Lake, in the little time available, should be allowed to complete his remarks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not want interruptions he should not ask questions but should make a speech.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Saskatchewan treaty No. 6 provides:
The said Indians shall have the rights to pursue their avocation of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as herein before described-
That treaty refers to the fact that Indians were being given lands for their use and livelihood in addition to their traditional hunting and fishing rights. Now, it seems to me, the Indian people of the Prairies are pretty well confined to their reserves and have lost the fishing and hunting rights which are part of the aboriginal title of the Indian people. Many groups in Saskatchewan also maintain that they have been robbed of much land in their reserves since the original treaties were signed. Let me point out that the minister, in his memorandum of June 21, 1972 said:
Some bands particularly in the prairie provinces have not received their full land entitlement under treaties. Some have entitlement in areas which are now wholly settled, others have difficulty in deciding on what remaining land they should select. A separate memorandum will be submitted on partial land entitlement.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that a member of the NDP just killed this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. April 12. 1973