1975-06-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Canadian people have been paying a prohibitive price for sugar in the past year, that the price of this product sold in Canada has dropped sharply in the last few weeks, and that the public is again concerned about a further price increase, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to look fully into the sugar trade and report to the House whether an increase in the price of sugar is justified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the spring season has just opened, and in view of the generally depressed prices and the steadily rising costs to the fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the minister implement a price support program for pickerel and whitefish sold to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the following motion:
That a special committee of this House be set up forthwith to investigate all activities of Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov while he was in Canada, that the committee be charged with examining all connections with this matter on the part of Mark Starowicz, executive producer of the CBC program "As It Happens", that the committee be given power to summon any persons whatsoever as witnesses that it deems advisable, that files on the matter including those of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, External Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing the activities of Geivandov, Starowicz, and others, be produced to the committee and, finally, that such files, pending examination by the committee, be forthwith placed in the safe custody of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to guarantee their safety from destruction for political or any other purposes whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the tragic events at the British Columbia Penitentiary. Who made the decision not to provide the information of the offer from an unidentified

June 12, 1975
Oral Questions
country to the intermediaries between the inmates and hostages on the one hand and the authorities on the other? These intermediaries were again to meet those in the vault some three hours after the information concerning the offer from an unidentified country had initially been received by the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure at what level the communication had been communicated downwards. I was not responsible for that, but I think the responsibility for deciding who would be told is within the Solicitor General's authority. I would be prepared to say that I made the decision that we should not just tell the criminals that another country had offered to receive them until we had worked out a lot of other details.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister said he made the offer to tell the inmates that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. I said I would be as responsible as anyone for having made the decision not to tell the inmates that a country was prepared to receive them until certain consultations had taken place in British Columbia and until certain contingencies had been prepared for.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REASON INTERMEDIARIES NOT ASKED FOR PROBABLE REACTION OF INMATES TO OFFER OF COUNTRY TO RECEIVE THEM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether arrangements were made for consultation as the Prime Minister had indicated, and, if this was to be a matter for further study and consideration with the decision being ultimately made by members of the government here as to what was to happen next day, why was there not an earlier request by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General to have an early assessment from the negotiators who were, I understand, the only ones who were in contact with the inmates and the prisoners, as to what would be their probable reaction to such a proposal, such an offer from this unidentified country? Why was there not a proper request for consultation with the intermediaries and feedback of their views to the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and others? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that everybody had been in this cell for 40 hours, obviously under conditions which might lead to a blow-up of some sort.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am endeavouring to understand the question and the suggestion. Is it that we should have hypothetically asked the inmates what they would do if some country was prepared to receive them?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question was this: why did the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General not request an immediate expression of opinion from the intermediaries as to how the inmates would react to the knowledge of such a proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then the suggestion is, I take it, that before the knowledge that some country might accept them-how could we ask them what their reaction would be to certain information which never existed?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I remind the right hon. gentleman that according to public information, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General had this knowledge some three hours before the intermediaries were going to see the inmates again that evening. Is the Prime Minister suggesting-I do not want to be argumentative, Mr. Speaker- that there was no time under these conditions to get an opinion from the intermediaries as to how the inmates would react to the knowledge of that offer? Was there no time for the government to get that information before everything was sort of shut down for the night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Things were not shut down for the night. The Solicitor General and his officials and, indeed, ministers, were involved in this situation from the outset. We were examining various hypotheses which might fulfil themselves; we were working on various contingency plans. I told the House yesterday, and so did the Solicitor General, that as soon as we had some kind of positive answer from a country we began discussing the way in which it could best be put to the inmates, and the time at which it could best be put to them. I think the House and the country must understand that it would not necessarily have been a good solution for us to have bundled up both the criminals and the hostages and sent them off to a certain country. It is obvious that we had in some way to separate the hostages from the criminals, and it was a matter of finding a way in which this could best be done.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-PERSONS CONSULTED ON OFFER OF COUNTRY TO RECEIVE PRISONERS-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH INTERMEDIARIES
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in Hansard, as reported at page 6644, the Prime Minister said that with regard to the consideration of the offer by a foreign government the government was determining policy but "as the Solicitor General indicated in his answer, in consultation with the people who were in contact with the criminals". Since the intermediaries, from what we can gather, apparently knew nothing before their last visit to the vault, just who among the people in contact with the criminals were consulted in fact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could not give names even if I had them, but that is what I had in mind in my first answer this afternoon when I said that I did not know at what level consultations with the people on the spot had taken place. After I spoke to the Solicitor General some time after eleven o'clock the night before last, he was to talk to his people on the spot to proceed with our plan to have certain consultations. I do not know exactly at what level those consultations were.


Walter David Baker: Then it is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General is not here today. In his absence perhaps the Prime Minister could answer
June 12, 1975

this question. Did the Prime Minister ask the Solicitor General to discuss this new situation with the intermediaries, and was the Prime Minister told by someone that these intermediaries were in fact being consulted on what should be done and, if so, who told the Prime Minister that these consultations were taking place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not direct the Solicitor General to speak to the intermediaries necessarily, those who were in contact with the inmates. I told him that he should get the people on the spot who were under his authority to report to him on the situation, and then to contact me and we would make other decisions.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF ACCEPTABILITY OF OFFER OF COUNTRY TO RECEIVE PRISONERS
Walter David Baker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, Yesterday, as reported at page 6643 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the second priority was to make sure "that the criminals themselves did not escape into some other country where they would go unharmed, and this was a priority that the government was determined to follow". At any time during the five hours preceding the resolution of this tragic event at the penitentiary did the government make up its mind that the offer of the unnamed country was acceptable in principle and, if so, when was that decision made and what was it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, it would be impossible to make up one's mind in principle. It was important in the absolute present circumstances, not in theory but in practice, to know in which way we would separate the hostages from the criminals and that is what we were working at. I must remind the hon. member that if we had wanted to wash our hands of this it would have been relatively simple to bundle up the criminals and the hostages, put them on a plane and send them to some other country. But we felt it was better to take our responsibilities in Canada and to trust our guards and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take whatever action was necessary to ensure that separation, rather than to send Canadian hostages whom we wanted to hold harmless into some other country.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, if I could have his attention for a moment.


An hon. Member:: He is busy swearing at people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the House would continue to deal with this subject seriously and not facetiously. In view of the evidence that at the time of the death of Mary Steinhauser there were three reports issued, one saying that she had died by heart attack, another that she had died by knife wounds, and the third and correct report that she had died by a bullet
Oral Questions
wound, may I ask the Prime Minister this. In view of the fact that the government, as of necessity, has to be so intimately involved in this problem and in the decision making process, will the Prime Minister now reconsider yesterday's decision, announced by the Solicitor General, that it was preparing an inquiry under the Penitentiaries Act, which limits the inquiry to only a departmental investigation and not a public inquiry? Would he now reconsider that decision and call for a full public inquiry under the Inquiries Act so that someone outside the penitentiaries system can come in and assess this entire situation, which of necessity would include the decision made at that time by both those on the scene and those away from the scene?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General, who unfortunately is ill today and cannot be in the House, announced yesterday that the decision of the government was it would be an inquiry under the Penitentiaries Act but by an outside person. I have nothing to add to that. If there are new facts which might change the decision of the Solicitor General I will make sure they are conveyed to him, and raise the matter with him again.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-ADVICE RECEIVED CONCERNING INFORMING INTERMEDIARIES OF OFFER OF COUNTRY TO RECEIVE PRISONERS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday that no final decision had been made in respect of the information concerning the country apparently willing to accept the prisoners, would the Prime Minister indicate what was the advice he had received from the penitentiary officials on the site regarding the question of whether the information should be communicated to the mediators, the hostages and the prisoners? What was the advice he had received from the officials on the site?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had not
received any directly, Mr. Speaker, but in my communications with the Solicitor General it was indicated that the state of play was still as I indicated earlier, that consultations were going on, they were being assessed and plans were being made before the unfortunate series of events took place which brought the whole matter to a close.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF INTERMEDIARIES FROM NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE CONCLUSION OF INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my last question concerns the new evidence that those who were involved in the mediation are concerned about, that is being excluded from the discussions toward the end of this unfortunate incident. Can the Prime Minister advise why the negotiators were suddenly excluded from the negotiations toward the end of that evening, I understand it was around eleven o'clock, and why no further negotiations or discussions took place between the mediators and the officials on the site? Why was it that these

Oral Questions
mediators were asked to leave, or why they went home? As a corollary to that question, I would urge the Prime Minister to again consider the matter of a public inquiry in view of the many, many questions which are now arising in the public mind. I would appreciate a response in terms of why the mediators were excluded toward the end of that evening.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what series of facts the hon. member is referring. I do not know what meetings they were excluded from and I do not know why. I am sure that when the Solicitor General is in full command of the facts he will make them known to the House, and I think this can be done without any type of inquiry. He will get to the bottom of the facts by himself. If he cannot do it that way he will, as he indicated yesterday, appoint an inquiry. The rest is a matter of policy and political judgment. I repeat that the minister, the government and myself are prepared to take the responsibility for the handling of these events. I must point out to the House that I did consult with the leaders of the three opposition parties on this matter, asking if they had any advice to give me. We had a good, frank exchange on a confidential basis. Then, the government went out and took its responsibilities. I repeat, the political and policy decisions were ours. There is no need for an inquiry to find out what they are; we are telling you what they are.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make it clear, and I know the Prime Minister did not want to give any other impression, that the consultations took place long before this offer from an unidentified country had been received by the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to indicate that the responsibility was other than ours. Obviously, we did not get together after eleven o'clock that evening. I am trying to make clear to the House that we have two fundamental objectives that we are trying to pursue. One, which I am sure will have the support of this House, is not to create a situation where people in other penitentiaries or indeed in the same penitentiary might think that if they took similar action they would get safe conduct and be set free. This will not happen under my government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since the problem of sugar marketing is cropping up again and is of concern to all Canadians, may I ask the minister whether he could report to the House on the court case against the sugar combine in Canada? If he cannot

provide this information now, when does he expect to be in a position to do so?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this case is presently before the Superior Court in Montreal and is not yet completed. We will therefore have to wait for the judgment. At all events, I must remind the hon. member that very fortunately, the price of sugar is dropping, and I hope it will drop even more in the coming weeks.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF SUGAR
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since I have received this morning representations from biscuit and candy manufacturers who are concerned about a further increase in the price of sugar, and since Canadians will no doubt be more concerned about a further price increase, could the minister tell the House whether such concern is justified and whether he anticipates an increase? If so, why?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very concerned if there should be an increase in sugar prices for the reasons the hon. member mentioned. I am not clear yet that there is any such indication, but I shall be pleased to make an inquiry and give the hon. member the information.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
We hear daily, especially in eastern Canada, that the price of sugar will go up in a matter of days now, and that exporting countries have reached a decision. Is the minister, who heads a department of experts, aware of that rumor? If so, to complete the question of my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), what steps does the minister or government intend to take to maintain employment in Canada and to protect consumers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already made clear to the previous member that I am not at all sure yet that there will be or that there is an inevitable increase in the price of sugar. I have indicated to him that I would be pleased to make an inquiry and give him the information. I suggest that the second part of the hon. member's question should be more properly addressed to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister following the questions raised earlier. I wish to say we are just as anxious as he is to get to the bottom of this and are trying to separate fact from fiction. Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General at what time the authorities in British Columbia became aware of the fact that the hostages intended to try to overcome the inmates, which I thought was a very material question. The Solicitor General replied that this came without warning. As reported at page 6,656 of Hansard, I asked:
There was no advance warning?
The Solicitor General replied:
There was no advance warning whatsoever.
In light of the story in the Ottawa Citizen of today written by Jim Spears who served as a member of the negotiating committee and who was present during the few fateful hours in which he wrote:
Just before we were to meet them, prison authorities got word that the hostages planned to attack the inmates.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would check with the Solicitor General to find out which story is correct, the story the Solicitor General gave us earlier or the story of the member of the negotiating team as recounted in his article?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-RESPONSIBILITY FOR RELEASE OF DRUGS TO PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES AND FOR INFORMING HOSTAGES GUARDS WOULD MOVE WHEN HOSTAGES MOVED AGAINST PRISONERS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that drugs were released to the hostages and that two of those hostages are now under doctors' care and a number of others are still quite seriously ill this morning, can he advise the House who in the government authorized the release of drugs and in particular of a drug called Noludar, to the inmates for use on the hostages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire. I am sure it was the medical doctors on the spot who advised this.


John Douglas Reynolds: My supplementary question relates to the period of time when the hostages were making up their minds to attack the inmates. Can the Prime Minister advise me, in view of the fact that one of the hostages said they received a message "that the pen was ready to move when the hostages made a move against the inmates", who authorized a secret message to be sent to the hostages which was totally opposed to what the government was trying to do at that time?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not know about this alleged message. I will inquire into it.


John Douglas Reynolds: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which is very simple. Where is the Solicitor General today when he should be in the House answering questions about a very serious matter?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO SYSTEM OF SECURITY AND CONTROL IN INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister said he wanted to make certain that this government would not leave any impression that bargains would be made with criminals in the future, and in light of the fact that many questions were left unanswered today and that the whole system of security control in the penitentiaries should be examined carefully because that is what caused this situation, namely the breakdown of security and control, would the Prime Minister not reconsider his position and establish a royal commission to examine the whole system of security and control in penitentiaries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must point out to the hon. member that the premise to his question is incorrect. I did not say that bargains would not be made with prisoners; I said we would make sure they would not escape free.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister has cleared up one fact for us. In light of the fact that there are other questions which he could not answer, will he now reconsider his position on the question of security and control in penitentiaries which must have broken down in the B.C. penitentiary and examine the whole system right across the board to assure the people who are employed in those institutions of protection against criminals of this kind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, we believe that the inquiry under the Penitentiaries Act can shed much light on the facts. I must point out to the hon. member that in one question he creates fiction and when I restate the facts, he states that I am clearing up some matter. I cannot be responsible for the fiction that was created on the other side or in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO INCREASE SECURITY IN FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CRISIS TEAM
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it arises out of the quite justifiable concern of many Canadians, particularly those located in the vicinity of federal prisons, about the possibility of future attempted escapes. What measures does the government intend to take immediately to increase security in federal prisons?
6678

June 12, 1975
Oral Questions
For example, does the government have plans at present to increase staffing in federal prisons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to take notice of that question on behalf of the Solicitor General.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government is giving consideration to establishing a crisis team similar to that being established this summer by the government of Ontario to deal with such situations in the future. Can the Prime Minister also tell the House what involvement, if any, the Police Security Planning and Analysis Group had in this particular instance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it is sufficient to say that we met and were in contact with all relevant officials at the relevant times. So far as crisis planning is concerned, the hon. member might remember that quite a long while ago we did indicate our position on the setting up of that group.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there must be some confusion in the Prime Minister's mind regarding what I was asking. The first part of my question related to creation of a special crisis team by the Ontario Provincial Police which would be mobile and which would help in such situations, for example, when hostages are taken. The second part of my question was what involvement did the Police Security Planning and Analysis Group have. I wonder if the Prime Miinister might be able to address himself to that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was to that I addressed myself.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Argentine Ambassador to Canada which appeared in yesterday's press in which he was quoted as saying:
All nations should have the same rights, including the possibility of producing nuclear weapons ...
This right is a "treasure to be shared by everyone".
He also added that his country is "jealous of her sovereignty". I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake to ascertain from the government of Argentina whether or not the views expressed by that government's ambassador in Canada represent the official position of the government of Argentina, and if it does, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will reconsider its decision to continue with the negotiations for the sale of a CANDU reactor to Argentina?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to reply as the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.

My department immediately got in touch with the Argentine embassy when it saw this report. We asked for a clarification and we were told that it distorts what both the Argentine authorities concerned and the ambassador personally have said about the peaceful aims of that country in developing nuclear energy.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS PRIOR TO SALE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council whether I am to understand that before the government agrees to sell a nuclear reactor to the Argentine government there will be a twofold requirement, first, that they must be a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, secondly, that they must sign a bilateral safeguard treaty with the government of Canada? I want to ask if those two conditions will be strictly applied with respect to any such sale.


Mitchell William Sharp: The signing of the NPT is not an essential requirement. The Argentine government has undertaken not to use Canadian supplies for any explosive purposes, and the Argentine authorities have reaffirmed their general dedication to the exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are now engaged in negotiations with that country concerning the safeguards to be applied.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
point out to the minister that India gave similar assurances to the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, I want to ask the minister if any agreement or treaty which the government of Canada will require the government of Argentina to sign will be the same agreement containing the same stipulations, terms and conditions as that which is being applied to South Korea? In other words, I am asking the minister if this is to be a standard agreement or if agreements are to be changed from country to country depending on the wishes of a particular country.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman knows very well that we did not have an agreement with India regarding peaceful explosions. It is our intention to have such an agreement with Argentina. It is the stated policy of the Government of Canada that we will not supply nuclear materials or nuclear technology to any country which does not agree in advance by written agreement to abide by our standards. That will apply to Argentina as it applies to everyone else.

June 12, 1975


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I am constrained to ask it because I know the cockles of his heart were warmed with compassion by what happened yesterday in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Great campaign, Otto. Keep up the good work.


John George Diefenbaker: Some weeks ago when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the appellate court decision in the province of Quebec and substituted the verdict of the jury of not guilty with a verdict of guilty by stating that guilt had been proven, the minister said that this would not happen for five years and that there was no necessity to be concerned. He was even prepared to leave the bench on that basis. I will not enter into the merits of abortions and the like, but we again find that Morgentaler has been acquitted and again the Minister of Justice in the province of Quebec has launched an appeal to the court of appeal of Quebec. In other words, they are apparently launching an orgy of persecution. Will the minister under the circumstances, and in order to prevent courts from deciding that they know more than juries and substituting their views for the decision of 12 good men and women, now bring in amendments to the Criminal Code to provide that no court of appeal shall have the right to substitute its view as to guilt or a verdict of not guilty rendered by the bulwark of our liberty?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the right hon. gentleman would want to join with me in congratulating Premier Blakeney on his success in the Saskatchewan election.


John George Diefenbaker: I didn't work to prevent that.


Otto Emil Lang: It would only be Conservative members, who, having said in the campaign that with candidates running in all seats, their full federal vote would come to them, and they have therefore suffered a drop of 10 per cent in one year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Only Conservatives could take consolation in that fact. That portion of the right hon. member's question is just about as full of distortion as the rest of his question. He attempts to have me comment on a matter which is quite properly before the courts and which is proceeding in the ordinary way, and to have me make some suggestion about the results which may come about. Of course, that is completely improper in this House, and I should think the right hon. gentleman would know that.
It is most regrettable that he should, in this way and in this place with regard to an attorney general who is not here to defend himself, use such words as "orgy of perse-
Oral Questions
cution" in regard to an officer of the court who is, presumably carrying out his duties and upholding the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I share with many hon. members their high esteem for the jury system. I also believe that it is a very important principle that the parliament of Canada makes the law and in some way or other the courts of this land ought to enforce that law as made by this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I had not intended to refer to the circumstances of yesterday more directly, but I am sure that Premier Blakeney and those associated with him will thank the minister for his contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the minister that parliament should make the law, and I will again ask him why he does not bring in an amendment to the effect that henceforth no court of appeal shall be able to circumvent and undermine a jury by substituting its own views for that of a jury. As one who has tried many jury trials, and I am sure even more than the hon, gentleman, I ask this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whatever answer the minister gave, it seems to me that that is precisely the question he just answered.


John George Diefenbaker: He didn't answer it.


NEW SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR URANIUM
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of statements made by Dr. Prince, President of the Atomic Energy Control Board, that new federal safety standards for uranium mines will be introduced later this summer, can the minister inform the House what he means by new standards? Is he talking about a new silica dust emission standard or a new working level months standard?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm this in detail, but my recollection is that it will be with regard to both.


John R. Rodriguez: If that is so, how does this relate to the present standards the province of Ontario set as early as January of this year, and what consultations have taken place with the provincial government about the standards, since they have just recently set standards of their own? I also ask the minister if he has involved the union which represents the workers in those mines at Elliot Lake, or if
29576-10'/2

June 12, 1975
Oral Questions
he plans to involve the union in the setting of standards of safety and health under which they are expected to work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a very useful suggestion. I will pass it on to Dr. Prince.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The New Brunswick court of appeal has recently overturned the conviction of the Irving interests on a charge of monopoly control of newspapers in that province contrary to the Combines Investigation Act, and I therefore want to ask the minister whether the government will be appealing that court of appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada in the interests of maintaining an effectively operating marketing system in this country.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously on an important case such as this we will be giving very serious consideration to the legal issues involved and announce our decision at a very early time.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it concerns the responsibility of the government in penal rehabilitation programs. As Mary Steinhauser is the third employee killed in the line of duty in Canadian penitentiaries this year while engaged in programs designed to rehabilitate hardened criminals, will the government change its methods and policies so that the lives of penal staff members will no longer be placed in jeopardy in attempts to rehabilitate certain inmates who, according to recent experience, cannot be rehabilitated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take that to be a suggestion along the lines of which the Solicitor General is already working.


TELEGRAM FROM ABBOTSFORD UNION EXPRESSING LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him if the Solicitor General has discussed with him the contents of a telegram he received from local 20017, Abbotsford Public Service Alliance of Canada, Solicitor General component. The telegram asks for the enforcement of the death penalty for persons who murder prison

guards and policemen, expresses lack of confidence in the Solicitor General and requests his resignation. Is the absence of the Solicitor General today to be imputed to that telegram?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


ESCAPE OF THREE PRISONERS FROM WILLIAM HEAD PRISON-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF INQUIRY TO COVER SECURITY MEASURES IN ALL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. As three dangerous prisoners recently escaped from William Head prison, a maximum security institution in British Columbia, by walking around the end of a double fence recently installed around the maximum security prison at a cost of $100,000-


An hon. Member:: By Public Works.


Donald W. Munro: -will the Prime Minister assure this House and the country that the inquiry which has been instituted in connection with recent sad events at New Westminster will be extended to cover all types of security measures in all federal penitentiaries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly raise that question with the Solicitor General. I am not sure if it would be in everyone's interest to have this particular inquiry cover every such institution, but I will certainly discuss it with him.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have more security in your caucus than we have in our prisons.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the answer the President of the Treasury Board gave to a question I asked concerning misuse of PFAA funds at Regina, part of which is recorded at page 6601 of Hansard, which suggests that the secretary in question "has always been paid out of the same funds," will the President of the Treasury Board who is, to use his own words, "the bagman of the country," tell the House the source of the funds to which he referred?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the funds involved are not those intended for the farmers. She was paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada like all other civil servants.
June 12, 1975


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House if the payments were made in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The transfer was approved by the Public Service Commission.


USE OF MEGAVITAMINS IN ORTHOMOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the Department of National Health and Welfare reviewed Canada's position regarding the use of megavitamins in orthomolecular psychiatry, and does he not consider it discriminatory that some provinces allow the use of megavitamins, while others do not, even in cases of extreme need?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly take the hon. member's question as notice. I shall be pleased to give him an answer after consulting my officials.


IMMIGRATION
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As various elements disrupted committee hearings in Toronto in the last several days, can the minister indicate what steps he is taking to make sure that when the committee meets in Winnipeg, those who wish to make presentations to the committee can do so in an orderly and civil manner?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I agree totally with the premise of the question. I point out to the hon. member however, that the proceedings and administration of the committee are in the hands of the committee itself. I am prepared to take steps which the committee asks me to take but I cannot initiate them without the committee's approval.
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Following the heavy losses of fishing gear, including lobster traps, sustained by fishermen in the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands area, as well as in a large part of the Maritimes last weekend, has the minister received from fishermen organizations or the provinces concerned a request for financial assistance to compensate such losses? If so, does he intend, as a minister extremely devoted to the cause of fishermen, to submit to cabinet generous financial aid proposals?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that such a premise calls for a much more positive reply than the one I am in a position to make. I should like to say, however, that I have not yet received from the provincial governments directly involved any assessment of damage. I know that my officials have already carried a preliminary assessment. In some cases, the losses are quite heavy. However, under the formula related to disasters, applications must first be submitted by provincial governments. I shall consider them with all the sympathy I feel for these fishermen under such circumstances.


LOBSTER FISHERMEN-INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS FROM PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FOR COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EQUIPMENT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does what the minister just said about not having received requests from the provinces apply also to Prince Edward Island, where losses in some areas have been great?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will immediately check with my office. I have not seen official requests from the provinces on my desk. I have received communications from my officials and fishermen's organizations but have seen no official document from the provinces.


LOBSTER FISHERMEN-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON RECONSIDERATION OF THOSE EXCLUDED FROM COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES LAST YEAR
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister reviewed the decisions which were made last year, which went against the wishes of the fishermen who were excluded from compensation for lobster gear losses, and if he has reached a decision, will he advise the House what the decision was?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have checked the background of this matter. Federal officials had the responsibility of deter-

June 12, 1975
Oral Questions
mining areas in which income supplement would be paid because fishermen had not been able to fish as a result of ice conditions. Federal officials undertook this task and they drew the line indicating this area. The responsibility with respect to damage to gear, was that of provincial authorities, and I am told they adhered pretty well to the lines which were drawn for the first program. This question could better be addressed to them.


POSSIBILITY OF FISHING GEAR INSURANCE PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister considered, in conjunction with the provinces, implementing an ongoing program so that fishermen who sustain losses through ice or storms will not need to lose the fishing season while waiting for a decision from the government and will receive compensation as soon as possible after the damage has occurred.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with provincial deputy ministers and our own officials on the possibility of a fishing gear insurance program. Everybody recognizes this as being highly desirable but nobody, so far, has been able to produce a plan which is administratively possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. When answering the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot on June 2, the minister suggested that a meeting of provincial ministers would be called in order to reach agreement on the future of CEMA. Has the date of the meeting been set, has a draft of the agreement been summarized and, since the June 10 deadline is gone, is the minister still considering imposing import controls?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was called, the draft agreement was amended, or at least agreed to, eight provinces posted performance bonds or guarantees, and we have had discussions with our American counterparts.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that an effective supply-management control program will be in place and, if so, will import controls be imposed?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the supply-management program will be in place and that proper controls will be in place in due course.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be for the rest of this week and next week, and can the hon. gentleman indicate what the House is likely to do with respect to the budget debate? I ask this question because recent revelations in the Ottawa Journal make the budget look like a plucked chicken; there is not much left to debate in the way of legislation. Can the hon. gentleman say if we are to debate any legislative measures after the budget has been introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, until the cabinet has decided on the budget measures, I am afraid I cannot give any satisfaction as to whether it is going to look more plucked before or after presentation. As to the business for the coming week, with the exception of Monday this is in the hands of the opposition, there being opposition days today, tomorrow and next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are in good hands.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope they make skilful use of them, although I will wait to be convinced. On Friday I shall put down a motion for reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of papers to be tabled by the Minister of Transport on Monday. It will be my intention to call that motion for debate on Monday.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the plan just announced for Monday, I wonder if arrangements can be made for the papers that will be tabled that day to be put in the hands of spokesmen of the opposition parties at least some time prior to two o'clock so that the debate on Monday can be that much more intelligent.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check the timetable. Tomorrow I will be meeting with the ministers of transport from the ten provinces. I want to meet with the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications so that we can have discussions in advance. Maybe through this means it will be possible to have a free discussion.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Boulanger.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 12, 1975

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,357, 1,889, 1,893, 1,982, 2,137, 2,279, 2,346, 2,354, 2,456, 2,468 and 2,479.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 2,408 and 2,528?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Will compensation be offered to those Canadian citizens whose stock in Reader's Digest has decreased in value because of legislation to be introduced and who purchased that stock when it was made available to them in order that Reader's Digest could comply with previous legislation?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Bill C-58 is still before the House and to say at this time what the effect may be on the value of the stock if and when the proposed amendment becomes law, is no more than speculation. In any event, the government is not considering any plan to compensate Canadian shareholders. It should be noted that under the law as it now stands, there is no requirement nor was there one when a block of shares was sold in 1968, that Reader's Digest make stock available to Canadians.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the (a) Postmaster (b) janitor at Carcross Junction, Yukon post office in receipt of a northern isolation allowance?
2.	Is there any inequality of treatment with respect to the northern allowance between these two positions and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) No; (b) Yes.
2.	The Postmaster is employed under the Post Office Act, whereas the janitor is employed under the Public Service Employment Act. There is a disparity between allowances payable to each type of employee. Only employees as defined in the Public Service Employment Act are eligible for Isolated Post Allowances. However, certain employees under the Post Office Act may be paid special allowances. The department is currently reviewing these allowances with a view to bringing them more into line with those paid to other government employees.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Was citizenship denied to Mr. Willoughby Newton Offley, Jr., Toronto, Ontario, on March 16, 1973 and, if so, what information was reviewed by the Secretary of State leading to such denial?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship state to Mr. Offley that "the information upon which the decision was based is confidential and it would not be in the public interest to reveal it" and, if so, on what grounds?
3.	Were there grounds other than his political beliefs and organizational affiliations?
4.	Does Mr. Offley's application fall in the category of a "certain case" as described in paragraph 301 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Security (abridged), June 1969 and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Has a Security Review Board been established and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, was Mr. Offley not informed of the possibility of appealing to, or having access to it and, for what reason?
6.	Were objections filed with the Citizenship Branch pursuant to section 28 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1970, chapter C-19, opposing the application of Mr. Offley and, if so (a) what were they (b) who filed such objections?
7.	Were any reports relating to Mr. Offley's application filed with the Secretary of State or the Citizenship Branch from (a) RCMP Security and Intelligence Division (b) the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group (c) Canadian Armed Forces Intelligence (d) the Department of the Solicitor General (e) the Toronto Police Department (f) the Halifax Police Department (g) Interpol (h) the FBI or the CIA and, if so, what were the contents of such reports?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Yes. It has not been the practice to divulge such privileged information.
2.	Yes, on the grounds that the information on which the decision was based was classified.
3.	It has not been the practice of this Department to divulge this type of information.
4.	Yes, for particularly significant security reasons.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	Reports received by Department of the Secretary of State on this matter were from law enforcement agencies.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Department of Supply and Services issue a contract to Philbrooks' Shipyards, Sydney, British Columbia valued at $1,404,897 on October 4, 1974?
2.	Was the contract issued for the supply of three 65 foot vessels at a cost of $468,299 per vessel?
3.	Were tenders invited from shipbuilders elsewhere in Canada and, if so, was a tender call given to L'Industrie Marine de Caraquet Limitee, Caraquet, New Brunswick?
4.	Was a superior equipped vessel of steel construction offered at a cost negligible to the $470,000 price of a fiberglass constructed vessel and, if so, for what reason was the latter type vessel selected?
5.	What benefits are there in terms of operation, longevity and maintenance of a fiberglass vessel as compared to a steel hulled boat?
6.	Is it the policy of the Department to purchase vessels that remain to be in a stage of experimental development such as a 65 foot fiberglass vessel?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Environment as follows: 1. The contract was awarded on September 18, 1974. The news release was dated October 4, 1974.
2. Yes.

June 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions
3.	These vessels are for west coast operation. It is federal government procurement policy that competition may be restricted to a particular area when it is not practical to transship a vessel to another area. Competition was limited to the west coast after consideration of risks, additional cost and time which would result from national competition. Tenders were invited from six shipyards in British Columbia.
4.	No.
5.	The operational characteristics of these 65 foot patrol vessels are very similar to those of a steel vessel. The use of fiberglass, however, results in a smoother external hull than could be achieved by the use of steel. Unlike a wooden vessel, the fiberglass vessel will not increase in weight due to water absorption. The anticipated life of these fiberglass vessels is expected to be comparable with a well preserved steel vessel and somewhat in excess of the expected life of a wooden hull. The use of fiberglass for the construction of these vessels will result in reduced maintenance costs throughout the life of the vessel. A steel or wooden vessel would require annual repainting in order to preserve the hull structure as well as more frequent touch-up painting when the protective coating broke down.
6.	The vessels in question are not considered to be in a stage of experimental development. They are of conventional hull shape, propelled by commercial diesel engines and outfitted to meet the requirements of their role. The construction of the hulls using glass reinforced plastic follow conventional accepted practice and use inspected for compliance with the rules and regulations of the Canadian Board of Steamship Inspection.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what was spent by the Post Office Department on (a) research (b) capital spending programmes?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: (a) 1969-70, $364,000; 1970-71, $117,977; 1971-72, $338,509; 1972-73, $563,255; 1973-74, $325,268; 197475, $505,426; (b) 1969-70, $3,324; 1970-71, $4,748; 1971-72, $7,575; 1972-73, $9,616; 1973-74, $27,209.


Mr. Lachance: 1.	Do Public Service Regulations provide that a notice of cancellation of a competition as a result of an appeal, be sent to the candidates?
2.	When an appeal is made to the federal court against a decision of the Public Service Appeal Commission, what happens to the appealed competition, and is the position temporarily filled pending the court's decision?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No.
2. The action to be taken by the Commission when an appeal is made against the results of a competition is prescribed by Section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act. If the appeal is allowed, no appointment may be made until corrective action in keeping with the appeal board decision has been made. If the appeal is dismissed, appointment action may be taken. When the decision of an Appeal Board is referred to the Federal Court, a second

Board is appointed to take into consideration the direction of the Court in all cases where the decision of the Appeal Board is set aside. Since the action in competitions must respond to the decision of the second Appeal Board in the usual manner and as required by Section 21, any action that might conflict with the decision of the Court and Appeal Board is held in abeyance. Action contrary to such decisions which may already have been taken must be revoked.


Mr. Firth: 1.	Do persons living in the smaller settlements of the Northwest Territories receive C.O.D. parcels through a regional post office and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Can persons living in such small settlements purchase postal money orders at their local post office and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Are such practices limited to the Northwest Territories or do other areas of the country face the same lack of service?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. Persons living in the smaller settlements of the Northwest Territories receive C.O.D. parcels through their local post offices.
2.	Money orders are sold at all post offices where demand warrants their sale. If a post office does not sell money orders procedures exist for the postmaster to obtain them, for the customer, from the nearest post office which does provide the service.
3.	Such practices are not limited to the Northwest Territories and do exist in other areas.
THEFT OF MAIL BY POSTAL EMPLOYEES	I

Question No. 2,354-Mr. Dinsdale:	I
1.	How many cases of theft of mail by postal employees have been	B
investigated in each of the past five years?	B
2.	How many prosecutions have taken place for each of the past five	B
years?	B
3.	How many employees have been fired because of theft from the	B
mail?	B
4.	What is the breakdown of Parts 1, 2 and 3 for (a) Vancouver (b)	B
Calgary (c) Winnipeg (d) Toronto (e) Montreal?	B
Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Post-	B
master General):	B
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-751. No. of Cases	478	539	545	420	5722. No. of Prosecutions	Employees	41	38	49	35	57Others	115	101	150	97	593. No. of Employees Fired and/or	dismissed	18	18	33	42	514. (1) Vancouver	3	4	5	10	8Calgary	4	2	0	8	9Winnipeg	0	1	2	1	1Toronto	41	04	63	58	110Montreal	7	10	13	10	7
June 12, 1975

Order Paper Questions
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-1Vancouver	1	2	2	7	2Calgary	2	0	1	4	0Winnipeg	0	1	1	1	1Toronto	12	20	16	13	31Montreal	7	8	12	9	4Vancouver	1	2	3	7	GCalgary	1	0	3	1	5Winnipeg	0	0	1	1	2Toronto	2	3	5	2	3Montreal	8	9	9	10	5


Mr. McKenzie: Does the Post Office Department, or has it ever, employed the use of private courier services, private mail services, bus mail or bus parcel express for the delivery of interdepartmental mail or any mail or correspondence with outside businesses or individuals and, if so (a) what was the cost in 1974 (b) what is the projected expenditure for 1975?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. Yes. (a) $25,343.70, (b) $25,500.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	Under the federal-provincial programme for bilingualism in education (a) what amounts were granted during the fiscal year 1974-75 to each participating province and territory, if any (b) what formula did the government use to determine the amounts to be distributed to the provinces?
2.	Does the government require that the provinces inform it of the manner in which such amounts are spent and (a) if so (i) did the government receive such a report for the five-year period from 1970 to 1974 (ii) on what date and where will the report be available (iii) will it be Tabled in the House (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	What formula does each province use for the distribution of the amounts between (a) second language training (b) official language training for minorities?


James Hugh Faulkner: June 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) Yes. (i), (ii) and (iii)-A report was tabled in the House of Commons on June 12, 1973; (b) Not applicable.
3.	(a) and (b) The agreement provides that the provinces must make use of the federal contributions for the purpose of achieving the program's two objectives. The distribution of funds varies from province to province according to the particular priorities, needs and programs of each.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,226 which stated in part that no expenses other than transportation were paid for by the taxpayers in connection with the use of a government aircraft for the Prime Minister's Jamaican vacation last December and January (a) where did the four crew members stay while the aircraft remained in Jamaica from December 29, 1974 to January 12, 1975 (b) were any of their expenses paid for by the government and, if so, what was the exact total of all such expenses?


Jean Marchand: (a) The four crew members stayed at the Upper Deck, Montego Bay. (b) Yes. $3,128.97.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount is included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Public Service Commission for additional services for language training which are to be purchased by other departments on a cost recovery basis?
2.	What proportion of such services are provided by (a) permanent staff (b) temporary staff (c) on contract?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1.-$17,712,000.
2. (a) 97 per cent, (b) Nil, (c) 3 per cent.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has The Journal of Canadian Fiction received financial assistance from the Canada Council and, if so (a) is it on an annual basis (b) what is the annual amount (c) what is the purpose of the grant?
2.	Are copies of the Journal supplied free to high school libraries in Canada?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (b) In 1972-73, $12,000; in 1973-74, $14,500; in 1974-75, $17,000. (c) In 1972-73, to help cover publication costs and to publish a special issue dedicated to Professor Carl F. Klinck; in 1973-74 and in 1974-75, to help cover publication costs.
2. No, according to information provided by the managing editor of the Journal of Canadian Fiction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary. There is some urgency about an answer to question No. 2,629 in reference to material being

tied up in the Customs office. I wonder if I could receive an answer to that question tomorrow.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into this one.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary my question No. 2,189 which has been on the order paper since March 26. It has to do with purely statistical information which is readily available to the Department of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This question is particularly urgent because it concerns the sale of houses in my constituency which will take place next month.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I have questions on the order paper which have been on there since February 5- questions Nos. 1,480 to 1,511. I know there must be something wrong; the Secretary of State for External Affairs must be hiding something, otherwise they should be able to answer one or two of those questions a week.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short point of order. Would it be possible for the parliamentary secretary, when asking that starred questions be made orders for return, to not only give the number but the name of the member? I have 40 or 50 questions on the order paper and I do not always remember the numbers. When the parliamentary secretary is asking for an order for return, I would like to know if it is one of my questions. Would it be difficult, when giving the number, also to give the name of the member or his constituency?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent) moved:: That the House deplores the action of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in moving toward policies of a paternalistic and bureaucratic nature with respect to native people and specifically requests that a moratorium be placed on the implementation of recent guidelines issued by the department until such time as full consultation has taken place with the native people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may seem somewhat superfluous, but let me say in introducing this motion that I cannot overemphasize the seriousness and importance my colleagues and I attach to this debate. Although the major debate on the motion will be centred around the recently imposed guidelines, it is important to note-and I want to stress it-that this is a symptom of a more serious, chronic illness that has and continues to plague the native people of Canada.
We will be dealing with some very fundamental principles throughout this debate. With the introduction of new

June 12, 1975

policies under the guise of program circulars, the minister and the government are once again embarking upon a regressive course of action that in recent times can be compared with the 1969 white paper on Indian Affairs. At the outset, I want to say to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), for whom I have great respect, that he has not been completely informed as to the implications of many of the policies contained in the guidelines, and has failed to recognize the serious consequences and implications they will have not only on the future of the native people but in his future relationships with the native community. Without exception, the native leaders across Canada who have had an opportunity to study the guidelines have unequivocally rejected them and have called for a moratorium so that detailed analysis and response can be made by the native people. On the specific point of native awareness of the guidelines, I want to emphasize that the large number of Indian leaders with whom I have talked or communicated have little or no knowledge of the guidelines, let alone an opportunity to assess them in detail. As recently as one o'clock today I had a call from a very large Indian representation in Ontario that had little or no knowledge of these guidelines or time to assess them in detail.
This, in itself, is an extremely serious situation, one in which the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs are introducing new policies, extensive in content and detail, which are completely foreign to many of the native leaders. The native people have been subjected to similar tactics in the past and this situation in itself deserves a thorough investigation by the minister and an immediate withdrawal of the guidelines until such time as the investigation is completed.
In the past few weeks we have attempted to convince the minister that he is embarking upon a program which will impede native development in the attempt to gain self-sufficiency and rid themselves of paternalistic, bureaucratic control by government. Unfortunately, our expressed concerns have not been heeded. The proposals contained in the guidelines will ensure a continuation of the bondage of native people to the federal government and, what is more serious, will prevent them from growing and developing in a positive manner.
I want to emphasize the principal issue in this debate. Let there be no doubt in the minds of the minister and the government that the issue is full consultation with the native community to evolve over a period of time a format whereby the native people of Canada, through self-determination, can establish their own priorities administered by local government free from the yoke of bureaucracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: I emphasize this point because the minister, in responding to repeated questions, has attempted to divert the House, the native people and the people of Canada from this major issue by repeated references to accountability. Let me state as emphatically as I can that accountability is not the issue; accountability did not precipitate this debate. We accept the principle of accountability, and from my discussions with native leaders across
Indian Affairs
Canada I can say there has been universal acceptance on their part of the need for good accounting practices. Indeed, I am certain the minister knows that at the present time a majority of the bands in Canada have accounting procedures which are more than adequate. In fact, the native leaders told me it would have been more productive and of greater benefit to the native people if the minister had started with an internal self-cleansing of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I am sure a number of my colleagues will enlarge on this theme during the debate, but I would like to take a few moments to place this specific question in perspective by quoting from a discussion paper entitled "Principles of Indian Government." This document, prepared by the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians to express their concern about the guidelines, forcefully defines the importance they attach to accountability-a concern which is shared by native people across Canada. It states:
The strengthening of the band accounting and reporting systems has been insisted upon by the chiefs and councils of this region. Contrary to the assumption of government, the Saskatchewan Indian bands are in unanimous agreement that accountability is of the utmost importance. They do wish to be accountable both to the funding source and to their own band membership.
As I observed a few moments ago, this view expressed by the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians is undoubtedly shared by the native leaders with whom I have had numerous consultations. What are some of the specific issues which would have such a destructive effect on the native people? In what manner has the minister eroded the trust and confidence which is so essential when dealing with the difficult and complex problems of native people? In the long-term view, this lack of trust and confidence may well be the most serious consequence of the government's present actions. Surely the minister realized the enormity of the native problems and the necessity of approaching them with understanding, patience and sensitivity on a foundation of mutual trust and confidence.
I should like to ask the minister this question: how long will it take him and the government to recognize they must have respect for the native community, for their leaders and their judgment, if they in turn are to hope for the same respect for their role as leaders in Ottawa? I should like the minister to reflect on that question.
The most serious breach of trust and confidence has been the absence of consultation with the native people. Despite the minister's assertions to the contrary, consultation has not taken place with native leaders; these guidelines, containing many new policies, have been introduced in a unilateral fashion. I want to remind the House that we are not talking about two or three pages of changes, but about an extensive series of alterations so mind-boggling in magnitude and so complex in content that experts in several fields will be required to fully understand their impact.
A cursory glance at these guidelines makes it perfectly clear that the end product was not conceived overnight. There can be no doubt that the time-frame extending from their embryonic stage of development to their final form has spanned a period far greater than the minister's time in office. Surely such a lengthy interval in the absence of

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
full consultation with the native leaders is clear evidence of the government's intention to introduce the measure in a unilateral manner.
The issue of consultation is critical because the absence of consultation clearly shows the government's intention to make unilateral policy changes. I can assure the House that if the native people had been privy to the details of the guidelines, and if they had been offered the opportunity to make an equal and substantive input toward their formulation, the principle of self-government would have been preserved and this debate today would have been unnecessary.
Let me briefly review the record. As recently as June 2 of this year, in response to repeated questioning on this side of the House a communique was issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled "Information Summary of Local Government Guidelines for Band Councils and Innuit Settlements." We read on page 2:
The minister (the Hon. Judd Buchanan) repeated these assurances in the House of Commons on May 6,1975.
"We are prepared to regard these guidelines as being of an interim nature. If they create difficulties and problems, we are prepared to change them."
This communique was sent out on a national basis. Mr. Speaker, the statement I have just quoted is not only a misrepresentation of the exchange which took place between the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) and the minister, but it is a contradiction of the facts as I know them prior to and subsequent to that exchange in the House of Commons. I believe it is necessary to review that exchange between my right hon. friend and the minister if we are to understand the significance of that statement. I should like to quote the following from Hansard of May 6, 1975, at page 5509:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has to do with the policy circulars which have been issued by his department concerning Indian rights and obligations. As the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians as well as the chiefs of the various tribes in that province have taken strong objection to those circulars, on the ground that they were drafted without Indian consultation and represent an arbitrary, bureaucratic action, and that the implementation of the guidelines would result in the loss of their tribal identity, would the minister be prepared to hold back the application of these guidelines and circulars until there has been the fullest consultation, so that the Queen's wards shall not have their rights sacrificed in any way?
The following is the minister's response:
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member has, I take it, referred to the local government guidelines and the education guidelines. First, I do not accept the suggestion that there has not been consultation. There has been considerable consultation on these guidelines ... with the Indian people, or the National Indian Brotherhood. I indicated to them in a letter that the ones which have been proclaimed will remain in force, but we regard them as being of an interim nature and will review them at the end of the year. With respect to the ones which have not been proclaimed, we would wait for their response, which would be in addition to the discussions we have had to date and we shall give them until June 1 to respond to the ones which have not yet been put into force.
Two observations must be made and developed about the minister's response, which clearly indicates that unilateral action was in fact taken and that there has been an

absence of consultation. To paraphrase, the minister referred to "local government guidelines" and "education guidelines", known respectively to those who have studied the problem as series D and and series E. The minister also implied in his response that these guidelines had been proclaimed and that they will remain in force. This, of course, is precisely the point I am making and that my colleagues will be making, that indeed these guidelines have been proclaimed unilaterally and it is this action by the government that has been rejected by the native community.
On this particular point, I want to emphasize that the assistant deputy minister of Indian and Eskimo affairs, in correspondence with regional directors on February 17 of this year, clearly indicated that program circular D-l contained the general terms and conditions for all programs and in fact was the cornerstone of Indian local government policy. So in fact, contrary to what the minister would have us believe, the key guidelines have been introduced and are to remain in force. Again, on May 20 of this year, in response to questions put by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), as reported at page 5950 of Hansard the minister replied:
These are guidelines which we have established for the operation of local government on the reserves. We feel they are reasonable guidelines having to do with normal administration, auditing and so on. We are asking the bands to agree to them and we expect they will be prepared to do so.
To a supplementary question regarding the guidelines, the minister responded as follows:
As far as these guidelines are concerned, I have already indicated to the Indian people that we are prepared to regard them as being of an interim nature. We would discuss them and review them after they have been in operation for a year. There are further guidelines which have not yet been proclaimed and we have stated we are prepared to hear any representations regarding them.
Then on May 26, in questions in the House respecting the guidelines, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) specifically asked for an assurance that band funding would not be conditional upon the acceptance of local government guidelines. The minister, as reported at page 6097 of Hansard, replied as follows:
We have indicated that the guidelines which have been proclaimed will be going into force, but we are prepared, prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year, to discuss them and alter them if that seems the prudent course. We have indicated they are in effect. As to the other ones which have not yet been put in place, we are prepared to hear representations on them before they come into effect.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the important guidelines, specifically D-l and series E, are in effect and were planned to be put into effect with no consultation and by unilateral action. The assistant deputy minister of Indian and Eskimo affairs, in correspondence with regional directors on February 17 stated, if I may quote his letter to the regional director, Alberta region, headed "Local Government Program, General Terms and Conditions":
Attached is an updated version of the general terms and conditions sent to you in September, 1974. You will note that they have been put into program circular format and are now designated "Program Circular D-l" with the title: "General Terms and Conditions-Local Government Program". These general terms and conditions encompass all programs and are the cornerstone of Indian local government policy and contain the non-negotiable conditions as seen from the federal government's point of view. While suggestions for amendments or
June 12, 1975

improvements are solicited, these terms and conditions remain mandatory.
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, from the minister's statements and from correspondence from the department that these guidelines were introduced in a unilateral manner, with the prospect of their remaining in force. What is even more serious, and in my view deserves the immediate attention of the minister, is the fear that these guidelines are being forced on the native people. Again I want to refer to the letter dated February 17 from the assistant deputy minister, the next succeeding paragraph. He writes:
Attached as well are copies of Program Circulars D-2 and D-3 which deal with district council operations and band core funding respectively. Program circulars D-4 and D-5 will follow, in due course, covering band program funding and band program administration funding.
Then later in that paragraph:
In the interim, you should delay the approval of any band council resolutions dealing with program administration funding for the coming fiscal year. In order that programs continue uninterrupted, you may advance funds to bands for the first quarter only based on this year's arrangements.
I do not pretend to be a lawyer or to understand that type of language, but in my view there can be no doubt that coercion is implied and I strongly urge the minister to investigate this particular problem; because if such were the case, then of course it would be an injustice of the gravest magnitude.
The second point in connection with the minister's responses on May 6 was his reference to consultation on these guidelines, and I think he referred either to the Indian people or the National Indian Brotherhood. Once again, the facts do not support the minister's position. As I indicated at the outset, there has been widespread rejection of the guidelines and the major complaint in each instance has been the absence of consultation. I should like to quote from a letter that was addressed to the minister on May 30 of this year by the National Indian Brotherhood. The first part of the letter reads as follows:
Enclosed you will find a paper which we have prepared for your attention. In your letter to me of April 21, 1975, and in more recent public statements, you express surprise that Indian organizations are opposing the guidelines issued by the Department of Indian Affairs. We believe that this paper will clarify our position and convince you of the justice of our opposition.
On the same subject, I am very concerned about another statement you have been making. It concerns the consultation which took place on the guidelines. To my knowledge there has been no consultation at any time between your Department and the National Indian Brotherhood on the five Local Government Program Circulars. In regard to the twelve Education Circulars, there are certain aspects that you did not emphasize.
The letter was signed by the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. Again, on January 2 of this year a press release was issued by the National Indian Brotherhood. The subject of the press release was "National Indian Brotherhood Protests Minister's Statement on 'Consultation' ".
I quote from this press release which states in part:
Contrary to several recent public statements made by the minister, Mr. Manuel denies that there has been any consultation between the brotherhood and the department on the five Local Government Guide-
Indian Affairs
lines. The consultation which took place on the Education Guidelines resulted in rejection by the Indian organization.
Mr. Manuel protests a process of consultation based on reaction to bureaucratically prepared blue-prints designed to govern the lives of Indian people.
I have received numerous examples from provincial organizations similar to this, from various bands, tribes and individuals, but they are far too lengthy to list in Hansard. They are well documented and are available for those who wish to see them on a subsequent occasion. As I indicated at the outset, these guidelines contain proposals which have serious implications and will unquestionably place the right of self-government by native people in jeopardy. I know my colleagues will discuss many of these aspects and specifics this afternoon. I also know, as I am sure the minister does, that these guidelines are so extensive that it would be impossible, in fact, in the length of time at our disposal to cover all the aspects involved affecting Indian rights.
I believe the fears of the native people can best be summarized by quoting from a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), dated April 17 of this year, from the president of the National Indian Brotherhood following a special general assembly meeting held in Ottawa in March of this year. The letter states:
Following is a resolution passed by our special general assembly, held in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 25-27, 1975:
Motion: (Alec Kennedy, Max Gros-Louis)
That the executive council direct the cabinet to clearly tell the minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that he should no longer implement the white paper policy of 1969 in any way, shape or form.
Carried.
In so far as the National Indian Brotherhood and the chiefs of Alberta met with you-
That was in June, 1970.
-and were assured by yourself personally that your government would not pursue the proposals outlined in the white paper policy of 1969; and further, in so far as your former minister of Indian affairs ... had assured us on numerous occasions that his department would not attempt to implement the concepts outlined in the 1969 white paper, we are very concerned to find that many aspects of this above-mentioned proposed policy are now evident in new program guidelines and regulations being imposed on our band councils.
These new program guidelines and regulations essentially represent changes in the department's policies and programs and impinge upon negotiations respecting Indian rights, currently under way.
Let me conclude very briefly by indicating that the guidelines as we have seen them from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are but another example of the continuing paternalistic attitude of the government. The formula of divide and conquer is well known to the native people, and this is but another example of the government's plan to control and manipulate the native people of Canada.
Contrary to what the minister would have us believe, this introduction of an unbelievable number of regulations-I would ask hon. members opposite to take the time to review these-will restrict local government and the ability of the native people to establish their own priorities and deal with problems which are specific to the needs of their people. I am sure that if hon. members reviewed all the aspects of these regulations and assessed them in

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
detail, they would not be willing to live under these guidelines whether they were native persons or not.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by this attitude, because it is an attitude that I have found permeates many aspects of governments. Each day we see infringement on an increasing number of our personal rights as the government and bureaucracy decides what is best for us as individuals. The native people reject bureaucratic control, and in the matter before the House I strongly oppose any measures that will adversely effect local autonomy of the native community. These guidelines are a total rejection of the right to local autonomy. We are not dealing with guidelines respecting the rights of the people; we are dealing with a bureaucratic, imposed government of the native people by way of regulation.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a new subject today. On several occasions you have heard me ramble on about policy guidelines, you have heard some of my colleagues to my right speaking about them, and you have heard a prepared statement on the matter read out in the House on behalf of the minister by someone else's parliamentary secretary. Even the minister himself has spoken on this subject.
Much of the time was spent discussing the meaning of the word "consultation". I do not wish to take up much more time of the House discussing that, but I would just like to point out that if one party to a decision says there was consultation, and the other party says there was not, then very obviously there has been a breakdown in communications somewhere. That is an important concept that often gets buried under a flurry of circulars, guidelines, press releases and excerpts from Hansard, tons of paper, but no communication!
By my definition, communication takes place when one person listens while another speaks; then you reverse that pattern, think about it for a while and repeat the whole process until a decision is reached. That is communication. The Department of Indian Affairs does not appear to use that method. It seems to me that their definition involves having top-level bureaucrats make the decision; then one of them writes it up as a speech which the minister reads; then they bring in a high-powered team of public relations people to make sure the official word is spread far and wide; then they get some lower-level bureaucrat to go out to the Indian communities to tell the Indian people how they will live for the next little while.
By using this method there is no provision for feedback from the native people. It seems to me the department has adopted the idea that Indians are not people, that they are non-people, just things to be administered. It is not for any lack of trying on behalf of the native people that this lack of communication exists. Some of the entities the department considers non-people try to communicate by forming organizations. There is a group of them about four blocks from where we are sitting today. I refer to the National Indian Brotherhood. They have an office on the sixteenth floor of a skyscraper. They have secretaries and legal counsel. Some of them even wear ties.

The existence of this particular type of non-person owes no thanks to the government. It is the taxpayers' money that is being spent, money that was earned by these people a long time ago. This particular type of non-person is pretty sophisticated. On the surface he would appear to be much like other middle-class Canadians. But he is trying to communicate with the department and is treated by the department like a non-person.
There are other non-people. There are people like myself who are elected to an august body such as this. We try to communicate our problems. We try to tell the other people in the country that native people do not have a share of the great Canadian pie. It is obvious that the department does not listen to us.
Then there are the other non-people who are trying to communicate. They are not as sophisticated as the members of the National Indian Brotherhood up in the skyscraper. They do not have as lavish a platform as the non-person who is speaking now. However, they are still trying to communicate. They show that the department treats them as nobodies by getting drunk occasionally on the streets, and sometimes by bleeding on the lawns of the House of Commons. Many members will recall the incidents that occurred here last fall.
We are attempting to communicate, but nobody listens to us. Proof of that fact is the situation we are discussing today. The native people want to say to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that they do not want to be treated any more like non-people. There are several ways in which one can be a somebody in Canada. One way is to spend a lot of money on mufflers: we see that advertisement on TV once in a while. The other is to have a voice in the decisions which affect one's life.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has proved, by its handling of the guidelines, that it is not willing to let the Indian people have a say in their own lives. The department will not treat us as somebodies. The department has proved that all the Indian people who try to communicate, can try to communicate until they are blue in the face but that the department, the minister and the top bureaucrats, will not listen.
I finally found the document to which the minister is more than likely to refer when he speaks about consultation. I refer to the report of the task force set up to review the grants to bands program. In the course of its one-year life, members of this task force talked to about 28 native groups and received submissions from another 13. They reported to the minister in April, 1973. If one reads the recommendations of this committee, one can see the seeds that eventually grew into the program policy guidelines circular. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that some Indian people had a small part to play in planting those seeds.
However, the plant, the circular, grew under the loving care of the bureaucrats of the department. It grew from the seeds in 1973 until February, 1975, when it came out of the department's hothouse. The problem is that when this plant came out, the Indian people saw it for the first time in two years. At that time they could not recognize it. There had been no Indian hands pruning, fertilizing or

going around spraying the plant to eliminate the weeds, and so on.
Is it any wonder the Indian people across the country reject this plant, these circulars? Most provincial Indian organizations have flatly rejected these circulars. Those provincial organizations which have not rejected them are asking for more time in which to study and comment on the necessary changes. I have their comments here, if the minister would care to look at them. They may seem familiar to him because he has them already.
If the minister had taken time from his busy schedule to read a little and listen a little, he would realize how ugly this plant circular is to the eyes of Indians across this lovely land of ours. The hon. member who introduced the motion we are addressing ourselves to now has asked for a moratorium on the implementation of these circulars. That would be a good thing if it happened; but that would not be sufficient. As a matter of fact, I suggested that it should be tossed in the garbage.
In the short time the minister has occupied the Indian affairs portfolio he has ruined any possibility of ever communicating with the Indian people. Communication is a two-way exchange. The minister has proved time and time again that he will not listen. He has surrounded himself with administrators who seem to have adopted the motto "At Indian affairs you are a nobody." I am speaking of administrators such as Jim Wright and John McGilip. Jim Wright is now acting regional director in Saskatchewan. He is doing such a good job of communicating with the Indian people that they now refuse to attend meetings at which he is present. They even refuse to allow him into their communities. He is a good man to have around in a department charged with administering the affairs of Indian people!
Then there is Mr. John McGilip, a man with an impressive background. In fact, he is a model public servant. He received his training in the art of administering non-people in one of the finest schools in the world, the British colonial civil service. The Indian people do not trust him. They do not even trust him to be a messenger-boy. They once almost had to force him to sign a paper swearing that he would deliver the message to his boss, the former minister.
While there are many others working for the department who hold these attitudes, there are many who have earned the respect of the Indian people; but it would appear that the department is top heavy with administrators who can deal only with non-people. I believe it would be of great benefit if we commissioned one of the financial houses of Toronto, which I understand are good at this kind of thing, to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The department spends over $400 million of taxpayers' money on its Indian and Eskimo program. As a taxpayer, I often ask myself what benefit I receive from that money. As a native, I know the Indians receive very little.
The National Indian Brotherhood estimates there are about 40,000 Indian heads of households in Canada. If the government took the annual budget of the Indian Affairs program and divided it among those heads of households, each Indian family would receive about $10,000 a year. That would be a much better way to look after Indian
Indian Affairs
Affairs than spending the money to hire bureaucrats with whom the Indian people cannot communicate.
My time is running out. I could speak for several days about how this department and this minister hinder, rather than help, the Indian people. These people are administered, rather than allowed to take part as equals in Canadian society. I shall close by saying I support the motion now before the House, with one reservation. I wish the motion had called for the resignation of the minister and his top bureaucrats, and for the restructuring of a department which has completely lost touch with the task it has been given and now serves only the little kingdoms set up by its employees. I realize these are harsh words, but 1 mean every bit of what I am saying.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part briefly in the debate brought about by the opposition and dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) may think there is no problem, but the opposition, at least some members and more especially the people concerned, feel as I do that in some respects there are problems.
The motion before us reads as follows:
That the House deplores the action of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in moving toward policies of a paternalistic and bureaucratic nature with respect to native people and specifically requests that a moratorium be placed on the implementation of recent guidelines issued by the Department until such time as full consultation has taken place with the native people.
This is not the first time, I believe the matter has been brought to the attention of the House, perhaps not as a motion similar to this one, but at least as a form of protest not so much against the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but, more particularly, against his predecessor.
Until now, too often decisions have been made with regard to Indian affairs without requesting their consent. And I remember very well that, at one point, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was practically the only one who dealt with Indian and Eskimo affairs in Northern Quebec. Now, one day, along comes a little minister not too tall, named Rene Levesque, who decided, on behalf of the province of Quebec that the time had come for Quebec to look after all the citizens living within the boundaries of the province. Immediately, he took steps to impose certain things upon the department of Natural Resources, first at the level of Indian and Eskimo communities, not around but along the James Bay and Hudson Bay coastlines, as well as on the north side of the Hudson Strait, thus competing in a way with the federal government.
The Indians and Eskimos are in no way retarded or "innocents" as we say in French. In no time flat they understood to what advantage they could put that rivalry between the two governments and they tried in every possible way to benefit from it. Economically, I dare say, they succeeded to some extent. But one should wonder whether, over the long term, that has been advantageous.

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
The question we must ask today is whether the decisions that are made at either level of government, are always to the advantage of the natives. Have we always sought their opinion? Apparently, seeking their opinion is the last thing they would have thought of doing.
As early as 1968, at the 25th annual conference of the provincial ministers of mines, dealing with the fabulous future of mining in the North, the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Paul Allard, used the word "fabulous", but without saying for whom. However, we soon understood that Quebec's future would not be "fabulous" for the natives but for the multinationals. At that time, he made the following statement, quote:
As is taking shape the mining and industrial development of Northern Quebec which looks increasingly like a promising economic empire, it is our duty in this province to integrate the native population to our labour force-
"Integrate" the native population means change their outlook, their attitude, their behaviour, and bring them round to the point of view that we, the Whites-
-and to encourage the participation of Indians and Eskimos in this economic emancipation so that they may become first-class citizens.
How come that in the middle of the 20th century, Indians and Eskimos are not recognized as first-class Canadian citizens?
Those populations will have to be prepared for the role they are expected to play.
What "role" do we expect of them or did we expect them to play in 1968? It should be kept in mind, Madam Speaker, that 1968 was all the same a few years before premier Bourassa decided to develop the hydroelectric potential of this large area of James Bay. As we know, premier Bou-rassa's decision was taken without any consultation with the natives living in that area. They don't give a hoot about the opinion of the Canadian people and then they say: we must bring them round to our point of view, make them share in our decisions.
Later, during an important meeting at the Maison Montmorency, near Quebec City, where authorized representatives of the 26,000 or 27,000 Indians of Quebec were gathered, the fundamental rights of the Indian people were defined, and among these appear the following in particular:
The right of the Indian people to the status of nation.
Madam Speaker, "to obtain the status of nation" meant that at that time, the Indian people were aware of the fact that they were not recognized as a nation, recognition in principle of the right to self-government-
This is what the Indians demand, this is what they want. It is not separatism, far from it. It means that they want to take part in decision making, they want the right to discuss with the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or with his provincial counterpart. -native rights to reserve ownership,
-"ownership", I could add here real and not ficticious ownership.
and to the respect of their territorial rights-hunting and fishing rights-year round and everywhere.
Perhaps are we ready to recognize those rights. I am not speaking here for other provinces but for Quebec, and

particularly for the vast territory of New Quebec, the greater part of which in Abitibi I represent.
Even if their hunting and fishing rights are recognized year round, everywhere rivers and lakes are being depleted of their fish by the "big shots", from the United States or elsewhere, who come in droves and have no respect whatsoever for fishing regulations. Even if we recognize those rights to natives, if nothing remains, what is left for them?
Secondly, in the huge area which is being developed for hydroelectric power, we do not even know by now, even though the project is at a fairly advanced stage, the implications of such development on wild life, on fishes both in the rivers and in James Bay itself. Again, they did not bother to seek the opinion of the natives of the area.
They also want that their linguistic and cultural rights be recognized. An attempt is made to teach them English and French, but too often instruction in their own language, the language they need, is neglected. I have here a statement made by the Northwest Territories Commis-sionner in 1966, when he was in office. At a study session in an Ottawa normal school, he stated the following:
All primitive cultures are doomed to disappear.
That was the opinion of the Northwest Territories Commissioner. And he added:
Our form of civilization is the best that ever existed. Eskimos should feel darn lucky to be plunged in the North-American melting pot.
Such is the thinking of those Who must protect those people. Now, I think they sometimes have cause to worry. They also demand the right that the Indians Act or any other act affecting the Indians be not amended, without their consent. So let the minister never forget it. It is the Indians' wish.
Madam Speaker, too often we try to govern the natives as a conquered nation. It is our shortcoming. Can't we understand, in 1975, that the natives have, as a nation, rights that must be respected? Why must they live like us to be good Canadians? The farmers of the central provinces do not necessarily live as Matagami miners, nor do they necessarily lives as Maritimes fishermen, and yet they are good Canadians.
Now, if the Indians or the Eskimos want to live, to keep on living in their own way, why deny them that right and not accept them as good Canadians?
Madam Speaker, I think the minister should take note of those considerations and always keep them in mind. I believe there have been, particularly in recent years, a great improvement in that area, and I am quite sure the minister will outline them in his statement.
But there is still concern. Measures are passed but we do not know how to enforce them. Recently, a Federal-Provincial Conference on Native Peoples and the Criminal Justice System was held in Edmonton. During that conference, various points were made, particularly on the problem of alcoholism. The Quebec Minister of Justice made that remark about the liquor law in the Northwest Territories. Minister Choquette feels that law is a bit too restrictive. "It smacks of prohibition", he said. And when he sees prohibition, he immediately sees a black market.
June 12, 1975

If a locality, be it Fort Smith, Frobisher Bay, Fort Chimo or any other place, should impose prohibition, then Minister Choquette would not know how to enforce that decision. It is truly regrettable to see a parliament pass pieces of legislation, and then, it is impossible to implement them. We see that almost every day.
We just saw, during the long trial of Dr. Morgentaler, that an act of the federal Parliament exists and that a jury can very well evade and flout it. So, I wonder if we should not quite simply abolish Parliament and have measures passed by groups of 10 or 12 people that would be called jurors.
Madam Speaker, I may have strayed somewhat from the point but in conclusion I want to come back to the motion introduced by the opposition and urge the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Buchanan) to see to it that his officials-and I am convinced that he is very well-intentioned at the helm of his department-indeed respect the mentality of the people he wants to administer, but let him consult them as often as possible. Before taking any major decision or bringing any major bill before the House, he should make sure that all concerned were consulted.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, my comments will ramble a bit as I endeavour to deal with some of the questions and comments raised in the areas touched upon by previous speakers. The impression has been left with the House that there was absolutely no consultation with the Indian people, that there was no input from them and that they were strongly and violently opposed to these guidelines. Let me quote from the Kainai News which is a publication of the Blood band, one of the members of Treaty No. 7 in southern Alberta. The article is entitled "Indian Affairs Finally Do Homework-Guidelines Explained at Treaty No. 7 Meet", and I quote:
"Indian Affairs have finally done their homework" commented one delegate to the recent Treaty No. 7 all-chiefs' meeting in Calgary.
Frances Weaselfat, Treaty No. 7 branch office manager for the Indian Association of Alberta, in a telephone interview proclaimed this statement in reference to a series of guidelines issued by the IA department.
The D-series guidelines explained by Mike Kartushyn, district supervisor, Calgary branch, Fred Walchli, regional director in Edmonton, and Bob Connelly, director of community development, Ottawa, all with the DIA, were met with favourable response by the five Treaty No. 7 chiefs.
Mrs. Weaselfat said, "the chiefs and delegates are generally in favour of the guidelines, but on a few of the points the chiefs wished to negotiate the guidelines."
On the whole, however, the chiefs feel the department is finally spelling out its programs, she said. "Now there is a clearer definition in the proper procedures required by the DIA in such areas of auditing and issuing of reports."


An hon. Member:: That is one band's opinion. Name another ten.


An hon. Member:: That is a classified page.


J. Judd Buchanan: I hope hon. members are not suggesting that their derogatory remarks apply to Treaty No. 7. I suggest that Treaty No. 7 is one of the more able and competent Indian groups in Canada.
Indian Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: Just a couple of days ago I was chatting with one of the senior people in the Union of New Brunswick Indians and again the same message came through. They had some particular concerns about them. They said, in effect: "Generally, we welcome the spelling out of these guidelines so that we know exactly where we stand and so that our various bands know what requirements will be put upon them."
Concern has also been expressed about the authority of band councils. Part of the confusion results from use of the term "local government authority" as used in the guidelines. If one reads "band council" instead of "local government authority", the confusion will disappear. We intend, as I said, to reinforce the responsibilities of the band council, which is the predominant group in the band. We feel we ought to reinforce it. I feel I ought to emphasize that point because of the concern expressed by the Indian people: we intend to reinforce the council.
Concern was also expressed about district councils. Again, I wish to make it clear that in a case where a band decides to establish a district council, the council derives all authority and responsibility from the band which decided to form it. The district council has no powers of its own. All the powers it possesses are those which are given to it by the various bands making up the district. In some areas of Canada, particularly in British Columbia, this concept works very well. In other areas people are concerned that perhaps the district concept represents an undermining of the band itself. I therefore wish to emphasize that a band can join the district council at any time, and it can withdraw from that council at any time and decide to conduct its own affairs. That is the second area about which concern has been expressed to us.
As for the suggestion that we are trying to belittle the authority of the band council, let me say unequivocally in this House that the very opposite is true. We have no desire whatsoever to undermine the authority of the band council. We say that these guidelines will help to reinforce the authority of the band council and emphasize its predominant role in the operation of the band. The various sub-authorities, such as the housing authority which was mentioned earlier, derive their powers from the band council and are responsible to the band council. I emphasize, we do not intend to undermine the responsibility or actual authority of the band council in the handling of its own affairs.
Other concerns of a more detailed nature have been raised. There is the question of tender limits which the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) has raised in this House on other occasions. We have already made changes in that area and we are prepared, particularly in the more remote areas, to look at the necessity of additional changes.
It has been suggested that quarterly audited statements are required. Such a requirement would be more onerous than the requirement the Department of National Revenue places on corporations for filing annual tax returns: quarterly audited statements are not required; we expect them

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
on an annual basis, not each quarter. Concern has been expressed about certain details of the guidelines. We think, by and large, that these will work themselves out as officials meet various bands, discuss the guidelines and endeavour to impart a better understanding of how they are to function.
If I may digress, I note some confusion about the concept of consultation. I received a report of a recent meeting at which the friend of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), the Premier of Manitoba, discussed for a few minutes with Indian bands and others present the meaning of consultation. He made it clear that "consultation" means exactly that: you consult; you obtain opinions. He said it does not mean that the government is to abdicate its reponsibility in making the ultimate decision. In other words, consultation does not mean that some group outside the government, be it the Indian people or any other group, has the right to make the final decision and say, "Government, you must implement that decision." That responsibility rests on the government. I mention the point because it is interesting and because the Premier of Manitoba saw fit to raise it and discuss it at a meeting which he attended recently.
As far as reinforcing the authority of Indian groups and holding discussions with Indian groups at the band, district, provincial or federal level, I suggest that no government in the history of our country has done more to develop and encourage the development of Indian organizations than has the government of which I have the honour to be a member. Ten years ago most Indian organizations across this country found it difficult to articulate their views or even come together and make their views known. Now, Indian organizations of this country are quite capable of putting their views across. But for the encouragement and assistance the federal government has given to our Indian organizations, those organizations would not be in a position to make their views known so well and hon. members on both sides of the House would be unaware of the concerns which have been articulated today.


Walter (Wally) Firth: We made more progress in ten years than the department made in a hundred years.


J. Judd Buchanan: Although my predecessor was often on the receiving end of much criticism levelled at him by this House and by the Indian people of Canada, he deserves credit for a major accomplishment. His work led to the development of the policy which enabled the Indian people of our country to stand up, say what they think and say what their rights are. That was a significant accomplishment in the field of relations with our Indian people.
I return to the theme of some, that we are not listening to the Indian people. Some suggest that the work of the department leaves much to be desired. It has been suggested by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that the department should wind down, diminish its services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: I have said that we are quite prepared to discuss whether this should be done and how it should be done. There is no suggestion that we are not willing to sit down and discuss with the Indian people changes in the

functioning of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and cutting back the services provided by the department. I find that there is interest in such cutbacks on the one hand, but, on the other hand, when I attended an all-chiefs' meeting in Ontario not long ago a major petition presented to me took strong exception to the closing of some departmental offices. We cannot have it both ways. If we are to turn over more services to the Indian people, if they are to handle more services directly, without doubt we will need to cut back on our staff and the number of offices and facilities which we run.
An indication of our willingness to turn over responsibility to the Indian people for the running of their own affairs is the fact that ten years ago Indian organizations, bands and Innuit settlements throughout the country were handling and administering roughly $60,000 in federal funds, but now they are handling close to $100 million. That fact hardly shows that the government is not prepared to give responsibility to the Indian people.


An hon. Member:: How many Indians are in top positions in the department?


J. Judd Buchanan: There are not many Indian people in top positions, but there are funds being handled by Indian people at all levels-at the district, provincial and national levels. They are being handled by Indian organizations, by Indian people. The hon. member's point is really a separate matter. I share his concern about the lack of Indian people in the senior echelons of the department. However, the government's program is significant; the Indian people have available program funds and administer those things coming under their own responsibility. I suggest that we have made significant progress.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: We should have drawn up a better immigration policy originally.


J. Judd Buchanan: Much of the theme that ran through the comments of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) was-and I have this written down-the total rejection of the right to local autonomy. That is simply not true. As I indicated, if one looks at the arithmetic it is pretty hard to square that accusation with the fact that the government has now given responsibility for the administration of funds, whether in education, social welfare or other areas, to the Indian people to the tune of $100 million as opposed to $60,000 ten years ago. I suggest that is a far cry from total rejection of the right to local autonomy.
The thrust we would like to have is the reinforcement of local autonomy and reinforcing the responsibility of the band council. That is the major desire in these guidelines, to help give a framework, which they set out. We are quite prepared to make changes. In fact, we have already made changes, some minor, such as the amount required as far as tendering is concerned. We are prepared to make these changes, and I think that is extremely important.
I take strong exception to the fact that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) indulged in a personal attack on employees of the department. As far as I

June 12, 1975

am concerned, that is a very bad practice. The hon. member can attack me all he wants; that is why I am here. However, he should not attack individuals in the department who have no way of responding or defending themselves. It is a long-standing practice in the House of Commons that that is not done. You can attack the minister as vigorously as you wish, but do not go after the employees in the department.
The hon. member referred to Jim Wright who moved into Saskatchewan under very difficult circumstances. He was brought in to straighten out administrative difficulties in the province of Saskatchewan. We made it clear to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians that we will welcome their sitting on the panel for the selection of a permanent regional director in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Wright was to be there on an interim basis. We moved him in because the situation required fast action. I find it most regrettable that the hon. member for Northwest Territories would attack public servants in this House.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) dwelt at some length on the right and the wish of the native people of Canada to govern themselves, to have a greater say in managing their own affairs. I can only reiterate what I said to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Northwest Territories, that we share this desire. We are quite prepared, with proper guidelines, to turn over to the Indian people as much responsibility for their affairs as possible. As far as I am concerned, that is a fundamental cornerstone of our policy, whether it is the management of funds or running the various other aspects that apply directly to their lives. We feel strongly that that should be the thrust. Certainly there will be mistakes made. Lord knows, we have made more than our share. I am surprised that remark went by without comment. I have no doubt there that mistakes will be made, but we think that is a small price to pay to increase the independence and self-reliance of the native people of this country.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories referred to the departmental task force which was set up in 1972. As he indicated, it held 28 meetings across the country with band councils, some provincial Indian associations and departmental staff. A report of its findings was released in April, 1973, and sent to all bands and provincial associations. The recommendations emanating from those findings centred mainly around the need for core funding for band councils, the need to lay a sound and lasting basis for local government on reserves and, finally, the need for local government guidelines. I quote recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 8 which relate directly to the production of the guidelines:
5.	Bands should carry out their own planning, establishing their own priorities and controlling their own O and M and capital budgets. A contractual agreement that stipulates the authorities and responsibilities on both parties is required.
6.	A manual of local government guidelines written for band staff should be developed by Indian Affairs in consultation with band councils. It should embody good business principles used by all types of organizations in several fields; personnel, finances, contracts, purchasing, general administration, etc.
Indian Affairs
7.	The manual of local government guidelines should also clarify the roles of:
-Chief and council
-Band staff
-Department of Indian Affairs staff concerning-
(i)	Authority
(ii)	Responsibility
(iii)	Accountability
8.	Bookkeeping procedures need to be:
-standardized;
-simplified;
-a bookkeeper/trainer available on the job to teach the day to day operations of office procedures and financial management. Band records are generally poor.
I should say that in addition to the task force recommendations we have been asked fairly often at all-chiefs' meetings to produce guidelines which band staff could use in their day to day work. Chiefs have also expressed the need for some kind of regulations against which the auditor could measure the band's performance over the year. The program circulars prepared recently reflect an initial departmental response to the need for rules by which band business will be managed. I have probably dealt with that in sufficient detail. Those were the proposals of recommendations made as the result of the work of that task force. We feel these guidelines recommend a sound thrust. They reflect the desires that grew out of that task force report.
Before resuming my seat, I want again to emphasize that we are prepared to listen to suggestions for modification. We will listen to any ideas the native people may have concerning changes. I have indicated in this House on several occasions-this was indicated when the hon. member for Lambton-Kent was quoting some of my comments-that we look upon these guidelines as being of an interim nature. We are prepared to make changes. We regard the guidelines as a vehicle to clarify and reinforce the role of the band council. We want to make certain it is the supreme body on the reserve and has the major responsibility for operating the band's affairs.


Frank Oberle: Frankly, Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the minister's comments. I hope he will take the opportunity later to set straight a couple of things he said in his speech that are of concern to me and should be of concern to all my colleagues. He made but one reference to a group of natives who had been consulted with regard to the guidelines we have been discussing this afternoon. The minister said the guidelines had been established to reinforce the authority of the band councils. In saying this he implied that the guidelines were intended to break down the authority of the regional councils. In some areas, he said, these councils performed a worth-while function but in others they did not. He said, in effect, that he wanted to get in between the regional councils-


J. Judd Buchanan: District councils.


Frank Oberle: -the district councils and the band councils so as to reinforce the authority of the band councils. I cannot help wondering whether the minister is becoming

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
somewhat afraid of the way in which these district councils have learned to articulate the case of the Indians in this country. I hope the minister will retract that statement of his and not leave the impression that he is concerned about the increasing influence of the Union of Indian Chiefs, for example, or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. That is what he implied. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, but I believe the record will show that this is clearly what he implied.
The minister quoted the Premier of Manitoba as being an authority on the interpretation of the consultation process. He should probably have called it a consensus process, because he used that authority to say, "Sure, we will go out and consult; but it will be the government which implements things regardless of what the consultation process brings to light." In the case we are discussing there was no consultation. The minister knows this and so does everybody else who will be taking part in the debate.
It will be a test of one's imagination to speculate on how many hours, how many days have passed in debate in this chamber on Indian affairs over the years. I often think the real reason no progress has ever been made as a result of all these debates is the fact that the native tongue has never been heard in this chamber, and that if it had, its vocabulary would not be adequate to articulate the plight, the persecution and the injustices we have perpetrated against the native people of North America.


An hon. Member:: No one would have understood them anyway.


Frank Oberle: It is only in the most recent years that the native people in sufficient number have learned to express their feelings and their frustrations in our languages, and at last their message has been brought to this chamber. Unfortunately, however, it has too often been carried by messengers only, people who could not understand the depth of the problem or demonstrate real concern about the plight of those affected. Even today we still argue about the interpretation of phrases like "aboriginal rights" or "aboriginal title." While we are carrying out this exercise, we are building up the frustration of the native people in the face of our system.
As our ancestors moved across the continent, intruding on the way of life of its inhabitants, they often sent out scouts to monitor the moves of the Indians so as to be prepared to respond to trouble or resistance. I felt like such a scout recently when I travelled to British Columbia to attend the meetings of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, trying to learn about their problems, or when I travelled to Prince Edward Island last weekend where another group of natives called the Non-Status Indian Association of the Native Council of Canada was holding its annual assembly.
Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to report, as scouts of an earlier era have often reported, that the natives are restless. They are restless and frustrated because of the way in which pleas for recognition of their rights have been ignored. Natives everywhere are angered by the way in which treaties have been ignored and fractured. They tell me that at least 75 per cent of the 22,000 reservations and land holdings in Canada have been intruded upon in some way, offending the trust they had placed in the

contract made with the Great White Father. They are angered over the retrograde steps taken recently by the present administration and the ignorance displayed by the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Buchanan) and his most senior officials.
Our reason for postponing debate on this subject until today was mainly to allow the minister, who assumed office only last year, to become familiar with his tasks. We have ignored some of the earlier mistakes the hon. gentleman made, in the hope he would learn from experience. After all, he was not entirely new to the job; he served- and may I say he served well-as chairman of the committee on Indian affairs for two years prior to his appointment. But time is running on and we feel it is fair, now, to ask him to account for his actions. We also feel that members of parliament and the native people of Canada are entitled to know how he intends to carry out his mandate and how he proposes to deal with the special rights our native people possess.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I are not at all impressed by the minister's performance so far. He appears to us like a man who did not bring to his job his own ideas or his own commitments. He appears to be following guidelines which others before him established and which are out of tune with the needs of today. He allows too free a hand in the administration of day to day affairs to those who have managed or, one might better say, mismanaged those affairs for the past 100 years, namely, the Department of Indian Affairs and all its bureaucrats, technocrats and officials most of whom are well known to be much too preoccupied with serving their own self-interests.
It should come as no surprise that on April 24 of this year the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs passed a resolution calling upon all Indians in the province to reject, as of May 1, funds from all federal departments and agencies including, of course, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Subsequently, a number of Indian representatives called upon the department to transfer to them the management of funds in British Columbia. In response to this resolution, the minister stated:
I have responded positively to these proposals. The expressed wish of Indians in B.C. to reduce their dependence on the government, to stress self-reliance and to assume substantially greater responsibility for the management of their own affairs corresponds very closely with my own objectives not merely in respect of Indians in British Columbia but in all parts of Canada.
If one really analyses what the minister intended to say to the Indians of British Columbia following upon their resolution, the answer appears in the pages of the guidelines and regulations which, if not complied with would, he said, result in the withholding of all or any funds from federal sources. The guidelines are a terrible example of what I referred to earlier. Only a technocrat of the highest order could have invented such a schemozzle. How on earth could the average Indian band possibly fulfil the requirements of these guidelines? It would take the services, on a regular basis, of a chartered accountant trained in extra skills such as administration not only of economic activities but also of social programs, educational programs, municipal accounting, and so on.
June 12, 1975

There is, of course, no one person who will be able to acquire all these skills, so each band will engage the services of a municipal administrator, a social programs administrator and an educational administrator. Perhaps what the department wants to achieve with these guidelines is full employment for all Indians under their care. Each band member will get a full salary for filling out a report of his entire activities during each day-and I am not even being facetious when I say that.
I should like to refer to some statistics that have been provided to me by the minister's department. We have a total registered Indian population of 275,000. Of that number, 75,000 between the ages of 16 and 64 could be considered as belonging to the labour force, and 40,000 are working, giving an unemployment rate of 40 per cent. Of these 75,000, only 15,802 are employed in industries such as farming, forestry fishing and tourism. Incidentally, all of these industries are, of course, of a very seasonal nature. The other 24,200 are listed as being employed in social services, band management and community work programs.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the minister's officials have already made the decision that each band should operate like the department of Indian affairs. You create enough work to keep everybody busy administering himself and his friends, and all problems will be solved. Well, the Indians are not so naive as to fall for this primitive prank. They interpret this measure to be yet another ball and chain that they would be required to carry around, as yet another shackle tying them to the apron strings of the Indian agent.
The minister is again speaking with forked tongue when he says he is willing to pass on some more of the responsibility to the Indian people; that he will help them achieve greater self-reliance. If he were really serious about that, he would have consulted with native leaders regarding the establishment of these guidelines. If he had been serious, would he not have insisted that some discretion be applied by his officials, particularly in some area where significant achievements in the field of socio-economic development have already been made, where native communities are already spending only those funds that they themselves have generated as a result of such activities? But no, there was no consultation because there could be no consultation-in a meaningful way, anyway-under the present system.
Like all other bureaucratic monsters, the Indian affairs department is no exception. The more cumbersome it gets, the greater the desire for a simple, over-all application of their programs. After all, it must have taken all their ingenuity, resources and capacity to procrastinate, to come up with this octopus-like brainchild. It is a truly bureaucratic achievement and surely it must be good for everybody! It caused quite an uproar throughout the country when the first print, together with the minister's letter telling individual bands that unless they lived by these guidelines no further funds would be available, arrived at the offices of the band councils. One of the leaders in B.C. told me, "It stinks, and we will not comply". It is as simple as that, Madam Speaker, and I for one respect that view.
Indian Affairs
It is this document that caused all the uproar, at least in British Columbia, that prompted the Union of B.C. Chiefs to pass a resolution not to accept any further funds from the department; because the minister's letter raised, again, the questions that have been asked ever since the Indian Act was written, namely, "Whose money is the minister spending, anyway? Whose money is he withholding if we don't comply with the guidelines?" They say it is their money. Not only do they wish in the future to determine their own destiny and how much their annual budget requirements will be; they also want to determine how the money will be spent and what the priorities are.
Where do these people find the courage-or, as some would say, the audacity-to talk to the minister like this? From the lack of leadership and courage by the present government, resulting in the intervention of our judicial system in some instances of disputes over land claims and other special rights. The books were opened and the old treaties re-examined by legal minds. It was then discovered that the four Hudson's Bay blankets, the ammunition, the medicine chest and the $5 per family per month was to be compensation for only an interim period during which natives could be helped to adjust, develop their own economic activities for which opportunities would be provided, and to establish a value for the land they had surrendered to their white brothers.
We all know today that it was unfortunate that we did not sooner concern ourselves with this obligation, which today remains unfulfilled. Perhaps we could have negotiated a price at the time that could have been similar to what the United States paid for the island of Manhattan, or what they paid the Russians for what is now the state of Alaska.
Values have, of course, changed and are measured by much different standards today. Not only would a cash settlement of land claims be in many billions of dollars, but we also find ourselves, since no settlement has yet been achieved, in the interim period of adjustment to which the treaties make reference. This means that by today's standards the Hudson's Bay blanket which was to provide shelter is now interpreted to be a house; the medicine chest has become access to hospitals; the ammunition and the $5 cash allowance translates into a subsistence allowance of modern-day standards.
So you see, Madam Speaker, it is becoming abundantly clear that the central issue is the settlement of land claims. We are critical of the minister because, while a feeble effort has been made to allow Indians to identify their claims, there is no suggestion as to how these claims are to be settled. We believe that even at this late date it is possible to achieve a settlement by consultation and negotiation rather than by the judicial process, and we feel that negotiated settlements would better serve the interests of all concerned.
There is, however, no doubt in my mind that the Indians will no longer negotiate with officials of the Indian affairs department. One hundred years of failure and of broken promises is too much of a test even for the Indians and they are now demanding to bring their case directly to the cabinet and the privy council. This is why the natives of British Columbia have decided to cut the apron strings and to split their sheets, so to speak. They have never

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
resisted accountability, but they now insist it is time the minister accounted as well. They are telling the minister that they will no longer allow moneys rightfully belonging to them to be spent in ways not at all to do with the things for which they are kept in trust, but to ease the horrendous burden of the white man's conscience.
The Indians in British Columbia feel-and I detect a mood of unrest throughout the country-that it is time to call the Great White Father back to the negotiating table. The Great White Mother must be represented by the privy council this time, as the Indians feel it is time to remind the white man of the words he has spoken over the last 200 years. It is not their intention to have their brothers and sisters any longer branded with words like "status", "nonstatus", "registered" and "non-registered", or branded with the welfare stigma. They say:
If you want accountability, we agree, but we want our guidelines implemented at the same time as we adhere to yours. If you insist on concise terms of our guidelines, we will provide you with them.
They will include reconciliation of moneys flowing from your public purse, with our aboriginal rights and our claims against the lands which you have taken from us.
It will be us in the future who will tell you what our budget requirements will be and, indeed, what our priorities will be in the future. If you feel that we are overdrawing our account, it should be an incentive to you to audit the books and reconcile the account. In order to do that, however, you will have to be serious with us about negotiating or adjudicating our claims.
Unless the minister does that, he will not know whether the account is overdrawn. This is the message I received in talking to our native people; and I know that the minister, too, has interpreted the murmur of the distant drums. It is timely for him and his colleagues to once more smoke the pipe, to once more consult before he insists on the implementation of these ridiculous guidelines.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Frank Oberle: I have just one more sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: May the hon. member finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I would not have felt at home on this occasion if you had not interrupted me. This is a favourite pastime of yours; but I know you are fully within your rights and that I am intruding upon the indulgence and patience of my colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to conclude.
We insist that until both sides have had a chance to state their case and issue their requirements, the minister must place a moratorium on the guidelines and regulations he has put before the native people.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), I should like to advise the House of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Penitentiaries-Responsibility for release of drugs to prisoners and hostages and for informing hostages guards would move when hostages moved against prisoners; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Housing-Request top priority be given project in Cape Breton county; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger)-Agriculture-Suggested increase in research grants to universities and study of duplication.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Holmes:
That the House deplores the action of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in moving toward policies of a parternalistic and bureaucratic nature with respect to native people and specifically requests that a moratorium be placed on the implementation of recent guidelines issued by the Department until such time as full consultation has taken place with the native people.
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I am quite please to take part in the debate on an opposition motion deploring the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not fully consulted the native people before drawing up and issuing guidelines on the structures and financing of band councils and Innuit villages.
Madam Speaker, I have been a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for over seven years. I had the opportunity to sit on that committee when the minister was chairman for a few years, and I can say that the committee has given close attention to the requests of the native people.
It is our committee I think that examined and considered the requests that were made, either before or after they were conveyed to the minister or regional directors. And the committee members inquired into the situation existing on the reserves, and even in the far North. We were able on many occasions to make suggestions to the Cabinet and ministers, and several of them have now, so to speak, become realities.
Our committee went down to meet the administration councils on many reserves. I will admit that the current

problems brought to our attention by the native community are quite complex. Often they even vary from one area to another and one province to another. However, I must say that no government in the past has paid so much attention to Indian, Innuit and Eskimo claims. Task forces were set up, one of which to study Indian claims, headed by Mr. Barber. Then, under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who was chairman at the time, the committee sat for six months in 1973 and heard evidence on the question of "native rights". Furthermore, many assistance and funding programs were brought forward by this government in order to allow our native people to administer themselves some projects or undertakings of their choice.
Coming back to the guidelines issued by the department on local administration for band councils and Innuit villages the minister in a press release dated June 2, 1975, stated the following:
Reaction from provincial and national Indian leaders has been outspoken. Fears have been expressed that, through these guidelines, the department has devised a way to enable it to tax Indians; amend the Indian Act without consultation; undermine the authority of chiefs and councillors; resurrect the 1969 White Paper; or all four.
The department points out that the five guidelines are limited to the structure and funding of local government. They provide for minimal but essential accounting and auditing requirements, delineate responsibilities and, generally speaking, describe the parameters of departmental funding for the many programs involved. Each contains a clause soliciting suggestions for amendments from Indian bands and Innuit settlements and staff alike.
Madam Speaker, when issuing regulations or guidelines, no level of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, no department, no union leader can please everyone. Some people will always be dissatisfied with regulations and legislation but when you do not make decisions you cannot be criticized. This government together with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take position and that is why they are criticized.
Madam Speaker, this government is a decision maker and I am convinced that Canadians are satisfied.
To come back to the guidelines of the motion, I wish to refer to the Debates of the House of Commons of May 6th when the minister stated; "We are prepared to regard these guidelines as being of an interim nature. If they create difficulties and problems, we are prepared to change them."
Madam Speaker, I wish that today's proceedings will throw some light on some of the problems raised by the new guidelines and that the constructive suggestions put forward by my good friends of the opposition as well as those from the members on the government side will enable the minister to bring about some changes if he deems it necessary.
Hon. members recognize that Indians need freedom to achieve their cultural, economic and social fulfilment within the Canadian society. As a matter of fact, the department supports the creation of organizations for the autonomy of bands and villages. This is also the reason why the local autonomy program was created and expands rapidly. Most Indian bands are now responsible for the
Indian Affairs
implementation of various programs. Earlier this week, we have seen the successful results obtained in the Huron village near Quebec City.
The Committee on the Indian Affairs and Northern Development which I chair, earlier this week visited the Huron village near Quebec City. I can tell you that we have been amazed at the success of the undertakings promoted under the program of the government of Canada.
In the Huron village, manufacturers hire all the workers available on the reserve and chief Mac Gros-Louis told us that he even uses white people from outside the reserve. He also told us that only sick people were on welfare. The local authorities of this reserve took their responsibilities, and the drive of these businessmen was the main reason for the development of that village of 1,200 people.
Madam Speaker, development also depends on the quality and the discipline of all the workers. We have noted that all the directors on the reserve, under the artful leadership of chief, Mac Gros-Louis, feel confident in the economic future of the reserves, because they believe first in the will and determination of the Indians themselves to make it a success.
The Huron village sets an example for all native people in Canada. This does not mean it is the only thriving reservation in Canada, because numerous others enjoy advanced industrial and commercial development.
As elsewhere, some Indian endeavours fail and others succeed, but I believe it is worthwhile to try.
The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), had this to say when promoting local government, and I quote;
Local government will in no way endanger the system of reservations, Indian status, nor the funds, services and programs provided by the Canadian government. Quite the contrary, I firmly believe that local government is vitally needed to allow Indians to keep their way of life, their identity and pride and to really participate in Canadian life.
As the minister stated, such is still the department's policy, and I believe we should at least give the minister and his officials an opportunity to implement the principles set forth a few months ago for the government of Indian and Innuit reservations and councils in Canada.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on this very important motion today because it concerns the first people of our country. This year, 1975, marks the one-hundredth anniversary of Winnipeg Treaty No. 5. In this centennial year I would ask the minister to consider an increase in the $5 treaty payment now being made-because of the one-hundredth anniversary of Treaty No. 5. While the minister referred to Treaty No. 7, and to the people covered by that treaty as being very able and competent, I want to say that the people covered by Treaty No. 5 are just as able and competent and their treaty was signed quite a few years earlier than Treaty No. 7.
I wish to touch on the educational facilities and the problems the Indian people have concerning Indian control of education. I would give a little of the background in

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
this regard. The previous minister, on May 24, 1973, reported to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that his department was ready to implement an education policy formulated by the National Indian Brotherhood. Under this policy, Indian control over Indian education would follow closely the 17 recommendations for improving Indian education which the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled in the House on June 22, 1971. The previous minister stated:
I have given the National Indian Brotherhood my assurance that I and my department are fully committed to realizing the educational goals for the Indian people which are set forth in the brotherhood's proposal.
The department desires to work constructively with the Indian communities on a partnership basis which encourages full, free and frank discussion and which places a major responsibility for educational decisions and directions in the hands of the Indian community concerned. The department's role will increasingly become that of a service function to which bands can turn if they feel the need for consultation, for discussions, and for the provision of specialized educational services; however, the control and responsibility-
I want to emphasize this point.
-will rest with the bands to chart their educational course, seeking whatever assistance they require from whatever source they desire.
When the minister made that statement I am sure he was aware of the problems which people in the remote communities face so far as education is concerned. I think' it is almost impossible to come up with a blanket policy to cover every Indian community across Canada and that it would be necessary to look at each individual case. Every community is different; they are at different stages of development, and so on. I believe that in attempting to implement something like this, we must look at the guidelines set up by the National Indian Brotherhood.
The word "consultation" was mentioned in the previous minister's statement. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that consultation with the people responsible for the educational branch of the National Indian Brotherhood involved merely the odd meeting and discussion with a few individuals. In the eyes of the Indian people, it is not consultation when it involves speaking to only a few people. Their interpretation of "consultation" is sitting down and discussing the entire problem at length, not having a very short, interim type of discussion.
The discrepancies between what is being said and what is being done will shock, I am sure, even the most casual observer. On the one hand, there is the policy on Indian education which was approved by the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development in his statement in the House on May 24. On the other hand, there are the rejected band council resolutions and the withdrawal of services and funds formerly supplied by the department.
At present, many implications can be drawn from the educational policy implemented by public servants which is derived from the white paper policy on Indian affairs of 1969, and not from the policy paper on Indian control of Indian education presented in 1972. The minister promised that Indian parents would be partners with department officials, implying consultation and shared responsibility. This promise, in fact, has not been honoured.

I could go on giving examples such as this Mr. Speaker, but I know that my time is limited. My main concern is with educational assistance to reserve Indians. This is the real concern of the National Indian Brotherhood. The previous minister accepted a policy which stated that the federal government is financially responsible for providing education to all status Indians whether living on or off reserves. This has not been the practice of the department. It is generally understood by district, regional and headquarters' officials that Indians living off reserves are no longer the responsibility of the federal government. In this case it is the treaties, not the Indian Act, that are being interpreted by the public servants. The authority for doing this should be examined, as well as the negotiations between federal and provincial officials during which this policy was established.
Recent recommendations made by the regional directors show a determination to phase out Indian Affairs services to off-reserve Indians. I think this situation is discriminatory, for the simple reason that if a treaty Indian chooses to move off the reserve and obtain education elsewhere, that is part of his heritage and his right under Treaty No. 5 signed 100 years ago.
I am certainly concerned, also, about the priorities that are determined by public servants. The pressure on regional directors to reduce costs and control budgets has resulted in cuts to programs which are considered by the department as non-essential or of low priority. Among these are adult education, lunch supplements, band staffing, school supplies, library services, placement and relocation, student residences, and so on. The department has also listed its high priorities. These may not coincide with the priorities of the Indian communities in terms of their particular goals for local development.
Indian participation in determining priorities is usually limited, so that it becomes a negative and frustrating exercise. Indian control over local programs is achieved only after confrontation and struggle. I think that is a deplorable situation. Let me refer to the local school committees which are assigned the menial task of looking after school lunches or helping with some small program within the school. They are not part of the team which makes up the policy for the education of their children. They would like to be partners in this program, but they are not consulted as they should be.
What the Indian people really feel-and I have the opportunity to speak to large numbers of status Indians covered by Treaty No. 5-is that the department has put out a set of guidelines for education and has said, "You have had no part in setting up these guidelines but they are the guidelines you must follow, and if you do not follow them you will have no part of them". This is what people are complaining about. Sometimes a community has its own interpretation of the guidelines and they want to take part in setting them. When they made their proposals in 1972, the guidelines were set down. I do not feel the department has really taken a serious look at them. They had a preconceived idea as to how the guidelines should be drawn up.
I understand, also, that the minsiter has appointed a director of operations to administer the guidelines. This public servant has gone out to every region in Canada and


June 12, 1975

hand-picked the men and women who will work under him. I call these people whom he has hand-picked real hard-liners, the type of people who are not sympathetic to Indians: they are out there strictly as administrators. I can see another bureaucracy being set up and taking authority away from the Indian people, the chief and council. I deplore a situation such as this, because I know that after 100 years these people are prepared to take on responsibility and be accountable for their actions: there is no doubt about that.
I would like to emphasize, also, that local control of schools in various communities is a very important part of the education of Indian people across Canada. You should see how some of the local people apply themselves in spite of the fact that they receive no remuneration for their efforts. I know many people in the communities who are active on school committees in the belief that they have some authority. In fact, they have no authority, for the simple reason that no one is paying any attention to them.
We have spoken about priorities. The native people have a set of priorities which may be related to the local official; but they never get to the minister, as they should. That is one of the problems of the native people. In conclusion, I would like to voice very strongly, along with the Indian groups, opposition to the imposition of departmental guidelines. The minister should have his officials reconsider their intention to have the new policy circulars operative in 1975.
The alternative, as expressed by Indian leaders, is to continue with the guidelines which have been in effect until such time as full consultation and agreement can be reached on new operating procedures. This means a freeze on the circulars in series D and E which already have Treasury Board approval. It means extending the lead time for expected changes. The purpose of this action, which should clearly be understood by all concerned, is to arrive at mutually acceptable plans for the delivery of services and programs to Indian people. These should be based on Indian experience, focusing on band autonomy and local control, while emphasizing the funding and advisory role of the department.
I think we have to take this question into very serious consideration because it is what people in the outlying areas and out on the reserves are saying: they want a freeze to be placed on this. They are not all saying just throw it out, but they want a freeze put on it and they want to play the very important part of being on the team, or being partners as referred to by the previous minister. They want to be partners, but they want to be equal partners.
The minister referred to an article in the Kainai News but he neglected to quote part of the article. He read the part which sounded good from his side, but at the bottom of the page he did not go into guidelines which were opposed at the conference. That portion was nicely blanked out. Incidentally, the minister provided us with this document but that portion was blanked out. I still do not know what was actually included, but I would appreciate obtaining a copy of it, because it was not all one-sided.
Indian Affairs
Speaking of consultation, I must also bring to the attention of the House the problem some communities are having with regard to construction of school facilities. In many communities school facilities are in a deplorable condition and the people in those communities are trying desperately to improve conditions. What is really happening is that contracts are being let and designs of schools are being developed with little or no input by the local people. They are complaining, and justly so, that facilities are put in, moneys are spent and they have no say whatsoever as to the type of facility that is required. All of a sudden a building plan arrives and the people are told that construction will begin within six months, but they have little or no say in this and they are not part of the over-all education program.
We must also put our efforts toward alcohol education. That is what local control is going to provide, because local control has very clearly spelled out, in its policy paper on Indian control of Indian education, the very serious problem with alcohol education on the reserves. While the minister does have a small program which covers alcohol education, I do not believe it is extensive enough because alcohol is one of the most serious problems on many northern reserves. This is brought about by utter frustration on the part of the people who live in remote areas, for the simple reason that they have no input. The consultation process is just a case of speaking to a few people and obtaining opinions-sometimes not even as many as ten people-from a particular settlement or reserve. This is a deplorable situation.
I am definitely opposed to the way the guidelines have been implemented and I am sure that my colleagues will be touching on the very serious matters which have arisen from the implementation of these guidelines. I would not hesitate for one minute to say that if these guidelines are to be forced down the throats of the Indian people, we will probably see some violence. Hopefully not; but I think we might see something more than that witnessed here last fall at the opening of parliament. I hope that that day will never come again, because the Indian people have obeyed the treaties they have had for 100 years. They are looking to us for some help, but the existing guidelines are more of a hindrance than a help.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps have made a more professional and a better contribution to this important debate if I could have consulted in my mother tongue, which is French, the guidelines issued. Unfortunately, these guidelines have not yet been published in both official languages, and I found it difficult to look fully into them, just as certain bands from Quebec probably found it difficult to study them in depth and to voice their opinion about them to their representatives in the House of Commons.
The debate in which I have the privilege to take part today is extremely important because, as far as I can understand, these guidelines have not yet been finalized and there is still room for improvement. Indeed, this is what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) stated today in his speech, as he had already done several times, and more particularly in the House, when he said that these guidelines were of

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
an interim nature and that he and his officials were prepared to change them if their implementation in the reservations created problems.
Even though this debate is very important, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) for having raised the subject at this time in the House of Commons, I am surprised by the wording of his motion, because he uses, as his party is wont to do, a bombastic language with references to paternalism and dirigisme or bureaucracy as concerns the Indian affairs policy.
One day, they say that our defence policy is bureaucratic and paternalistic, the next day, the same is said about the Indian affairs policy, later about the unemployment insurance policy, and, Mr. Speaker, one could name any matter which concerns this nation and our friends opposite will always accuse us of dirigisme and paternalism, like a broken record.
This seems to me all the more surprising that after having had the pleasure for one year to sit on the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I always found with my colleagues opposite and my Liberal colleagues such a spirit of understanding and an openness of mind on that committee that the subjects we had to deal with, more particularly matters of Indian policy, are of deepest concern to all of us because we are not, except for my hon. colleague for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and my hon. colleague from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) very familiar with the problems facing natives across Canada. It is always with an openness of mind and a lot of respect that we listened, not with partisanship but as representatives of the Canadian electorate, to the various witnesses who came to meet us and always tried to find solutions to all problems in a spirit of co-operation. I say this, Mr. Speaker, simply to show my surprise on noting the somewhat bombastic wording of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes).
So, the fear of Indian, Innuit and Eskimo leaders across Canada, as well as the fear of some of my colleagues with regard to the guidelines just issued stems from a fear, Mr. Speaker, that through those guidelines, the Indians would be subject to taxation or that the act would be changed without consultation, or that the authority of chiefs and councillors would be undermined, or still that the famous white paper of 1969 would be brought forward again.
When one takes a closer look at what the guidelines concerning the structures and funding of band councils and Innuit villages are, one sees that they deal exclusively with the structures and funding of local administration. So I think there is nothing there to worry about and no need, as certain previous speakers did, to play the prophets of doom and talk about the possibility of violence following the implementation of those guidelines, or still take advantage of this debate to deal with claims over lands that happen to be owned by certain Indian bands, because this has nothing to do with the guidelines before us today. One of the previous speakers even referred to abortion, a matter which is totally irrelevant.
It seems that, as usual, they want to deal once again with the form instead of the substance of the bill. They

say that the bands have not been consulted. But they never say on what they should have been consulted.
That is why I should like to dwell for some time on those famous guidelines which concern our hon. colleagues today.
We find that the first of these guidelines, which deals with local administration, that far from depriving band councils of powers, it seeks to codify existing powers and even add new ones. For instance, guideline No. 1 provides that budgetary planning for all the needs of the local community, namely general budgeting, should be approved by the band council.
Moreover, these guidelines provide that the council is accountable for the financial administration to every band member and is also accountable to the funding agencies mostly to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The guideline still grants the band council the right to hire qualified personnel, to supervise the conduct of the band members, to make sure they abide by the guidelines, to investigate and to institute proceedings if necessary and to take disciplinary action against those who refuse to obey. It might be added that any band member can ask to examine the minutes of the band council.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this first guideline, is merely a codification of what already existed, and its 14 headings are all related to the processes of such a financial management. And after having read and reread in Shakespeare's language, this first guideline, I did not find anything, Mr. Speaker, which might lead one to conclude that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wants to impose in a paternalistic way on the bands or on the Indian councils some things they do not want to hear about.
The second guideline applies to district councils. Two months ago, while visiting some parts of my riding of Charlevoix, I had the opportunity to discuss with the band council of one of the reservations, in Les Escoumins, and with another, in Bersimis, two Montagnais reservations. In both cases, I was asked to study the possibilities for them to set up a district council. In an area where, for instance, a distance of 1,000 miles separates the Montagnais on the North Shore from the neighbouring reservation, a district council is of prime importance. I am sure that the second guideline which deals with the district councils will, in the main, meet the demands I have received from the Indians in my area.
This district council is created at the request of the bands, which in turn become members of the council. There again, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that is not an ex cathedra requirement on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The council is answerable to the band members; there is therefore double protection. The band councils are responsible for the creation of the district council which in turn is answerable to the band members.
Each band must have at least one representative on the district council, and the band itself designates its representative. The band leaders can and may join or leave the
June 12, 1975

district council at will. They must, however, consult the band members before doing so, and also vote on a resolution of the band council to either join or leave the district council.
A band council which is a member of a district council can manage its own programs at the local level, or ask the district council to manage it on its behalf. There again, the band councils are not being forced to give up any of their present powers. To my mind, the guidelines on the district council have been welcomed by the majority of band councils at the local level. The district council will be financed. It will include in its budget all the responsibilities which fall to a council of that type, for example the salaries of employees, the rental of premises, travels from one band to another or to meetings, as well as the profes-sionnal assistance they may need to get information or to learn the best ways to appeal either to the department or to other finance organizations.
Then, the bands will participate directly in the financing of the district council by contributing to its administration 4 per cent of their basic budget for the first year, then 8 per cent and finally 16 per cent. For its part, in the first three years, the department will help to solve the problems the district councils may experience at the beginning.
The other guidelines deal with the basic financing of bands. It is useless to go into details, except to say that so many dollars are given for each Indian or Eskimo. The other guideline, the fourth one, is about program funding. I will not go into details here either.
But there is still one thing I want to mention. In the last eight years, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been perhaps the most aware of the wishes of the native population compared to other departments with other segments of the Canadian population.
The fact that we listened attentively to the band councils and to the Indian population in general enables us today to be proud when we meet our native people to tell them about all our assistance program to industry, for example about all the programs we have to give them better municipal facilities, or a better education, because it is true that all-
If the hon. member has a question, maybe he could ask it.
The statistics quoted this afternoon by some of my colleagues to prove that the native people do not have their fair share of the Canadian wellbeing, that the young people in Indian reserves are the less educated of all young Canadians, and that health and education services there are the worst, are true, and the Minister of Indian Affairs is extremely aware of it, as his officials are, but we cannot-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Lapointe: Certainly.


John R. Rodriguez: If, as the hon. member said, the government has done so much for the native and Indian peoples, can he account for the many telegrams which have been
Indian Affairs
sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) asking for this whole matter to be shelved until there has been proper consultation?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive the telegrams my hon. colleague has received and yet I am just like him a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


John R. Rodriguez: I will send them to you.


Charles Lapointe: All right. The bands in my constituency have made no representations to me criticizing the guidelines issued by the department. As the minister said at the beginning of his speech, he himself has on hand enough supporting texts and evidence to show that some Indian organizations in Canada agree with his guidelines.
I agree with the hon. members opposite who said, before I was interrupted, that the native people's problems were much more critical than the white people's. We are aware of those problems. I thank my hon. colleague for the document he has just sent me. It is during the much more serene discussions we can have in the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that we shall be able to find solutions to the problems of these people, who have the right to demand that the Canadian Parliament administer their affairs more efficiently, and also that we give them more power, because they are entitled to it.
I think that the current review of the legislation on Indian affairs is providing all Indian organizations and bands of Canada with the opportunity to participate in formulating legislation which will allow them to live on the same level as all other Canadians. That is what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), as well as the government of this country, are striving to do.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in the short time that I have I intend to document some of the many problems of native people and then to agree with some of the philosophies that the minister and his staff have put forward. I think they are commendable and are some we should be practising with native people. I intend to go on from that point to disagree with the methods, and to demonstrate that those methods in fact will change those philosophies because they are actually in contradiction one with the other. I will do that by a direct analysis of some of the clauses included in program circular D-l. There can be no doubt about the number of extreme problems that face native people as they face other people.
The preceding speaker mentioned that the Department of Indian Affairs has been most receptive to the needs of the native people. I challenge that. If that is so, how come in 1973 the national average for unemployment of Indians was 56 per cent, and during the winter months was as high as 80 per cent? How come the Indian Association of Alberta estimated that of the 4,445 employable reserve Indians in northern Alberta, only 236 had jobs? That represents a 94 per cent unemployment rate.
29576-11 Vi

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
I ask members opposite how come the annual average per capita income registered for Indian people is only $500 as compared to Prince Edward Island, which has the lowest per capita income of any province in Canada, with $2,188? I ask those members who think everything is O.K. in the Indian situation today how come there is a need for 10,000 new homes and 5,000 major repair jobs on existing homes, as well as 5,000 more homes that will be needed over the next five years? These figures are very large when we consider there are only 60,000 four-person Indian families in Canada.
The occupancy average in this country is 3.7 people per 5.3 rooms. However, on Indian reservations the occupancy rate is 6.4 persons in 3.6 rooms. It is rather interesting to note that in patting themselves on the back the Department of Indian Affairs have not told the whole story. I simply look at the 1972-73 annual report. Therein it was mentioned that while the Canadian public had 98 per cent electricity in their homes, native people had 79 per cent electricity. That is a pretty high statistic and it looks pretty good.
Why is it the department did not say these things? Why did they not tell us that while 97 per cent of Canadians generally had running water, only 31 per cent of the native people had running water? While 96.1 per cent of the Canadian people had indoor toilets, only 24 per cent of the native people had them. While 93 per cent had indoor baths, only 19 per cent of native people had indoor baths.
Quite clearly all is not well on the reservations. I think the more devastating statistics deal with life itself. How come in Canada, one of the richest nations in the world, the infant mortality rate is 20 people per 1,000 live births on the national average and yet we are willing to accept 40 deaths per 1,000 for registered Indians, and 70 for Innuits? How can we justify, in a country like Canada, Indian people having a life expectancy of only 36 years and Innuits only 20, when the population at large enjoys a life expectancy of 62 years?
I could go on with considerable data to demonstrate that in the fields of education, crime, and many other areas there are in fact large problems. However, it is not those problems we want to dwell on today. The motion before us deals specifically with program circular D-l which, while I claim it has the right philosophy, has established a set of methods that in fact make it totally unworkable.
To move toward that point I want to share from the field of social science perhaps one of the greatest psychologists this world has witnessed, Erick Erickson, who talked about the importance of autonomy. I think the minister recognizes that, but he does not recognize how it is arrived at. He told about giving the Indian people autonomy. In his speech earlier today he said the fact of the matter is autonomy is not a thing you give, it is a human characteristic that is developed by being allowed to practice certain kinds of behaviours.
When we do an analysis of program circular D-l we find there is no allowance for autonomy. It dictates what one must do. It does not provide for the kind of inward soulsearching and incentive that lead to autonomy, as that word is used in the field of psychology. I refer to behavioural psychologist B. F. Skinner who claims that "the need to be positively reinforced by recognizing and having a

sense of self-worth is essential to developing a constructive individual". Program circular D-l is absolutely in opposition to those principles.
Professor Jack Gibb wrote, and his title is most descriptive, "Is Help Helpful?". He states that when we help people, what we are often trying to do is free them or release them. Yet the very nature of help is often just the opposite. Instead of freeing people it creates a greater dependency. Instead of releasing them, it increases the need and locks them in. I cite as an example of this the statement of the welfare people in the state of New York. It clearly demonstrated that the people in that state had greater difficulty getting off welfare than getting on it.
I do not intend or desire to imply a destructive motive or intent on the part of the minister or his department. But, motive aside, program circular D-l is dead wrong. It does things to the Indian people that box them in. It destroys economy and does not allow for the freedom of thinking.
I would like at this time to go into program circular D-l in an attempt to demonstrate that this not only contravenes the Indian Act, but dictates to people in such a way that they have no freedoms. I might just take one example. I will quote clause 4.6 of program circular D-l:
Bands and Innuit settlements have an obligation to contribute towards the cost of local government according to their resources and ability to pay. It is expected that this principle will apply to core funding as circumstances permit.
This clause may well force the bands to use bands funds for administration and delivery of services. That is a responsibility that was guaranteed by the federal government under the Indian Act. What this really means is a changing away from what was written in that act. While that was important, the next clause was even more important. That is 1.2. The definitions (c) and (h) could undermine the powers of the elected chief and council. I quote the last sentence, "and the concurrence of the majority of those present at a meeting obtained".
This could present the opportunity for the chief and council to be outvoted by the band members on any community program. It is not my belief this was the intended meaning. The fact of the matter is that within program circular D-l there are statements which permit local groups in the Indian band to have powers equal to and above those of the chief and council. If that is not a threat to local autonomy there is certainly misunderstanding of what native behaviour has been as long as the Department of Indian Affairs has been relating to it.
The principal issue in this debate is the right of free choice versus government control. We are here today to talk about autonomy and free choice. I should like at this time to share some other concepts that are included in circular D-l. I am quoting from page four, section (e):
No later than the 15th day of each month, prepare and deliver to the council and the department a statement showing:
1.	Itemized receipts and disbursements during the preceding month
2.	Standing of the general ledger balances as of the last day of the preceding month
3.	Standing of all appropriation accounts as at the last day of the preceding month
June 12, 1975

Those are the normal requests one might make when dealing with a household kind of operation. But surely the department recognizes that some of these bands are dealing with millions of dollars. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) doesn't expect people paying taxes to account for millions of dollars within 15 days of the year end. It is folly to demand on the 15th day of every month a full accounting of millions of dollars as some of these bands are now handling, both in government funds and their own funds. That is an unworkable situation.
I quote again one of the Indian people we met in Edmonton recently. He said, "If what the government wants is for us to run a good business, we have no argument. But to impose this on us is an absolute insult."
I should like to read from page five, in clause (f):
At least once weekly deposit all the monies of the band in accordance with these conditions and withdraw the same only in accordance with these conditions.
Again this does not take the situation into account. Some of these people live hundreds and hundreds of miles away from banks. How do you make deposits in and withdrawals when the bank isn't there? Does the department propose to build banks in every little Indian settlement all through the north country? This is the kind of insensitivity the department shows.
If we turn to page six under section F dealing with purchasing, in 6.2, we find:
No purchase or expenditure is to be approved nor are funds to be expended or committed for any purpose which is not provided for in the budget and in accordance with these conditions.
Then we turn to section H under Disbursements and in 8.3 we read this line:
A petty cash fund is to be established not to exceed $50-
This means they must budget for everything, but they cannot have more than $50 for petty cash. I simply ask: how are they going to budget for a hurricane or the herd bull dying on an Indian ranch? Does this mean they can only buy a $50 bull? You don't budget for those kinds of things like a home burning down. This is the kind of boxing in no one can claim gives anyone any sense of autonomy. This is a dictate from on high, an erector kit on how to run an Indian reserve. This is the government saying in a pamphlet, "Indian Reserves made easy, step A, step B."
Take a look at 8.6. It reads as follows:
No band cheques are to be postdated or signed in blank.
I ask this question if we are giving so much autonomy to the people. Why not? Why, if they are dealing with certain kinds of bills, those that re-occur monthly, especially when so many of them live far away from their businesses, can cheques not be postdated? Where is the authority by which we assume we have the privilege to tell people how they must behave? This is certainly not what we would do with any other sector of society, and it is not something which ought to happen to native people.
Let me put forward another example, this time under J, section (a):
Where a contract is expected to exceed $100 written tenders are invited.
Indian Affairs
I know the minister says he is going to change this figure from $100 to $500 but that still does not satisfy the situation. I come from a farming, ranching community and I know that the rear tire on a tractor will cost anywhere from $800 to $1600 to repair. I know what it is like in a farm situation when you get into the month of October and you are still combining.
What happens when anyone across Canada who is not Indian has a flat rear tire on his tractor? In harvest season you go in and get it changed and have a new one put on within two or three hours. But what about native people? According to these guidelines they must tender and then wait for five days. That is what the guidelines say. If they have to wait for five days in harvest season when the sun is shining, there is no one here who cannot say this is a regimented, dictated kind of paper which takes any autonomy away from native people, and if they become insulted and react to this, then all I can suggest is that they have every right to become insulted because this is a paper which dictates to them step by step how their lives should be run.
What we have here is a paint-by-numbers Indian program, established in an attempt to make people fit into boxes and categories when in fact people don't fit that way. The Indian people have told us over and over again that if what we are asking for is that they run their financial affairs with good, sound, business practices then, of course, there is no argument. But to impose program circular D.I. on them is an absolute insult.
I think I have some time left in which to speak but I see it is six o'clock. I will therefore call it six o'clock and continue at eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has an additional three minutes in which to speak. Perhaps the House would agree not to see the clock for those three minutes, which would give the hon. member a chance to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: If we turn to page 10 of the program, we read under 10.3:
Travel expenses for all employees are to be paid subject to the submission of an itemized account of claim. Treasury Board regulations may be used as a guide but the rates contained therein are not to be exceeded.
I simply ask: how is that for trust in the promotion of autonomy? What about the special travel conditions of northern communities and why is it there isn't some allowance for the native people to make these decisions themselves?
Then I note on page 11, under the section Audit:
Any official appointed by the department to perform an audit or program review function is to be given full access at reasonable times to the financial and other program records of the band.
May I make this absolutely clear. The program circular D-l requires the native people to secure an audit. We now hear that the department are coming in with their own audit and double checking. We do not do that with other people in society, so we cannot go forward and claim that, this being the case, we are giving our native people some autonomy, some opportunity for self-direction.

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
In the few moments I have left I want to say that nothing could be more correct than to extend to our native people a sense of self-government, to give them a feeling of pride, a feeling that they are people who can work and manage their own affairs.
I think we have had enough experience by this date in our history to recognize that what we are dealing with is behaviour. Behaviour is not a thing that is changed by a dictate from above; behaviour is changed by allowing people opportunity and by extending to them trust. We cannot do that by a regimented, boxed-in set of regulations which simply concludes that all native people are in the same situation, wherever they exist in whatever part of Canada.
If we are going to have program guidelines, then I think they need to be of a broad, general, and philosophical form, leaving the flexibility to the native people, even if the minister wishes to seek their stamp of approval. But the native Indian people need to be able to say: "These guidelines match your philosophy". If they put forward these guidelines and the minister can accept them, I think we need not turn out a heavy, weighty book, that goes from coast to coast and from the 49th parallel to the north pole, one that assumes that native people are all in the same condition and prescribes to them how they should account for all funds. These people are unique, they are individual, and they are human beings. I agree with the philosophy and I hope that the methods can be changed to permit this to take place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being after six o'clock I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to join in this debate tonight. We have heard quite a few contributions, some of which contained some positive points, but I am a bit disturbed by some of the negativism we have heard today.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Constructive criticism.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, some of it was, I must agree.
Having regard to these guidelines, I must say that locally administered programs are quite common to most Canadians. They are, indeed, the backbone of our way of self-government. To Indian communities, most of which are publicly financed, locally administered programs are but 10 years old. It is now just 10 years since the government began to provide funds to Indian bands so they could administer programs which, up to that time, had been entirely in the hands of federal civil servants. In that time the local government program has made an enormous contribution to the self-reliance of the Indian community. Band administration has grown and developed rapidly.

As the minister has said many times, we are encouraged by the increasing number of bands that have assumed program responsibilities. It reflects an increasing awareness by the Indian people, and a move away from dependency upon the government. Their initiative has substituted a greater and more positive measure of self-reliance, and we should all continue to do whatever we can to encourage and, indeed, foster, this move toward
self-responsibility.
Indian band administrations will manage over $100 million in this fiscal year. Consider these facts: 510 bands administer one or more programs; 425 bands employ a total of 2,600 persons on band staff, and 132 bands will administer in excess of $200,000 per band in this fiscal year.
There have been criticisms of this program during this debate, some of which have been harsh. I think some of the things that have been said have been misguided, but I am happy to say there has been no general feeling expressed that Indian people cannot or should not manage programs. No one has said that.
Ten years ago there were those who predicted failure, but they have been proven wrong. The late Arthur Laing, when he was the minister, said that he expected some bands would make mistakes. He said that was acceptable to a degree, because mistakes are the best way of learning. In many respects I am pleased that it is the mistakes of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that preoccupy this House, for it could have been quite different.
But that faith was not misplaced. Indian bands in general have done an excellent job. They have reason to be proud, and it is pride that has led to much of the complaining about the guidelines. It is not that they are offensive to the Indian tribes; not at all, but they have been taken to be offensive.
What do these guidelines reflect? They put forward a proposed set of operating rules so that band administrators know what is expected of them. Where bands already have such rules there is no problem. It becomes merely a matter of indicating that their rules are as good or better than the guidelines issued by the department. In this case their own manual of procedure will apply.
These guidelines are simply and straightforwardly a set of rules to ensure that public funds-substantial amounts of public funds-are spent in a sensible and proper manner. They are for the protection of the Indian administrators and the public purse. I am sure members of the opposition would be very quick to criticize the government if it authorized the expenditure of these sums of moneys without any control on how they are spent.
Without guidelines unfair criticism can be based on nothing but a whim of the critic. We have seen an indication of that in the debate today. With general rules laid down, the band administration has a perfect defence; that is, that the rules were observed. As the trade union people say, a good, workable, collective agreement is the foundation for a good, working relationship. I think few will argue that there is no need for rules. The public funds of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be accountable in the same way other money

voted by parliament for other government departments is accountable. I have not heard anyone here advocate the abolition of the Auditor General or Treasury Board, or repeal of the Financial Administration Act.
There are four main charges brought against the guidelines. First, they are said to have been developed without consultation; second, they are said to jeopardize local government in Indian communities; third, they are said to be a step toward what is called the white paper policy; fourth, they are said to infringe on Indian freedom, threaten cultural identity, and damage the relationship between the department and the Indian people.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


An hon. Member:: A great speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I thank hon. members for their applause. I hope they will continue to listen as attentively as they have because they will probably learn more.
There was consultation. The consultation demonstrated the need for rules and guidelines. At 28 meetings held in many different parts of Canada the Indian people-band administrators, chiefs, and councillors-told the staff of Indian Affairs that a manual of local government was needed. They said it was vital they be told what was expected of them. They complained about lack of standardized rules and procedures under which they could operate. They said they were subjected to unfair criticism because they did not do what was wanted. They went on to say no one told them exactly what it was that was wanted.
The need was plainly and clearly there for guidelines. It was then decided to put forward some guidelines for discussion and for testing in practice. The education guidelines, for example, were developed in close consultation with the National Indian Brotherhood, its affiliated organizations, chiefs, and councils. They were discussed at length at many stages of their development.
The guidelines were then presented to the executive committee of the NIB. Their reaction was that they wanted no guidelines. That is all very well, but it is not consultation. When the department is told that the Indian people want to know where they stand and then brings forward guidelines so the Indian people will know where they stand, the taxpayer is entitled to a great deal more than that response. The department has consulted the Indian people and is prepared to adapt and adjust its proposals to meet any realistic suggestions for improvement. The guidelines suggest that changes be put forward. Where a band has a better way or an equivalent way, the department is prepared to accept it.
Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) said that he hoped the minister would take the opportunity to set straight a few things he mentioned this afternoon. I think it might be a good idea if the same hon. member would be a little more careful in respect of some of the things he puts forward. For example, he said in his speech that regional directors of the Indian Affairs branch were instructed that the
Indian Affairs
guidelines were to be put in place by the end of June, 1975, or funds would be cut off. That is not so.
I should like to quote from a directive from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian and Eskimo Affairs to the regional directors. It states as follows:
It would appear that in some regions, bands are being told that unless they produce a BCR adopting the D-l verbatim, funds will be cut off July 1, 1975. This is not the interpretation to be given to my earlier instructions because bands are free to establish their own rules and regulations provided they embody the principles listed earlier and are consistent with the intent of the various requirements contained in D-l.
While the circulars (guidelines) which have been issued will remain in effect, they are to be treated as being of an interim character pending consideration of changes proposed by the Indian people.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a process of consultation. Why were the guidelines issued? There are three very cogent reasons. One would be to protect the band chiefs and councillors from undue criticism from band members. The second would be to safeguard the use of public funds, and the third would be to extend to members of the bands the right to know how the funds are being spent. Instead of being an infringement of freedom in relation to the native peoples I submit that the guidelines will become a guarantee of freedom.
Now I should like to refer to the second point I mentioned. The guidelines do not jeopardize or threaten the structure of local government. They strengthen and enhance it. They reinforce the authority, responsibility and accountability of chiefs and councils. They are far less onerous or restrictive than those imposed by provinces upon municipalities. They are the minimum controls the public is entitled to expect. Not only that, but almost all bands operating programs are already meeting the requirements. These guidelines simply specify the terms and conditions under which public funds are turned over to Indian bands to manage. Far from being a step toward some fancied goal of assimilation, they are a safeguard that Indian communities can retain local government institutions and operate them within limits that are an inescapable element of personal autonomy and local self-reliance.
The third point is that the guidelines of course have nothing to do with the white paper proposals put forward six years ago. There is not and could not be any connection. The government withdrew the proposals of 1969 and is still awaiting the proposals of the Indians concerning what should be put forward in their place. These guidelines do not portend any amendments to the Indian Act. They do not conceal any deep laid plan to subvert the Indian aspirations. They seek to provide a means for Indian people to achieve the important goal of self-reliance.
The fourth point is that far from infringing or threatening cultural identity they are a recognition of the fact that freedom requires an orderly and lawful setting in which to thrive. It is not, or would not be, freedom to operate without rules. That would be an invitation to some future administration probably to decree that the experiment of contributions to bands, the turning over of program responsibility, was a failure and must go. Such a judgment might be based on the isolated experience of a few bands. The guidelines are put forward to enable safe, solid and

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
sound band administration to grow and prosper while at the same time fulfilling the requirements of parliament in the accountability of public funds. Members may seek the roots for all this in the past, and those disposed to do so will find them. All I am saying is that hon. members and those involved must look to the present and to the future.
For the moment I ask members of the House to consider some of their own responsibilities to the public, to the rules they have themselves laid down, such as the Financial Administration Act and others, and then to ask themselves how they can advocate the transfer of in excess of $100 million to individuals and groups without rules.
Having said these things, Mr. Speaker, let me hasten to add that the guidelines were a first proposal put forward in good faith to provide the basis for a future set of rules upon which hopefully everyone can agree. Let me repeat what the minister has said.


An hon. Member:: No, don't.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You don't want to hear the truth? He said that they are of an interim nature and are adaptable to meet special needs and circumstances.


John R. Rodriguez: Red herring!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon. member must have had a very good dinner tonight. He is in very good spirits.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He's had red herring.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: And
pickles.
The guidelines are necessary, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised to find them characterized as they have been.
The guidelines have been developed to support seven basic principles: first, that the Indian community itself- those who elect the chief and council, be informed and support the concept of band administration of programs and especially such vital community programs as economic development and education; second, that band administration will require qualified staff to provide a proper level of service to the community; third, that public funds provided to bands must be used for the purpose for which they are intended and must be properly accounted for just as are other public funds; fourth, that individual rights be protected-band members have a right to be fully informed of the total sums received by the band and of how these funds have been spent; fifth, inventories and records of band assets are to be kept to ensure that those things purchased on behalf of all do not become the private possessions of the few; sixth, that band methods of purchasing supplies and services should conform to sound business and administrative practices; seventh, that both the bands' and the department's responsibilities should be as clearly defined as possible.
The guidelines were not designed to restrict bands in the management of programs; they are to assist. They provide a sound basis for bands to discuss and negotiate so

that practices which are developed to meet local needs also meet the fundamental need of sound administration.
The department is not ramming these guidelines down anyone's throat and no money is being withheld from anyone because of these guidelines. But I think the Indian community is entitled to accountable institutions of local government, and I know of no other way to ensure they get them than by providing them with funds so they may develop institutions and by making certain they know what they have to do to discharge the functions for which the money is paid.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder whether we were going to have a new set of guidelines tonight because the hon. member seemed to be enumerating them.
It gives me pleasure to join in the debate because, having been a member of parliament for a few years now,
I find that often we do not have the opportunity to debate the affairs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and often we find that it is difficult to put forward suggestions from all sides of the House regarding how we should pursue the affairs of the department.	,
Tonight my comments will be almost totally on the issue of consultation, and I would like to start by reading part of a telegram that was sent to me by the Samson band in Hobbema, Alberta. It reads as follows:
Regarding local government guidelines housing policy education it has come to the attention of the chief in council of Samson band that all funding from the Department of Indian Affairs will be cut off if the bands do not accept the guidelines as set out by the Department of Indian Affairs. We wish to emphasize that there was no consultation with the chiefs and councils prior to the implementation date of April 1, 1975.
I must point out that at the time of receipt of this telegram I had not even laid eyes on the guidelines. It strikes me that the minister has handled the issue of these guidelines and circulars in an extremely unsatisfactory manner. The program circulars seemed to be simply thrown out of the blue, and members of parliament were not even allowed the courtesy of being provided with guidelines before they were given to the Indian people. I am not saying that they should have but it seems to me that, since we are the representatives of the Indian people in this House of Commons, surely we should have been given these guidelines so that we could have looked at them and dealt with them at the same time as the Indian people.
Another suggestion is that a change of policy such as this should have been put before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs so that they could have dedicated two or three meetings to this subject, looked at these guidelines, and suggested ways in which they could be improved. But none of this was done.
My personal experience was that I was unable to obtain a copy of these guidelines. I did not even know about them until I went to the Hobbema council meeting on May 20, 1975. I understand that these five guidelines became effective as of April 1, and any Indian bands which did not conform with the provisions set forth in the circulars were not given these guidelines until well into May. I was informed of them on May 20. I note with interest that the
June 12, 1975

copies of the circulars that I now have in my possession were all dated February and March. I would be most anxious to hear the minister justify the two to three months' time lag which existed between February, March and May when these guidelines were finally distributed.
I would also like to emphasize that during my meeting with the 4-Band council I learned that only three copies of these guidelines were circulated to the whole treaty area, which probably consist of well in excess of 10 or 12 bands. In view of the great number of various governmental communiques, departmental pamphlets, and booklets that have crossed my desk in the past three or four months, I would suspect that the distribution of an exceedingly limited number of guideline copies to members of parliament and Indian bands was not caused by a shortage of paper or a malfunctioning of the printing process, but rather by sheer negligence and little regard for the rights of members of parliament on this side of the House and of the Indian people.
The Indian bands maintain that there was a lack of consultation with the chiefs and councils prior to the implementation date of April 1. In 1969, when the white paper on Indian affairs was rejected by the Indian associations and eventually rejected by the government, the Indians were assured that no new policies or directives would be put into effect without detailed negotiations and consultation or without the consent of the Indian people. However, in spite of these commitments, the department has now developed policy circulars without full dialogue or consultation with the Indian people.
The minister stated in the House on May 6, and I quote: "there has been considerable consultation on these guidelines", yet I have before me several communications-of which I have read one-from various bands, all of which state in no uncertain terms that the circulars were not circulated to the bands and councils, and that no consultations were had with the councils.
I must confess that when the minister was questioned about with whom consultation had taken place, he did not say that conferences had been held with various Indian bands but, and again I quote, "with the Indian bands, or the National Indian Brotherhood". I received a telegram from the president of the National Indian Brotherhood to Harold Cardinal, President of the Alberta Indian Association, dated April 29. Admittedly the minister met with the N.I.B. on April 15, but at that time the N.I.B. was urging the freezing of the implementation of these guidelines and program regulations, a request which the minister has obviously refused.
In the aforementioned telegram Mr. Manuel, President of the National Indian Brotherhood, terms the guidelines as objectionable, states that the N.I.B. is unaware of any Indian leaders accepting such policy guidelines and regulations, and emphasizes the importance of Indian involvement in all decisions affecting community programs. My obvious question to the minister is what is his definition of the word "consult"? Is it a matter of consulting with just one band and assuming that all the others agree?
The case in point typifies the position the government has taken vis-a-vis Indians over the course of several
Indian Affairs
years in the matter of consultation. Only last fall a similar situation arose with respect to Bill C-15, the Indian oil and gas bill. I have before me several communications received from Indian bands in which it is maintained that no discussion was held with the Indians prior to the introduction of the bill before the House. I will just read one from the Blood tribe in Alberta:
Request that no legislation be cast regarding Bill C15 until consultation has taken place with the Indians.
Speaking of that particular piece of legislation, on November 28 of last year I rose under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and moved that the money owing to Indian bands from the collection of the export tax on oil extracted from Indian reserves be paid to them to enable them to honour their economic contracts. On the same day a question of mine appeared on the order paper in which I asked the minister when the money would be returned to the bands and whether interest payments would be coming to them in view of the lateness of the return. The minister replied that the matter was under discussion and consultation with the province of Alberta. Several questions have since been asked on this subject, and the minister's response has always been the same.
Only last week I received an answer to questions I posed on November 5 of 1974. My questions were very specific: how much money is presently held in the federal treasury collected from the export tax on oil? Was any money collected after April 1, and does the government intend to return all this money to Indian bands? This question has just been answered, and the answer is that discussions on the substance of this question are being held among a number of departments, and until these discussions are completed and a decision has been reached, no substantive reply can be made.
It seems obvious that the ministers are dragging their heels on this matter, because to date nothing has happened. No two way discussions are presently taking place between the federal and provincial governments. A telephone conversation I had just yesterday with the minister in charge of Indian affairs in Alberta revealed that when the federal minister was out there this was not even on the agenda, and he knew nothing of it. Of course he is a new minister, and I suppose that may be one of the reasons, but if there was continued consultation on a matter as important as this, surely the new minister should be brought up to date because this matter is of concern to the Indian people. My assumption is-and this is a guesstimate-that there may be $2 million, $3 million, $4 million or $5 million sitting around, hopefully in a fund, but perhaps even in the treasury. No interest is being paid on it, and it seems like the federal ministry hopes it will go away because it is certainly not pursuing the matter. As long as I am standing in my place in this House I can assure the minister that I will pursue it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I wish to comment briefly on one aspect of the guidelines which is of great concern to Indian bands within my riding. No one will dispute the fact that the Indian people should be accountable for their funds. It has been emphasized by all hon. members that there is no argument whatsoever in this regard, but I do
6710

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
believe that the exceedingly elaborate accounting system required by the provisions in these new guidelines is totally unreasonable and unnecessary.
Presently it appears extremely difficult for the bands to operate under the provisions of these guidelines. In my riding of Wetaskiwin the bands at Hobbema and Winter-burn have a great deal of funds. These two sets of funds must be co-ordinated within this program. The Indian bands receive their funds through natural gas and oil revenues, royalties, agriculture, horticultural developments and things of this sort, and they are substantial.
Today government funds are accounted for to the government and to the Indian people within the band, and their own funds are accounted for to the people within the band. Revenues obtained from the government under the new system must be accounted for, but because these bands have a large amount of their own funds, the amount given to them by the federal government is somewhat less than that given to other bands. This is all right.
It was pointed out in a question I asked the minister that his program works in much the same manner as the DREE program works; namely, that those bands which are not as wealthy as others receive more federal funding, and I think this is a good program. It should be continued, but when the bands are receiving money from the federal government and using those funds in conjunction with their own funds to buy equipment and to run their every day operations and businesses, how do they account? The only way they can account for these funds under the new guidelines is to hire a chartered accountant and a number of people to back him up. This will amount to an unrealistic expenditure, especially when under their own band administration now they are adequately accounting for all these funds.
I feel that some way has to be worked out so that these restrictive guidelines can be adapted so that they can work in harmony with what is now in effect and with what is now being suggested by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its guidelines.
In conclusion, I request that a moratorium be placed on these new guidelines until either the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development refers to these guidelines and amendments are made, or until adequate consultation takes place between the Indian people and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that the amendments which the Indian people feel are necessary can be embodied in these guidelines. With that, I hope the minister takes these representations to heart and that he will grant us this moratorium.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, currently more than 500 of the 567 Indian bands across Canada are administering various programs, and over $100 million will go directly to band councils this * year to administer programs on behalf of their members. These are programs like housing, education, social services, etc.
In 1965 the department introduced the contributions to bands program which enabled councils to operate specific

local programs. The move represented the first step toward local government. Because of the positive response of bands and the expanding nature of the program, a departmental task force was formed in late 1972 to chart a course for the future. Councils, associations, conferences and individuals submitted briefs and position papers. All of the recommendations of the Indian people were accepted. Two recommendations in particular, the transfer of capital and operations-maintenance funds, and the setting up of band core funding, were indispensable first steps toward local government. The task force report made the objective clear-all programs that could be managed at the community level should be. The department's obligations, on the other hand, required its involvement to ensure adequate levels of service and to guarantee appropriate use of public funds. The task force recommendations also made clear that there must be general guidelines or regulations for band operations.
The department's push for local government is not a cop-out of its responsibilities. The former minister, who is now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), in a letter to the Quebec regional chiefs said:
Local government... will in no way jeopardize the reserve system, nor the status of Indians, nor the funds, services and programs available from the Government of Canada. On the contrary, I firmly believe that local government... is a prerequisite for maintaining your way of life, your identity, your pride, and your opportunity for meaningful participation in Canadian society.
That statement is still departmental policy.


John R. Rodriguez: Amen.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Amen.
On April 24 the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs passed a resolution calling upon all Indians in the province to reject, as of May 1, funds from all federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The expressed wish of Indians in British Columbia to reduce their dependence on government, to stress self-reliance and to assume substantially greater responsibility for the management of their own affairs, corresponds closely with my own view. The long-term objectives of the government must be to give greater responsibility to the native peoples. The present act gives responsibilities to the minister which cannot be given to the native peoples. For instance, the responsibility for the management of public funds cannot be given to them, since the minister is accountable to the government for these expenditures.
The Indian Affairs budget in British Columbia for the current year is about $61 million. Salaries account for only $10 million; approximately $5 million is paid for salaries for teachers and other education staff. Therefore, approximately $5 million is spent on departmental salaries by the Department of Indian Affairs in British Columbia.
In 1975 band councils were administering approximately $20 million in funds. As I say, the Indian Affairs budget in British Columbia is about $61 million; if one deducts $10 million, of which about half is for salaries of people I mentioned, the balance available is $51 million.
Indian representatives in British Columbia have justly expressed particular concern about the prolonged delays
June 12, 1975

in the negotiation of their land claims. I share their concern, Mr. Speaker, as do many others in British Columbia. Since the Indian interest involves provincial land and resources, the province must be a party to any settlement which is made with the native peoples of British Columbia. Compensation is a matter for negotiation between the federal government and the province of British Columbia. I stress that this long festering problem will not be settled until the provincial government is willing to sit down and negotiate with the federal government. I am glad that the present and previous ministers have made known a number of times their willingness to sit down with the government of British Columbia and negotiate the settlement of this problem which has long festered in British Columbia.
I ask British Columbia in all seriousness and honesty to negotiate with the federal government in good faith, so that a policy can be formulated. The governments could then go the native peoples of British Columbia and sit down and attempt to solve this problem which has existed since British Columbia entered Confederation. Our native peoples have endured great difficulties for almost 100 years, because no treaty had been signed by the B.C. and the Government of Canada. This is not a new question; this is a matter with which provincial governments of the 1870's and 1880's had to grapple. The present government of British Columbia can now rectify a problem which has existed for almost 100 years. I ask the government to shoulder its responsibilities and I would praise it if it were willing to sit down and negotiate the settlement of this problem. That a government elected by the people of British Columbia should want to wash its hands of jurisdictional responsibility for the native peoples of British Columbia I consider criminal.
I commend ministers who said they are willing to settle these longstanding problems. I wish the provincial government would be as far-sighted as Laurier, who said near the turn of the century that we must settle these problems. I hope that when the year 2,000 or 3,000 arrives there will not be people in this country making the pious assertion that, "This is not our responsibility; it is the federal government's responsibility. Please do not bother us with these mundane problems." The problem should be solved. Our native peoples have been long suffering. As some hon. members may know, blockades have taken place in British Columbia. Native peoples have taken over Indian Affairs offices. Although I do not condone lawlessness-


John R. Rodriguez: Are you sucking and blowing at the same time?


Hugh Alan Anderson: -I sympathize with people whose grievance is long standing. Perhaps the native people of British Columbia have been too forbearing in their attitude; their recent actions in the province have drawn attention to their problems. I warn the native people of British Columbia not to take out their frustrations on innocent bystanders like loggers, who were prevented from earning a living by blockades. I say to the native peoples, you are taking out your frustrations on the wrong people, on innocent bystanders. I do not think they should be penalized with lost wages.
Indian Affairs
The Attorney General of British Columbia must enforce the law in British Columbia but, at the same time, it is the responsibility of the two levels of government which could act in this area to sit down together and, with the Indian peoples, start negotiating a settlement. As it is, little or nothing has been done for too many years. We have heard much talk, which is why the native peoples may be correct when they say the white man talks with a forked tongue. We have talked out of one side of our faces, or the other, for many years.


John R. Rodriguez: Especially the Liberals.


Hugh Alan Anderson: It has been held that, under the act of union, the federal government has the right to ask the province of British Columbia for land for native peoples. Of course we are speaking of provincial land, Crown land. Although the federal government has not written to B.C. saying, "We want this section or that section of land." the federal government position has been that this is provincial land and the province should be brought into the negotiations.
The native peoples have said with justification, "Look, don't talk about land alone; talk about an economic base as well. We need an economic base; we need resources; we want something our people can work on." This is why in negotiations with the province, they have to discuss tree farm licences, for example, with stumpages paid by them the same as anyone else. This will give them an economic base on which to work. There is no point putting them on a reserve and letting them starve to death. I hope governments do not decide to put them some place and keep them on welfare and whatever else we can give them to keep them quiet, hoping they will go away. That would be as wrong as what happened in the past.
There must be some economic base. It must be one on which both the federal and provincial governments cooperate to set it up. The problems which native people have today cannot be solved by talking about alcoholism and drugs, but by giving them an economic base so they can have pride in their way of life and their culture. The first step toward providing this pride is to give them some base on which to develop their reserve life.
Recently members of the standing committee had the privilege of visiting Huron Village outside Quebec City. There are about 1,500 people on that reserve, with six or seven factories which are not run by the government, but by the people of Huron Village. Their problem is not normal to most reserves in Canada. There is a shortage of native people because they are all employed. They are now seeking white people to work there. This is the sort of thing we want to encourage in co-operation with the provincial government. It is also to their benefit to have a strong native industry that is not only a credit to the federal government or the people of Canada but to the people who live in that particular province.
This is why I feel the British Columbia government must enter into negotiations with those in my constituency for the benefit of the native people and the people of British Columbia as well as for the general over all health of Canada.
29576-12Vi

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
Pride as a native Canadian can only be achieved when handouts are stopped. I think, for example, of the Duncan area, the Chemainus Indians of Vancouver Island, who have developed a fruit and vegetable co-op which employs the people on reserves. It generates an annual salary of approximately $500,000, and within two years it will probably be up to $1 million. This could be achieved on many of our reserves. We have not given these people money. We have loaned them money which will be repaid by the federal government.
That is one way of solving a problem. It is not political. If any member thinks it is political, he is probably in the wrong House and probably the wrong country. This is a humanitarian question. I point out to the NDP members that the B.C. government is not recognizing the problem. I submit they are playing politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: As I said, this is a humanitarian question, not one of who is right or wrong or who is the most political. It is a gut issue of how to help these people who have been depressed for too long and, I submit, exploited for too long.


An hon. Member:: By the Liberals.


Hugh Alan Anderson: If the hon. member across the way is concerned, I suggest that he contact the premier of that great republic on the west coast and express his concern. Obviously we, as a Liberal government, are having a very difficult time getting through the mountains, forests and oceans to let him know it is time to quit playing games. The problem will not be solved by rhetoric, but by people with a sincere intent to solve the problem sitting down together. This is not something new. It has been going on for a long time.
Guidelines have been discussed today. They are important. However, we may have gone beyond the guideline situation. This question not only involves the native people of British Columbia, but across Canada. When this is discussed I hope there is more response from other provinces than there has been from my native province.
I would welcome any changes made by the province of British Columbia. I would be happy to praise the premier instead of having to say that his attitude at the present time, if not cavalier, is perhaps bordering on criminal negligence.
This is an important question. I hope those members who are laughing today will assume the seriousness that this requires. There has been too much laughing and joking about this-"the poor red man, he is only a drunkard so why should we bother with him?" There are many people in my province, and indeed my constituency, who say we give them too much. I say in all seriousness that we have a chance of giving them respect by giving them something on which they can base their lives. It may be something entirely different from our concept, but it can be something they can live with and build upon. I hope that it comes in the not too distant future.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I do so with considerable apprehension. I perceive

there to be a deterioration in the relationship between our native people and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sorry that is the reason I must participate in this debate.
I have had an opportunity to meet the minister. He is extremely personable and commands respect in this House. However, on the basis of my experience and representations that have been made both in this House and to me from Saskatchewan Indian leaders, including Indian people on the great Beardy reserve whom I have the honour of representing in this House, I am deeply concerned. These people are naturally interested in the problems of Indians today.
I am pleased to note that Chief Standing is in the gallery. He is chief of the Wahpeton band.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has taken the time and trouble to come here to hear this debate and observe how we in this House of Commons deal with affairs related to Indians. There is great concern, and this is why Chief Standing is here. The chief is a member of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. He has met with me and other members of our caucus to discuss the concerns of the Indian people in Saskatchewan today.
I am participating in this debate because I think the Saskatchewan point of view has to be stated. During the past weeks there has been anxious activity by the Indian leaders in my province. It has been directed toward attempts to arrive at serious negotiations with the department.
In the course of their efforts in this regard the Indian leaders made numerous approaches to the minister, the department, and members of parliament from my province, as well as to leaders of each of the political parties in Saskatchewan. I am glad to report that again includes the Progressive Conservatives with their terrific showing in yesterday's election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As far as I can determine, these Indian leaders have received sympathetic support from each party they have spoken to, with the exception of, unfortunately, the minister and the department. They received a sympathetic hearing from the political leaders in Saskatchewan. I believe the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan even went as far as saying he would personally lead a delegation of Saskatchewan Indians to Ottawa and make representations on their behalf with regard to the position relating to the guidelines being discussed today.
I want to say at the outset that the Indian leaders with whom I have spoken do not for one instant object to the principle of accountability with respect to public moneys received by them. They are in fact anxious to have the expenditure of these funds controlled in ways in which there can be no question about their proper application. I know they feel that it is in the interests of Indian people that there be no question concerning the spending of
June 12, 1975

public moneys, and that any abuses in this area tend to interfere with the advancement they wish for their people.
The question of accountability therefore is not an issue at all in this debate. Rather, the issues that have given rise to this debate are those relating to the government's policies as to the advancement of Indian peoples in our country, and the government's sincerity with respect to developing a policy of self-reliance for our Indian peoples.
I will not take the time of the House to recount the history of the government's handling of Indian affairs over the past years which is known to hon. members and which, unfortunately, manifests itself in the unsatisfactory circumstances of the Indian people today. Suffice it to say that the history of government dealings with Indian people has been exemplified by an attitude of parternal-ism which has thwarted rather than enhanced any aspirations for self-reliance.
Times change, and policies must change in order to adapt to present circumstances. The reserve in the eyes of most Indian leaders has taken on a different complexion in recent years. No longer is it possible for Indian people to look to the reserve as a self-contained, economically self-sufficient unit on which they may remain isolated from the outside world and technological developments. The simple fact of the matter is that the reserve is no longer capable of supporting the Indian peoples and therefore a new role for reserves must be developed and promoted by the department.
I believe the Indian peoples now perceive the reserves as serving two functions. The first function is that of a training ground for their peoples to equip them with basic education, training, and talents to allow them to move off the reserves and into society in our country, and to enter the work force or to compete in the marketplace. In this connection the reserves provide the basic educational and social facility in which Indian peoples may receive instruction, training, and a feeling for their own proud culture, in addition to those standard basic skills obtainable through educational institutions in other parts of the country.
A second function or role of the reserve is to serve as a sort of home to which Indian peoples may return from time to time to be among their own people and unique culture. As a part of the whole process of this development it is imperative that the department create the proper type of motivation and atmosphere conducive to the establishment of self-reliance among the Indian peoples. It is this objective which the government has failed to achieve and which is apparently causing such concern among Indian leaders today.
It is not as if the minister has not received sufficient representation on the concerns of the Indian leaders. The minister is new to his position and I believe that the Indian peoples have been prepared to allow him a reasonable period of time in which to get to know his job. It is not as if, however, the minister had no previous experience with Indian affairs. I understand that he, before his elevation to cabinet, spent some time as chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and that during this period he spent considerable time studying Indian conditions, attitudes and aspirations. It is therefore surprising and distressing to see that the minis-
Indian Affairs
ter now appears determined to get himself into a position of confrontation with the Indian leaders in our country. A person serving in this portfolio must gain the respect of Indian peoples if he or she hopes to make any progress. The respect of Indian peoples is not obtained by protracted demonstrations of inflexibility.
One appreciates the fact that the minister is in receipt of advice from departmental officials. These departmental officials have apparently devised a system of guidelines which they believe to be appropriate to the circumstances on reserves today. But I would remind the minister that his role is not only to administer his department but to interpret the needs and aspirations of the Indian people. The role of the department is to serve the Indian people- it is not the role of the Indian people to serve the administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I personally became cognizant of the implementation of the departmental guidelines in April of this year. Representatives of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians met with me in my constituency office to say that changes were taking place in the administration of Indian affairs within the province, and guidelines being established without consultation with Indian leaders.
They were concerned about these developments because they said they believed the government when it said that the development of policies relating to Indians would be done only after consultations with the Indian peoples so that such policies would adequately reflect the needs and aspirations of Indians.
They indicated to me that the appointment of Jim Wright as regional director of the department in Saskatchewan, and the arbitrary implementation of the guidelines with respect to education and housing, represented an undermining of the concept of consultation, and that the guidelines further tended to undermine traditional Indian government as reflected in the Indian Act.
The concerns of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians were relayed to the minister in a question asked in the House by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on May 6, 1975. At that time the minister was asked about the guidelines. The minister only replied that there had been consultation, but on further questioning by the right hon. member for Prince Albert the minister clearly indicated that, if the guidelines created difficulties and problems, he was prepared to change them.
Since the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert first brought the question of the implementation of guidelines before this House, there have been subsequent and numerous questions and motions relating to the same topic. There has been a plethora of representations and communications from representatives of Indian leaders from across Canada as well as from the National Indian Brotherhood.
Notwithstanding the minister's initial undertaking in response to the question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert on May 6, it has appeared that the minister has become inflexible in his attitude rather than more receptive to the concept of discussion and consultation over the very great concerns expressed by Indian leaders.

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just like his predecessor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have had no opportunity to observe that closer at hand than you, sir, but I accept your advice in that regard. This attitude is exemplified by the fact that since April of this year, notwithstanding what was said by my hon. friend from Northumberland-Miramichi, there has been specific advice given to the bands that unless the guidelines are followed without exception, funding will be terminated as of July 1, 1975.
There must be some written communication to this effect from the departmental officials directed to the bands in the province of Saskatchewan, notwithstanding what directives have come from other parts. But these directives from the minister, or whatever form it is they take, have simply not been related to the bands themselves and they are under great apprehension concerning the termination of funds.
I should like to refer to a letter written to the minister to which was attached any number of vouchers indicating that the funding has been withheld pending passage of the appropriate resolution by the bands in the province of Saskatchewan. The hon. member asked for some proof. I think the attitude of the Saskatchewan chiefs, in light of this situation, has been exemplified by this letter sent to the minister by a distinguished Saskatchewan chief, Sol Sanderson of the James Smith Band at Kinistino, Saskatchewan. Chief Sanderson has written to the minister as of June 9, 1975, as follows, and I want to read this letter into the record because I think it states very well the attitude of Saskatchewan Indians:
The James Smith Band Council will not accept the local government guidelines in spite of the coercion and intimidation tactics used by your acting regional director, Jim Wright.
Mr. Wright has informed us that funding will be cut off July 1 if the guidelines are not accepted.
Enclosed are several fiscal vouchers used by the department, requesting our Band Council Resolutions, accepting the D-l series.
The D-l local government guidelines redefine the authority outside the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. It further gives the local government authority and its chairman the same authority as the chief and council.
There can be no acceptance of this kind of system regardless of the consequences.
Mr. Wm. Dack, the acting district supervisor for Indian affairs in Saskatoon, has stated that all services to our band have been terminated unless we accept Mr. J. Wright and the guidelines.
Funds have been frozen for all band projects and new programs. We do receive some program funds, released at the discretion of the acting regional director. We have not even seen our O. and M. budget for 1975-76. There are no capital projects started in housing or road construction. Our leases are not acted upon by your staff, causing loss of revenue. We are being forced because of this unilateral action by your senior staff to lay off 85 staff members and others are working voluntarily. Several have left the province for employment in the sugar beet fields, rather than return to welfare. The James Smith Band is concerned that you, Mr. Minister, who has demonstrated by your action in Calgary that you do not support sit-ins, has now become part of the movement and you are using the same tactics to achieve your ends by allowing the acting regional director to stage a legal sit-in by terminating services. This is a form of intimidation to force the James Smith Band into submission.
As the Band Council, we documented our concerns and recommendations for administration and we have yet to receive your reply.
We appreciate the concerns you have for accounting of funds. However, we do feel just as strongly about these matters, and we have

presented a proposal for administration and we are presently developing an accounting and recording system with Price-Waterhouse.
The programs and projects developed on our reserve from funding provided by the Department of Indian Affairs has created a strong sense of pride of self-determination. We will not move to militancy to resolve this crisis and we implore upon you to use your office to take immediate action to resolve this crisis.
Our Band Council once again are requesting a meeting with you to discuss the items listed in our previous letter.
That letter, as I have stated, clearly sets out the position and attitude of Saskatchewan Indians today. It is an example of the frustration and concern that they are experiencing. The guidelines of the Indian affairs department are considered by the Indian people as another example of the continuing paternalistic attitude of the government. This attitude is one that tends to manipulate the Indian people. They feel as though they are receiving a series of grants with numerous strings attached, and reams of bureaucratic regulations that restrict the local government's ability to establish its own priorities or to deal with glaring and specific problems of a local nature.
Some chiefs feel that the Indian affairs department is attempting to leave the impression with the general public that the Indians are running around with a pile of the department's money with no strings attached. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe they are sincerely interested in achieving some form of reasonable control, but that control must be developed through mutual consultation between the minister and his departmental officials and the Indians themselves.
The solution of the government appears to be the creation of guidelines which will make it imperative that outside accounting assistance will be required. The guidelines, as stated, tend to thwart rather than encourage the development of self-reliant skills by the Indian people and are regarded by many as being like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. A guideline that insists upon a precise budget of 10 per cent for office management and 20 per cent for full or part time council staff is not a guideline; it is an imposed instruction, and by its arbitrary nature it interferes with self-government.
Program circular D-l imposes the establishment of a local government authority with equal status to that of the band council. This is interpreted by the Indian people as a total rejection of traditional Indian government, a total usurpation of the powers of the chief and his council, and a policy designed to divide and rule. They consider the imposition of a district council as yet another bureaucracy which can freely walk on to a reserve or have or call a referendum or vote over the heads of the band council and its chief.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians I sincerely believe has been consistently law abiding, as demonstrated by the letter to which I have just referred. They have been reasonable in their representations. I am concerned that the consultation of which they speak has not taken place. The concept of consultation with the government is not that which the Indian people feel they should receive. If the minister continues his present attitude of inflexibility in respect to this problem I fear that he will have the dubious distinction of presiding over the disintegration of the relation-
June 12, 1975

ship between the Indian people and the government of Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot about consultation in this debate. The word has floated over from the government side of the House as members tell us how much the government has consulted the Indian people. Let me tell the House that a few minutes ago the minister was sitting beside my colleague, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), and that was the first meaningful consultation with the Canadian people that I have seen him have since he became minister.


Walter (Wally) Firth: He just said "Good evening".


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member says that even that consultation with the minister just consisted of saying "Good evening" to him. The other thing I have observed while listening to government members making their little set speeches on the motion before the House relates to their use of language when referring to the Indian people. They keep saying things like "We want to protect the bands". They tell us how much they have given them, how much the government has done for them over the last 100 years. This smacks of paternalism, which is the word that they criticized, and said should not be in the motion. This is the most hypocritical group I have seen since I came from colonialist imperial Guyana.
Whether he admits it or not, the minister has a very serious problem of communication. He is going forward willy-nilly with this set of guidelines and he is saying he has consulted. I have here a summary from the National Indian Brotherhood which goes across the country and gives the reactions of the Indian people to his guidelines.
For example, the National Indian Brotherhood itself rejects the guidelines. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs opposes any government funds under the present terms of reference. The Indian Association of Alberta has asked until September to review the new guidelines and make the desired changes. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indians has rejected the new guidelines. The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood has rejected the guidelines, and a great majority of the chiefs in Ontario have rejected the guidelines. The Quebec Indian Association is not operating under the new guidelines but under guidelines jointly developed by them and the Department of Indian Affairs. The United New Brunswick Indians have rejected the guidelines, and the United Nova Scotia Indians have rejected them. Whether those on the government benches want to admit it or not, there is a problem. They cannot stick their heads in the sand like an ostrich and hope it will go away.
Having lived under imperialist rule for 18 years I recognize colonialism when I see it. When we were against the masters, using the moneys which were given us by them, and using the system they had, immediately the rules were changed. The rules of the game were changed because we were starting to use the imperialist rules and were making some headway in respect of independence.
Indian Affairs
Here we see this again. As soon as the Indian people start using the wherewithal that was provided by the masters of this political system, and as soon as they know how the system works and start using it to their advantage, then the government immediately changes the rules to keep them off balance. That is colonialism, whether you want to recognize it or not, my friend.
Last August a British organization known as the Minority Rights Group published a report on Canada's native peoples. In this report we find a conclusion which has a bearing on the motion that is before the House today. It states:
The characteristic which every generation and every kind of white policy maker has shared is a capacity for imposing solutions to the "Indian problem" without either consulting or seeking a deep understanding of the Indian himself. Because of this lack of humility they have consistently acted on their own ill-informed and doctrinaire prejudices-
This characteristic can be summed up in two words "colonial paternalism". Although the style of those connected with Indian administration in Canada has changed over the last 100 years, there is little to suggest that the new style has been matched with actions. Since 1968 the Liberal government has been long on rhetoric but short on measures that facilitate an ending to the historic pattern of colonial domination of the Canadian native peoples by the Indian affairs branch. The native peoples know intimately that the new style adopted by the Trudeau government has not led to any transformation in their way of life in the last seven years.
I assure this House that I do not make these charges lightly but only after carefully reviewing the events that led to the policy directives which we are discussing today becoming an issue of national importance.
On May 20 the minister assured us that he was seeking the agreement of bands across Canada for these guidelines that are euphemistically called local government guidelines. Yet these guidelines took effect on April 1, nearly two months before this statement in the House.
I know, for example, that yesterday the minister sent officials to the Yukon to discuss the guidelines with the Yukon Brotherhood. As far as the brotherhood is concerned, this will be the first meaningful discussion of the substance and form of these guidelines to which they have been a party. This is some method of consultation. On May 21 the minister assured this House there had already been consultations on these guidelines. The minister's definition of "consultation" appears to mean simply sending out directives, and is fundamentally different from mine.
In fact you know what I think of consultation, Madam Speaker. I had a perfect example of consultation during my first experience in following a bill through committee. This was the competition bill and it was designed to change the rules for the corporate sector of this country, outlawing things like double-ticketing, price fixing, pyramid selling and the whole lot. What the government wanted to do was consult first of all with the corporate sector. It spent four years in consultation. It had corporations come before the standing committee to present briefs, and some of the wealthy representatives even had dinner with some members of the committee. These people had their lobby in the other place and they recognized how

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
to change the rules. There was no sending out of a directive or bringing in a bill without consultation with that corporate sector.
That is not the kind of consultation which has been carried on with the bands. This consultation has been a kind of one-way consultation. We are talking about two worlds; the world of power, and the government knows how to handle that world of power, and the world of those without power, and the government sure knows how to handle them. There is a big difference in the way the government handles the two, and it better start changing its method because the day is coming.
In fact what the minister calls "consultation" was asking the native peoples to submit briefs to the Contributions to Bands Task Force which was set up in 1972. The native people were asked to submit briefs to this task force which was to study the Grants to Bands Program. In all, 13 briefs were received from native groups across the country.
In April, 1973, the task force took these briefs and produced a draft resolution for discussion purposes. However, this discussion appears to have occured only among officials of Indian affairs, and certainly did not include any representatives of the native people. There was certainly agreement among the Indians that the rules under which funds were made available to bands needed to be clarified and that more efficient means for accounting and auditing were important for the economic and social wellbeing of band members.
Between April, 1973, and February, 1975, when the circulars were first distributed there was no real consultation on how the recommendations would be translated into actual guidelines.
It is not good enough for the minister to say, as he did on May 21, that "we feel that the guidelines respond in many ways to the requests of the native people". His role is not to respond to the native people as though they were children. Even my colleagues on the right have figured out that this is paternalism. It was the Indian affairs branch which drafted the guidelines, that took the recommendations and made them nearly unrecognizable, and that decided they would be promulgated without any discussions with the Indian people.
I would ask the minister now to table all documents and letters his department received which give evidence that the Indian people were consulted on the form and the actual wording of the guidelines he circulated in February of this year. I further ask him to table all documents and letters from native peoples, associations, and band councils which he received subsequent to this date!
Let us be quite clear on what is at stake here today; it is not merely a dispute over whether or not the Indian people were consulted about these circulars. What is at issue here is the credibility of the minister and his department, and his minions therein.
On June 2 the department of Indian affairs issued a communique entitled "Information Summary of Local Government Guidelines for Band Councils and Innuit Settlements". This communique claims first that the "five guidelines are limited to the structure and funding of local government". This surely raises the question of the func-

tion of the band councils which are elected by the members of the band. Despite the term "government", the local government authorities are not elected, and are not responsible to the band members. In fact they are merely extensions of Indian affairs bureaucracy. They exist at the pleasure of the regional director. The regional director may, after consultation with the council, withhold or withdraw the privilege of administering the community program, programs, or parts thereof by the council for whatever length of time deemed necessary.
Such a council, despite the similarity with the term "band council", as defined in the Indian Act, is not accountable to the band itself but only to the Indian affairs bureaucrat. Raising the problem of the band councils' legal ability to assume the powers described in the circulars is merely a ruse to cover up what the department is really trying to do, that is, maintain the Indian people as their personal fiefdom. At the very time the Indian people are developing local and provincial institutions to come to terms with their own problems, Indian Affairs decides to redefine fundamentally the institutions that will decide how band funds are to be spent.
Second, the communique claims that the policy guidelines merely provide for minimal but essential accounting and auditing requirements, delineate responsibilities and, generally speaking, describe the parameters of departmental funding for the many programs involved. Consider, however, what a chartered accountant has to say after reviewing these guidelines. This is what one has to say:
The accounting procedures require an elaborate accounting system. With the exception of very large corporations and other organizations, these requirements are not normally reasonable to expect and are not necessary for an adequate accounting system.
Not only have the minister and his department approached their responsibilities in a paternalistic manner, but they appear also to be incompetent even to carry out the technical aspects of a grants program.
Third, the communique points to the minister's view that the guidelines are of an interim nature. But this is clearly not good enough. On April 1, 1976, Indian Affairs humbly accorded the Indians a chance to take part in a review of the guidelines. After the way these guidelines are being forced on the Indians-that is, in an atmosphere where Indian Affairs officials have threatened to cut off band funds unless the guidelines are accepted-does the Minister really think that Indians can take such promises seriously? His view of consulting is to send out Indian Affairs public relations men to convince the Indians of the department's good intentions two months after he unilaterally issued these guidelines. I do not believe the minister is this naive.
Perhaps the most objectionable part of this public relations blurb from Indian Affairs is that it assumes the Indians are stupid. After telling the native people who, we must remember, have been dealing with an Indian administration system for a hundred years, that their fears are silly, the paper alleges that the guidelines would not really change the present system of chiefs and band councils. The directive, the communique states, made very clear that the chief and council are responsible for plan-
June 12, 1975

ning, estimating, and negotiating for the total needs of the community. Now what is there to worry about? All Indian Affairs is concerned about is protecting Indian culture and helping Indians develop their settlements. But the Indian people are wise; they can read the fine print of the directives like anyone else.
D-l contains the following new definitions for the words chief and council, new in the sense that they go beyond the scope of the Indian Act. According to the directive "chief" means the chief or a band of Indians as defined in the Indian Act, or for the purposes of the circular, the chairman of an Innuit settlement council, and the chairman of a local government authority. The term council also takes on a new meaning. "Council" means the governing body of a band as defined in the Indian Act for the purposes of the circular, or the governing body of a local government authority. I ask hon. members of this House whether, in light of the statement in the communique, this was not a rather obvious attempt at deceit on the part of Indian Affairs?
The entire communique has a patronizing tone to it, "Listen my poor dumb Indians, we mean you no harm." It is clear that the aim of Indian Affairs in its attempts to force these circulars on the native peoples, in its attempts to confuse the issue by using familiar terms such as "chief", "council" and "Government" to cover new institutions, and the minister's strange view of consultation, was to destroy the effectiveness of band councils.
Unlike the local government authorities, the band councils are democratically elected bodies. To deprive the band councils of power over the expenditure of band funds that originate from the department is to deprive them of political power, as Indian Affairs well knows. Yet this is the purpose and intent of these guidelines. They are a blatant attempt to destroy the Indian leadership, a leadership which has the support of their people, and a leadership which has been critical of Indian Affairs personnel. And why shouldn't they be when 42 per cent of a budget of $435 million goes to wages and salaries and for professional and special services, whereas only 31 per cent goes into grants, contributions and other transfer payments to bands?
Will band councils control how band funds are spent, or will this be determined by the new creatures of Indian Affairs? In other words, will Indian Affairs be allowed to continue its colonial domination of the Indian people? The circulars state quite clearly that these "local government authorities" are to be in control of community programs that are "financed in whole or in part by or from department grants, contributions or subsidies." In other words, controlled not by a band's elected officials but by Indian Affairs.
I find it strange that a government which claims to understand the nature of colonialism in the Third World and which wishes to protect Canadians from American cultural imperialism in the form of Reader's Digest and Time magazine cannot understand that it itself has a long history of being a colonial master to the Indians. The Minority Rights Group suggests that this is because of a lack of humility. In my experience such an explanation does not suffice. In any colonial situation someone always benefits from colonialism. In this case we know it is not the Indians. Who does the minister think benefits?
Indian Affairs
In conclusion I just want to say I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not so long ago talk about the moral responsibility we as Canadians have to the Third World countries in ensuring that they have proper energy devices such as the CANDU reactor. I and he recognize this moral responsibility, but I want to ask whether the government recognizes its moral responsibility to the Indian people of Canada. I have visited the Yukon Territory. There are no reserves there. There is no reason why the government should not solve the problems there. The problems in respect of housing there are pitiable, but the government sits on its hands and does nothing.


Len Marchand: Madam Speaker, I suppose I might consider myself a veteran in this House of Commons in the sense that I have been here seven years and there are not now in the House too many members from British Columbia who were here at the time I was first elected. I want to say that during the years I have been here as a member of parliament I have heard much rhetoric.
I think if we were to read today's debate and all the rhetoric put forward we would find many duplications in the speeches made on both sides of the House. I think this rhetoric, this feeling, or whatever one might call it, is a very sincere effort on the part of all members of parliament. This is good.
I can remember not too long ago that it was not very often when matters pertaining to Indian Affairs came before the House of Commons. That was bad. So even though I think many of the things said here today can perhaps be categorized as rhetoric, nevertheless it is very important because I am aware of the sincerity and desire of hon. members on all sides of the House to do the right thing for the Indian people. But we have a long way to go.
One of the things that I was thinking about when some hon. members were speaking was that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and myself should wonder to ourselves what kind of country we would have, or whether in fact this debate would be necessary tonight, if our ancestors had had a different immigration policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: It is important that we look at the situation of the Indian people, that we look at where the Indian people are going. It is important that the Indian people be involved and that they set the objectives that they want for themselves. This is the kind of message that is coming from the debate tonight and from the whole process of consultation.
There is much talk about consultation, and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) did not consult enough, did not do this and that. I want to reach a point somewhere along the line, way down the road, when we will not have to count Indians all the time and we will not always have to count women. Instead of counting Indians and saying how wrong the minister was, and how wrong everybody else

June 12, 1975
Indian Affairs
was, the Indian people must arrive at some point of total independence within their own communities; they must find themselves and live the kind of life they want to live as individuals. This is the kind of future for which the Indian people should strive.
I want to deal for a few moments with some of the things that were said by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). I know that hon. members can get carried away with some of the things they say. He said that the minister appears to undermine the organizations and district councils by giving so much authority to band councils. I hope he was not serious when he said that, and I hope he did not really mean it. It is a gross error on his part because in developing autonomy, Indian organizations such a district councils, and indeed the National Indian Brotherhood and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, must get their authority from the band councils. Band councils are the individual administrative units so far as the administration of Indian affairs in this country is concerned. So I hope the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, who is a very sincere member with regard to the native people in this country, will reconsider what he said.
A number of hon. members, such as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and perhaps others, have mentioned that the Union of B.C. Chiefs made some pretty important decisions a few weeks ago in that province. At a time of absolute frustration about the conditions in which they found themselves and about some of the things that have not been done, they rejected outright any further services of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the time that I have been associated with Indian organizations I have never seen such a fundamental decision made by any organization. This is not just a bunch of radicals who have made this decision, nor is it an empty gesture on their part which they may later reconsider. This is a real, honest, sincere, fundamental re-examination which is going on in the reserve communities of British Columbia, a fundamental re-assessment such as I have never seen before.
I have urged the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to respond to this call from the Indians of B.C. in the most positive manner possible, and I am glad that he has taken much of my advice. He made a very important statement on May 30, which appeared in a press release, regarding the future of Indian affairs in that province. The first paragraph reads:
Indian affairs minister, Judd Buchanan, stated that he would welcome discussions with British Columbia Indians in response to their call for the transfer to them of more responsibility for the running of their own affairs.
That is great. I am glad that this is going on, and I am glad of the re-examination that is going on in Kamloops, Vernon, and in many other parts of British Columbia. So far as Kamloops and Vernon are concerned, for instance, the minister said that he is willing to close the offices there. Discussions are now going on between the regional director in the province of British Columbia and a number of Indian bands in the area that I represent.

The kind of questions that the Indian people there are asking themselves are: where are we going? Will we be forever dependent upon the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the great white father in Ottawa, or should we try to change the kind of life that we want for our people? Will we try to give them a meaningful, independent way of life? This is the kind of fundamental examination that is going on. This is why I told the minister that some of the voices that are heard from out there might sound a little angry. But they are angry for a lot of good reasons.
The Indians of British Columbia, and indeed Indians all across Canada, including non-status Indians, have a lot of things to be angry about, and that is what they are saying in British Columbia. This is not just a frivolous attitude they are adopting toward these questions. There is a fundamental re-examination going on, and the minister, and indeed parliament, must respond to these voices which now sound angry. Even though much of the discussion in British Columbia has centred around programs and around administration, behind it all there is a much deeper problem facing them, namely, the whole question about aboriginal rights, land settlement, treaty rights, and fishing and hunting rights. This is at the top of their list. This is the big reason why they are angry.
The Indians of British Columbia-and we can include Indians in other areas-have not had a good deal in so far as the settlement of their rights is concerned. They have had a poor land deal. For instance, the Indians of Alberta receive under their treaty about 1.6 million acres of land, and there are a little over 30,000 Indians in Alberta now. That is a rough figure to give some kind of illustration. The Indians of British Columbia have around 700,000 acres, in round figures, and yet the Indian population in British Columbia numbers over 50,000. That is an illustration of the kind of bad deal which the Indian people in British Columbia got.
Some other situations arose where certain bands were given land, and then a commission came along and said that some of these reserves were too big. I doubt that very much. But deciding that these reserves were too big, they cut them down. And so 36,000 acres of reserve land in British Columbia were cut off. This is another very serious grievance.
I know that in some instances the Indians realize that there are cities built on what used to be Indian land, for example, the city of Penticton. Indians realize they will not get these cities back. Some of my friends say, "As I look across the river I see that the white man has built cement basements. I think he is going to stay here for a while." They know that in towns like Vernon, my old home area, there were several acres cut off. These people realize they will not get that land back, but they want some redress for the injustices imposed upon them when these lands were taken away. In addition to the land, they want redress for the hunting rights and fishing rights, something which they did not receive on an equivalent basis to many other provinces across the country.
I would just like to close by endorsing some of the comments made by hon. colleague from Comox-Alberni
June 12, 1975

about the settlement of the land question in British Columbia, or the settlement of aboriginal rights in the province of British Columbia. Much has been said over the years. There have been many joint committee studies, many reports and so on. The former leader of the NDP in the province of British Columbia, who is now Mr. Justice Berger, for whom I have the highest regard, went so far as to take the Nishga claims against the British Columbia government to the Supreme Court of Canada. I wish a few more members of the NDP were here tonight so that I could ask them to review the position which was taken by Mr. Justice Berger.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: There is nobody here.


Len Marchand: Hon. members from the NDP should consider the things he has said on behalf of the Indians of the province of British Columbia and on behalf of the Nishgas. This was a very important judgment, although it was incomplete. There were three in favour, three, against, and one absented himself on the basis of a technicality and on the basis of grounds that there was no fiat from the provincial government. There was no fiat from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to sue the provincial government at that time, so that is where it ended. This was the former leader of the provincial NDP.
I do not know how to describe it, but the Indians of British Columbia are among the most disappointed people in this country because they had high hopes when the NDP government in British Columbia was elected. They thought that their land claims would be settled. They said, "Look what Tom Berger did."


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Then the NDP changed its mind.


Len Marchand: Now the Indians can hardly get an audience with them. In no way will they talk about land claims in British Columbia. In no way will they sit down with the Indian people and the Government of Canada to try to arrive at a just settlement regarding lands and the outstanding aboriginal rights in the province of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Terrible!


Len Marchand: Shame to the NDP
government in British Columbia, because they have really pulled the wool over the eyes of the Indian people there. From talking with a number of my friends I know that when the next time comes around and the Indian people will have a chance to put their X on the ballot they will not do so beside the name of an NDP candidate.
I must also be fair. The Social Credit Party in the province of British Columbia had a similar policy. The Indian people do not have much hope in the event that a Social Credit government is again elected in the province of British Columbia.


John Douglas Reynolds: Why not vote for a Conservative government?
Indian Affairs


Len Marchand: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) says "vote Conservative." I would really like to know a little more about how his party would fare in my province and what it would say about the question of aboriginal rights. I know that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) took a very strong stance, which I think is very commendable. I agree with that stance, but I wonder what the stance will be at some future date in the event that the Conservative Party forms a government in the province of British Columbia.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, whatever the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said for the Conservative Party is our policy, and the hon. member knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You can't even get along with Bob. What are you talking about?


Len Marchand: I see that my time is almost up. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) earlier recognized in the opposition gallery the presence of Cy Standing from the province of Saskatchewan. Cy has done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the Indian people. Before I sit down I want also to recognize another chief in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Joey Smallwood, the former premier of Newfoundland, and a great Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Madam Speaker, because of the hour I will not commence any lengthy remarks. I will get right to the point. Hon. members opposite have missed the total purpose and the total point of the debate this afternoon and this evening, and that is that there was no discussion and no dispute as to the validity of the guidelines. The debate was to the effect that they were introduced without consultation and without the approval of the native people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: We have stripped the native peoples of their pride, and we have made them beggars in their own land. We now have a chance to do right, so let the minister do right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that the proceedings on the motion have now expired.

June 12, 1975
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, I rise in the adjournment debate with regard to some questions I asked yesterday and today regarding the sad tragedy in the British Columbia penitentiary where three inmates took 15 hostages and put the proposition to the government that they be allowed to take a helicopter to Vancouver International Airport, and from there to take an airplane to a country which would accept them.
We heard many answers yesterday from the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), and today from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because the Solicitor General had to be absent from the House, but there are still many questions to be answered on this subject. From the government all we will have will be an internal inquiry, and my party has been asking for a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, by one of the supreme court justices of this country. We feel that the Canadian people must be given many answers which will explain the tragedy to them.
The minister said that the government tried to make a deal with foreign countries, which was unsuccessful, but that one country agreed to accept these three men, on condition that when these men landed they would be incarcerated and immediately returned to Canada. We have also heard the story of one of the hostages who says that he was told, by one of the hostages who had made a telephone call-the inmates allowed the hostages to telephone their loved ones-that the penitentiary officials were ready for action by the hostages against the prisoners who were holding them. As soon as they were to take action, the penitentiary officials would be ready to assist and attack. This gave those who had been the hostages of the inmates for a number of hours the idea that they would have to do something.
We are then told by one of the hostages that between 11 and 11.30 one of the intermediaries visited them and gave them the same story he had given them a number of times, that the government was still working on the case and that it might be able to get a country to accept the prisoners. Yet, according to what was said in this House, the government knew at least three hours before this that one country would take the inmates. The hostages took this message from the intermediary to mean that they would have to attack, and they planned their attack from that point forward.
We have also heard from the hostages that the inmates were provided with a drug called noludar. The inmates forced the hostages to take the drug, which virtually
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
rendered them helpless. The drug company which supplies this drug advises me that one ounce, or 28.1 millilitres, is the normal daily dose for an adult. The hostage told me that the hostages were forced to take up to seven ounces of this drug, which immobilized them on the first night.
On the second night, after a message had been passed by somebody in the penitentiary system to the hostages, and after the statement had been made by the intermediaries, the hostages were afraid that if they had to take the drug again they might never wake up. Madam Speaker, these people were in a very difficult situation.
What happened also puts the government in a difficult position. It explained to this House that these people, the hostages, had an idea as to what was happening but, according to our information, we know they did not. They attacked and, as everybody knows, a lady lost her life.
The discrepancies between the hostages' story and what the government said happened are so great that we suggest the matter can only be resolved if the government appoints a supreme court justice to head a public inquiry immediately.
This evening something was broadcast on the Vancouver radio station which made me sick to my stomach. I learned that one of the ladies who was still in the room with the 14 hostages-the lady who was killed was in another room with two of the other inmates-took drugs voluntarily, I am told, because she was so afraid for her own life. Madam Speaker, when the guards burst into that room, this lady was having sexual intercourse with one of the inmates. I think it is sad that this had to go that far, that this person was so afraid for her life that she had to take that action. Because nothing was happening, she was forced to go that far.
I will end by pleading with the government to do something. We are raising this matter on a non-partisan basis; we do not want to turn this into a political issue, because we know that conditions in penitentiaries are so bad that no prison units exit in this country which can cope with them. Many problems are involved in this issue, and my party will be quite prepared not to comment on them, if only we knew that a capable judge in this country will be appointed to look into this issue on a non-partisan basis, and tell the people of Canada not only what happened in this tragedy but how to solve this problem, so that this sort of thing will never again happen.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I should like in the first place to apologize for the absence of the Minister and say that due to his illness which is a minor one but very painful, he is not here this evening. I can say that I happened to be with the minister at a party Sunday evening in Toronto when he became suddenly ill, before to the events in question.
My hon. friend asked two questions. He will understand that in the short period which has elapsed since those events, it was impossible to obtain a full answer because, of course, several persons needed rest after it was all over.
In reply to the first question, I should like to reassure my colleague by telling him that the authorities did not give any instruction to the hostages and that the later did

not notify the authorities of their intention to attack the inmates. The orders at first were that an assault was allowed only in case of serious trouble inside. Now, nothing of the kind happened, and it is the hostages themselves who made the decision without receiving any orders nor notifying the authorities.
As far as drugs are concerned, I must say to my hon. friend that drugs had been prescribed by the doctor of the institution. Drugs were given to the inmates and in only one case to a hostage. Drugs were not given to the inmates to be given to the hostages, but it may have happened that the inmates asked the hostages to take the drugs because they suspected poisoning.
Therefore, I must say that the drugs in question were innocuous. They were anti-psychotic drugs, tranquillizers or hypnotics, and Noludar is a hypnotic. I agree that there is nothing political about this matter and I can assure my colleague that I shall convey his views to the Solicitor General. I think that the matter should be aired and I hope the opposition will co-operate with the government in its investigation, and especially to see to it that such tragic events never happen again.


HOUSING-REQUEST TOP PRIORITY BE GIVEN PROJECT IN CAPE BRETON COUNTY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, sometimes in this House, and in this city which reeks of economic security with well-off government workers, there seems to be an air of unreality. It seems to be difficult in this environment for even ministers of the Crown to grasp that there are many, many Canadians who are ill fed and ill housed.
I represent in this House of Commons a people, many of whom are ill housed to such a degree that the new regional manager of Central Mortgage and Housing operating out of Halifax says the housing situation is one of the worst in Nova Scotia and, indeed, in Canada.
Yet that same institution, Central Mortgage and Housing, received an application on December 14, 1972, asking that 80 family units be constructed in the Dinn Street area of Glace Bay. Despite the unbelievable need, it was not until February 8, 1975, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced that a beginning was to be made on the construction of these houses.
Would you believe, Madam Speaker, that the cooperation and coordination have been so bad in Nova Scotia that, despite the desperate need in Cape Breton County, hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal funds for housing were unused by the Nova Scotia Housing Commission last year? There is also an element of unreality in Halifax government circles with their insistence that there is no need of public housing any more in Nova Scotia. This attitude, among other things, has held up the signing of an agreement between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Nova Scotia Housing Commission. We know who gets shortchanged in these bureaucratic snafus.
In the area of Glace Bay, 200 of the applicants for housing are making under $4,500. That is right, Madam Speaker, under $4,500!
Adjournment Debate
The Cape Breton Development Corporation recently entered into the home construction field in co-operation with a private firm. I believe that eventually this will be a real contribution to decent housing for our people.
On this occasion I make a special appeal to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) to take the lead in bringing together CMHC's Regional Director for Nova Scotia, the experts on the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and on Rural and Native Housing, the Regional Representative of the Nova Scotia Housing Commission in Sydney, along with Mr. David Miller the VicePresident of Development for DEVCO, to discuss the possibilities of coming up with a permanent rehabilitation program to deal with much of the housing stock in the mining and rural areas of Cape Breton since there is no way, other than rehabilitation, to answer the need. The programs of rehabilitation presently going on are done on a sort of hit and run basis depending upon impermanent and uncertain LIP grants and special small allotments from CMHC regional funds.
The Pensioners' Union of Cape Breton, and the Cape Breton Labour Council as well as other prominent voluntary housing organizations in the area would be most anxious to assist-if it is thought feasible-with any aspect of such a permanent rehabilitation program carried out under the direction of the Cape Breton Development Corporation which happily, as noted previously, has already broken new ground recently by taking an equity position in setting up a new housing construction company designed to build new homes in the area at a price not exceeding $20,000.
The rehabilitation program would, of course also provide badly needed jobs in an area in which the actual number of unemployed-I am using unemployment insurance figures-was 9,115 last winter in Cape Breton County, and which, in labour force survey terms, for Cape Breton Island saw 13 per cent of the labour force unemployed in January, 16.1 per cent in February, 17 per cent in March, and 14.3 per cent in April, the last official figures available. This averages 7 to 8 per cent higher than group six of the economic region of Nova Scotia which includes the County of Halifax.
It should be obvious to the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) that long term development efforts by the Cape Breton Development Corporation are not sufficient to meet the ongoing unemployment and underemployment problems in that area. I was keenly disappointed in the vague and unassuring answer he gave me yesterday. Surely special efforts at solving this housing crisis would at the same time cut down expenditures on unemployment insurance and other transfer payments that are necessary even just to keep many of the unemployed and underemployed in that region going on a bare existence basis.


Gilles Marceau: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Barnett Danson), I am pleased to reply to the remarks of the hon. member on housing in Cape Breton.

June 12, 1975
Adjournment Debate

As the minister stated in the House on June 11, he has met with the provincial housing minister both in Halifax and in Ottawa in recent days, and they are in agreement that housing conditions in Cape Breton deserve a high priority in terms of federal and provincial funds. I would point out that in 1974 almost exactly one third of the funds committed under the Housing Act in Nova Scotia were committed in Cape Breton-more than $20 million.
The City of Sydney was selected as one of the three in Nova Scotia for assistance through the Neighbourhood Improvement Program under the 1974 agreement. Our latest information is that the provincial minister is expected to sign the 1975 Neighbourhood Improvement Program agreement today. The selection of centres to receive assistance under the 1975 agreement will proceed after the signing, and the province will soon be requesting CMHC's concurrence in these selections. Also, the cities concerned will be designating specific neighbourhoods in which program funds are to be spent.
Negotiations between CMHC and the Nova Scotia Housing Commission with respect to the rural and native housing program under section 40 of the National Housing Act have been completed, and the agreement is to be signed on June 23.
Upon the completion of the above agreements the NHA programs for rural and native housing, residential rehabilitation assistance, assisted home ownership, public housing and emergency repair will all be applied in Cape Breton. Selection or designation of the most deserving areas will follow as quickly as possible.
With reference specifically to Glace Bay, the project of 80 family units mentioned in the Halifax press, this was committed in December 1973, not 1972, and the start was delayed while land was being serviced by the town in co-operation with the Nova Scotia Housing Commission. I might add that a project of 40 senior citizen units has been committed for Glace Bay and is currently at the design stage.
Since May 26 the construction on the 80 unit project has been held up by a strike, as is the case with 60 unit senior citizen project in Sydney and a 60 unit senior citizen project in Cape Breton county.

I can assure my friend that I shall refer the recommendations he made tonight to the minister and ask him to take them into consideration.


AGRICULTURE-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN RESEARCH GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES AND STUDY OF DUPLICATION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a question having to do with the allocation of funds for research by the Department of Agriculture to the many universities we have in this great country of Canada. I feel we are missing an unique opportunity better to co-ordinate our funds to universities in order not to duplicate facilities and buildings being constructed by the government.

In no way do I wish to take away from the tremendous performance of the Department of Agriculture research branch. We have a good record, and when we compare it with that of other countries we realize that the budget that the Department of Agriculture provides to universities is among the best in the world. But I am concerned that even with this record we could do a better job.
In the budget for this year there is an item of $850,000 in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for grants to universities. The budget is approximately $85 million. In other words, one per cent is going toward research at universities. This one per cent has been constant over the past years. The problem is that the research capabilities of the universities are stifled because the grants given to them are generally for one or two years, and the money is insufficient to enable them to continue projects beyond a very short period of time.
It would make much more sense to me if there were better co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture, the universities and research professors regarding money spent on facilities that require to be built to embrace new scopes in the research field, as well as buildings being constructed by the department on their research stations. Certainly if we could co-ordinate the use of these buildings so that not only research people but students could use them, we would be in a better position to train new agricultural students who would be capable of entering into agricultural research areas the better to provide the farmers and others in agriculture with the necessary techniques to meet their needs.
The problem I see now is that the capabilities of a university professor who has time to work in research are limited because he is provided with an insufficient amount of money to hire technicians or students in the summer to work on projects. One university professor with a doctorate degree could look after and co-ordinate the efforts of 10 or 12 technicians working in different fields in an attempt to come up with perhaps a new variety of crop within a certain period of time. Such a professor requires a definite budget to hire those people so he will know he can start and finish his project.
When you try to spread $850,000 among 30, 40 or 50 universities it does not go very far. We presently have 38 research stations dividing $85 million or $90 million. With that type of a budget you can do something.
The whole point of my question is an attempt to persuade the minister in the future to try to co-ordinate better the use of this $90 million by the universities and research departments so that we can perhaps do an even better job than we are now doing.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, in representing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) this evening I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member and the House that in 1963 the total amount of money paid toward education and research as such was $236 million. When the right hon. Lester Pearson was in office he wanted education to be provided Canadians as a right. Since those days the money
June 12, 1975

spent on education has increased annually. For the year 1974-75 in ail forms of grants to universities the amount was in excess of $3 billion. I thought I should put the emphasis on that first. It shows the government's concern in respect of education and research.
Having regard to research, which is really the point of the hon. member's question, I should like to put on the record some figures in respect of the amounts of money and percentages of the GNP for the year 1969. I will give the name of the countries first, then the percentage in respect of universities and then in respect of governments. They are as follows: Canada, .39 for universities and .47 for the government; the USA, .34 for the universities and .40 for the government; the United Kingdom, .18 for universities and .54 for the government; France, .27 for the universities and .56 for the government; Sweden, .25 for universities and .20 for the government; Germany, .30 for universities and .08 for the government; Japan, .30 for universities and .20 for the government, and the Netherlands, .37 for the universities and .24 for the government.
The only research grants the Department of Agriculture is responsible for are those awarded annually as university operating grants, totalling $650,000 per year. The pur-
Adjournment Debate
pose of these grants is primarily to support research by graduate students in agriculture, rather than the general conduct of university agricultural research.
This latter phase of research is largely supported by operating grants from the National Research Council which has several times our amount of money designated for university research support, including agricultural facilities.
At the present time the research granting function of the federal government is being reviewed, and an announcement on future responsibility is expected later this year.
The recent formation of the Canadian Agricultural Research Council hopefully will provide a mechanism for improved co-ordination and interaction of the universities and government and their respective research programs. Good progress is being made and should help alleviate some of the criticism of federal domination in the activities of the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee which advises the department on agricultural policies. I wish to assure you, Madam Speaker, that the minister told me he is looking into this particular aspect.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, June 13, 1975