1976-12-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
federal-provincial financial relationships constitutes support for separatism in Canada.
['No.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?



Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the organic phosphate pesticide leptiphos was banned for agricultural use in the United States more than a year ago, and in view of the fact that this chemical has been implicated in some very serious disorders of the nervous system and that the Canadian Department of Agriculture has spent six months contemplating the cancellation of the chemical but even to the present has not moved decisively on this matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the government immediately ban the use of leptiphos in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGEDLY IRRESPONSIBLE SUGGESTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE CONCERNING APPROACH OF PROVINCES TO FINANCIAL RELATIONS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter concerns the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that the unanimous agreement reached by the provinces on a common approach in financial matters to the federal government constituted a threat in favour of separatism, which all reasonable people in the country, I am sure, will find both absurd and irresponsible. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns as irresponsible the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance that the unanimous approach achieved by the provinces on


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that at their special meeting Monday and Tuesday the provincial and federal ministers of finance could not agree on the distribution of taxation powers allowing the provinces and Ottawa to meet their respective obligations and that the opposition between the central and provincial powers is centered mainly around the fact that the federal government is short of money to meet its commitments and that the major problem of the provinces is basically the same, a situation that has been going on for several years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House recommend the formation of a special committee of the House to make an in-depth study of what would be the consequences, as alternatives to this conflict, of the Bank of Canada Act amendments proposed through Bill C-206 tabled on October 22, 1976 and recommending that the Bank of Canada be empowered to make long term loans to the federal and provincial government at interests rates not exceeding administrative costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

December 8, 1976
Research


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, as it is of urgent and pressing necessity to maintain the established principle that no public servant lose an appointment for failure to be bilingual, I move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister make a statement concerning his dismissal two days ago of Tom Macdonald, chief steward at 24 Sussex Drive, whether or not grounds included failure to be bilingual, and finally that all details be revealed concerning the selection of his successor, Mary Alice Mullally, a close personal friend of Mrs. Trudeau.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BEST WISHES TO WINNIPEG JETS ON TRIP TO SOVIET UNION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that that formidable and resolute model of hockey prowess, the Winnipeg Jets, winners of the 1976 WHA championship, will be on their way to the Soviet Union in a few days with all the might of a hot and howling prairie wind, and in view of the fact that we know that as ambassadors of Canada in this international competition, the Jets will certainly be leaving behind them any sentiments of prairie alienation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House join in extending best wishes for every success to the members of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club in their endeavours next week.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disastrous results that can flow from inadequate funding of scientific research, and in view of the fact that the estimates for 1977-78 are now being prepared, I move,

under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to include in the estimates for 1977-78 now being prepared a substantial increase in the amount available for the funding of scientific and medical research in Canada, and that the concern of the research community by allayed by the making of an early announcement that such an increase will be forthcoming.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question would be to the Minister of Finance but he has acted in a way which I think is quite unacceptable to the House of Commons in refusing to answer questions after a very important conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since he appeared to have been expressing government policy, in his absence I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister would know, the Minister of Finance, on television last night, said:
I suspect that what other finance ministers and first ministers from other provinces will have to think about is if, by forming a united front against Ottawa over a period of time, they are making the separatist compaign easier.


An hon. Member:: Have you thought about it?


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Minister of Finance in making that statement to imply that to agree with Quebec and/or to oppose a position taken by the present national government on issues of critical importance to all provinces is to aid separatism and thus to be against Canada? Is that what the minister intended to imply, and if not, what is the official construction the Prime Minister places upon that irresponsible statement last night by the Minister of Finance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just drew an irresponsible
conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now, he wants to know if that is what the minister said. The irresponsible conclusion of the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to do with what the minister suggested be done, that is, that all of us in Canada should do some thinking about these problems. It should not be just for the Leader of the Opposition to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I take it from the response of the Prime Minister that he is repudiating the position stated last night by the Minister of Finance. Is the Prime Minister repudiating his minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition asked me a direct question. My answer is that I repudiate the irresponsible conclusion the hon. member drew from the very clear statement about the importance of thinking about these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We probably will not get much farther with re-interpretations of those statements. The words speak for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And the failure of the Prime Minister to repudiate that statement speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL FEDERAL ACTION ON NEW FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Given the fact that we have a fundamental disagreement between one government on the one hand and ten governments on the other, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to move unilaterally on new fiscal arrangements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What seems to have escaped the Leader of the Opposition is that there was an agreement by the ten provinces to a plan for established financing programs which was proposed by me on behalf of the federal government at the last first ministers meeting in the spring, and the provinces have agreed to that. They have agreed to every important phase of the scheme. They are trying to get more tax points than the federal government is prepared to give. That is not a disagreement of principle.


John Edward Broadbent: Come on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Come on, use your brains, Ed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House must understand that there is agreement on the scheme. What the provinces are asking is that we withdraw some more tax points, something like 16
Oral Questions
instead of 12, so that they can increase their taxes painlessly. What is perfectly understood by the provinces, if not by the opposition, is that under the present system of agreements the provinces and the federal government are free to increase their taxes without consulting each other. If the provinces want to raise more money, they are absolutely entitled to do so under the constitution, but it is easier for them to ask the federal government to raise taxes and give it to them than for them to raise taxes within their own province.


An hon. Member:: Who is your joke writer?


Charles Joseph Clark: This appears to be another case where everybody is mistaken but the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the Prime Minister now if no accommodation is achieved on the range of questions on which there is a deep disagreement between all of the provinces and the federal government whether he, when he meets with the first ministers of the provinces next week and if there is no possibility of reaching an accommodation at that meeting, is prepared to extend the termination date of various programs now at issue to allow further negotiation and thus avoid what would be the first time in history where one partner in the federal-provincial partnership acts in the face of disagreement of all the other partners?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has just discovered that the provinces for a long time have been attempting to get more money from the federal government rather than raising their taxes. I would ask him to consider the alternatives. If we do not go ahead with this established programs financing project, which on principle the provinces agree should go ahead, because they do not accept that we have given them enough free tax room, the alternative would be, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, to prolong the present programs. I think he should first ascertain whether the ten provinces would agree with that. As he knows, the present programs are capped. One is expiring, post-secondary education-


An hon. Member:: Who capped them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot inform the opposition of everything. If they have not studied the subject-


USE OF ALLEGED WINDFALL RESULTING FROM TERMINATION OF REVENUE GUARANTEE PAYMENTS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I should like to remind him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 8, 1976
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -that there is far more to the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provincial governments than just the financing of the established programs. I hope he goes into the conference next week better briefed than he appears to be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands proposes to put a question would she please do it now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the government's determination to unilaterally terminate the revenue guarantee payments and indeed to retroactively change the method of payment, would the Prime Minister tell the House specifically what the government proposes to do with the almost $1 billion windfall which would accrue to the federal treasury? Will he give an undertaking that this windfall will be used to stimulate the economy, say by means of tax cuts?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member should take for granted that no agreement affecting the revenue guarantee will be reached by the provinces and the federal government. That is the first point. The second point is that any announcement about reducing taxes or tax subsidies to industry is normally made in budgetary announcements and not in answer to questions in the question period.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I would now ask him if he is refusing to answer all questions with regard to matters which will be discussed by him and his provincial counterparts at next week's federal-provincial conference of first ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTION AGREEMENT AMONG PROVINCES CONSTITUTES SUPPORT FOR SEPARATISM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister as well. In view of the earlier casuistry, I would ask the Prime Minister if it is his view that any common agreement in future federal-provincial negotiations reached by the provinces constitutes a threat supporting separatism in Canada. If he does not think so, did he think it was responsible behaviour for a federal minister at this sensitive time in our history to actually make that kind of suggestion on television?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to the first part of the question. As for the second, it is drawing a false conclusion from what the minister said.


REASON FOR REFUSING SUGGESTION BY PROVINCES UNEMPLOYMENT MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is the conclusion everybody watching the television program would have drawn, but I know the Prime Minister does not watch television. Considering that a substantial number of provincial finance ministers, perhaps constituting a majority, suggested that the Government of Canada now should recognize unemployment as the leading economic problem in the country and begin to put its emphasis on dealing with it, I ask the Prime Minister if he will explain to the House why this sensible proposal made by a substantial number of provinces, perhaps the majority, was turned down by the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question and the remark contained therein, I find it a little incredible that the opposition consistently, in order to embarrass the government, sides with the provinces who are really saying that we should increase federal taxes by four points in order to permit the provinces not to increase theirs.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is exactly what they say. If there were disagreement in principle to the plan itself, we would understand the reasoning of the other side; but all they are saying in their questions and their implications is that if ten of the provinces agree that we should raise our taxes to accommodate them, the opposition is supporting that position.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is sheer nonsense.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is nonsense and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUGGESTION RICH PROVINCES CUT TAXES-REASON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT FOLLOW SUGGESTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? The Prime Minister did not answer my question at all. In view of the suggestions of the federal Minister of Finance that the rich provinces alone should cut their taxes now, to enable Canadians to cope with inflation and presumably create a few jobs, and since presumably such offer if taken up would be of benefit only to the rich provinces, would the Prime Minister please tell the House why the government can propose this to the rich provinces as being beneficial to them, without acting on the same suggestion on a
December 8, 1976

national basis so that it would positively affect the whole country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I read the statement of the minister and the hon. member has not interpreted it correctly.


Mr. Epp:: Boy, you have a short fuse today, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: You are upset.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Stupidity always upsets me.


FINANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
For 32 years now the federal and provincial governments have been bickering at federal-provincial conferences over the distribution of taxation rights and the outcome of the last conference which ended yesterday was not altogether encouraging as the provinces demanded further tax concessions to enable them to meet their obligations. Since I am appealing to a very intelligent Prime Minister, may I ask him whether he would seriously consider the proposals often stated in this House and even at federal-provincial conferences for greater use of the Bank of Canada to make up for a lack of financing possibilities through taxation powers enjoyed by the provinces and the federal government? Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider seriously those proposals to reach an agreement in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to consider that proposal.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is as follows: Since the Prime Minister is fully aware that banking establishments in our country hold discretionary powers over the control of credit granting to Canadians, and since the Prime Minister has stated that bankers are the worst cry-babies in Canada and that they make the biggest profits, something of which he is ashamed, would he agree to amend the Bank of Canada Act to bring to their senses these cry-babies who are making life miserable for all Canadian governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member doubtless knows that the white paper on the banking issue which is before the House will give birth within the next year to a more or less amended bank act. Perhaps the hon. member and I should meet to establish a plan for bringing these cry-babies to their senses.
Oral Questions


INCOME TAX
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to put my question to the Minister of National Revenue. As it was represented at the finance ministers conference that the federal government currently reaps a $1 billion tax windfall from personal income taxpayers as a result of the tilt in our personal income tax system, unlike the provinces, will the minister indicate if in fact as a result of our present income tax system personal income taxes do in fact go up 50 per cent faster than the growth in our Gross National Product as had been stated?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will let me, I would like to take some time to make the necessary calculations and give him an answer within two days.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary to a minister I recognize, the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As provincial governments have contained their spending increases-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! If I persist in having this kind of difficulty in hearing the question originally put, I will have to extend the question period for a few moments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As provincial governments have contained their spending increases this year to roughly 11 per cent, which is the likely increase in our Gross National Product, yet federal spending is going up at the rate of 14 per cent, will the minister indicate if it is likely that federal spending will be less than the $42 billion projected and closer to the growth in our gross national product?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has additional demands upon it over and above the provincial governments. We applaud the success of the provincial governments' restraint. Our own expenditures this year are not likely to be less than the $42,150 million which would represent a 14 per cent

December 8, 1976
Oral Questions
increase over the previous year. The Minister of Finance in his budget statement in May indicated that the restraint program will continue next year and that we anticipate containing our budgetary and nonbudgetary expenditures to 11 per cent or less increase over this year which, by our projections, will be under the nominal growth in the Gross National Product.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The President of the Treasury Board indicated that our spending will be increased by 14 per cent this year while the gross national product will be going up by approximately 11 per cent. Is it intended to bring below the anticipated 11 per cent spending increase for 1978 those spending increases in order to catch up on the 3 per cent excess run up this year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we certainly intend to continue to apply the rigid restraints we have been implementing, but it is awfully difficult to do that, with the apparent insincerity of the opposition. Every day in this House there are demands from all sides for a billion dollars here or several hundred million dollars there in new expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR EACH DEPARTMENT AND CROWN CORPORATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of this expressed intention with respect to the government's control of expenditure, will the minister inform the House whether he intends to make an announcement later today or perhaps next week to include the position of a senior financial officer in each government department, agency or Crown corporation which is part of the central recommendation of the Auditor General?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Scarborough West, whose pertinent question has now been borrowed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: You wrote the question for him yesterday.


Robert Knight Andras: The answer in short terms is yes, it is our intention to enhance the facilities and stature of financial officers in the various departments. The recruitment has begun, the training has begun, the whole program is now activated and we will continue to put this in place.


Walter David Baker: Can the minister indicate how the change of direction can be justified because of his alleged concern for the parliamentary system in the first place? Does this mark the first step backwards from the sham of the royal commission which was used in order to get around the central recommendation of the Auditor General's report,

namely that this government's expenditures are out of control and any protestation would not make any difference anyway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is clearly argumentative.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the activities of AECL in the recent past in view of the fact that AECL's agent for the sale of a CANDU reactor to the Republic of South Korea paid substantial amounts of money to three consultant firms, all of which are closely associated with United Development Incorporated, and in view of the fact that these payments represent a significant portion of the $8.1 million that the Auditor General found to be inadequately documented, what specific action has the minister taken in this regard to substantiate these payments and to justify the expenditure of public funds which these consultants received, consultants who are operating at arm's length to the agent appointed by AECL?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will come to the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow I am sure he will be provided with answers to those questions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, there is no absolute guarantee that the minister will have an opportunity to testify before the committee tomorrow because the committee is not through with the Auditor General. May I ask the minister a supplementary question having regard to the serious implications that these kinds of arrangements can have? Given the fact that AECL has many agents working throughout the world, can the minister tell the House whether he is aware of any similar arrangements in which these agents are involved on behalf of this agency?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that information has already been put on record, if not before the Public Accounts Committee, then before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. gentleman is the most non-answering minister in the House, Mr. Speaker. Might I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minis-
December 8, 1976

ter? In view of the revelations concerning these kinds of businesses arrangements, will the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether or not agents of Crown corporations acting abroad should follow the same guidelines as the Crown corporations themselves must follow? Is this matter covered by the guidelines to which the Prime Minister referred last Thursday but which to date have not been tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I indicated to the House last week that we would be making a statement on this matter soon.


POSSIBILITY DEPARTMENTS USING UNITED DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED AS AGENT TO PURCHASE MATERIAL
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: In the light of the revelation that UDI has agents working in over 50 countries around the world, can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether this organization which was hired to sell reactors to Korea and Argentina has been used by anyone selling material to the Government of Canada or any agency of the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take note of the question and if we have any way of answering it in detail I will give an answer to the hon. member.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT MEETING OF FIRST MIN ISTERS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the earlier line of questioning directed to the Prime Minister on the subject of next week's meeting with the premiers. Having regard to the outcome of yesterday's meeting of finance ministers-and apparently there is some dispute about the result-will the right hon. gentleman make another attempt to have the meetings held in public so that the Prime Minister and the premiers could let the public and the rest of us in on some of the discussions which are to take place about the future of our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that the hon. member's suggestion has a lot of support, even in our own caucus. I repeat the position taken by our government: we are prepared to hold the meetings in public if the majority of the provinces so wish it. But I would point out, as chairman of the conference, the unlikelihood, if the conference were to be public, that the federal government and the provinces would seek any accommodation in front of television cameras with respect to the matters on which they are separated and which have been underlined in various questions today. If the provinces asked, for instance, for a certain sum and we said we could not give it, and if a a compromise were sought somewhere in between, I can assure the House that it could hardly be obtained in front of cameras. However, if the opposition is
Oral Questions
looking for confrontation without solution, a public conference would be the best way of achieving it.


Mr. Fairweather:: If there seems to be a difficulty in that area, and perhaps there is, could the Prime Minister suggest that the opening statements, at least, might be made in public so that the citizens of Canada might know what is going on? Perhaps we could tease the public with something the right hon. gentleman says, or with something the premiers say, and let the public judge.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must confess to the hon. member that as chairman of the conference I am suggesting to the various premiers that we dispense with the opening statements. The need for a series of eleven opening statements is obvious if the cameras, the microphones and the public are there, but when we do not have these public conferences it is generally agreed that we dispense with this round of opening statements which are meant to influence the electors back home. And this would be my preference.


ALLEGED LACK OF MEDICAL SERVICES FOR FRANCOPHONES IN ONTARIO-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the complaints raised in the Ontario legislature concerning the lack of adequate medical services and other facilities, I would ask the minister whether he will review the situation, so that French-speaking people in Ontario are not shown by the federal government the same kind of neglect they are extended by the Ontario provincial government.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a recent report on the issue of health care for French-speaking people in Ontario has been made public. The report is indeed very concerning, and I must emphasize that my department and myself are aware of it. Although this comes under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government, we are now looking very closely at the situation to see whether something can be done to help the province of Ontario afford their French-speaking citizens the same kind of services they are providing to their other official language group.


PROPOSAL TO SELL BREAD CONTAINING WOOD PULP-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SAFETY OF PRODUCT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare of which I have given him notice. Is the hon. gentleman aware that a subsidiary of a United States multinational corporation, ITT-Continental Bakery Company, plans to submit a proposal to the Canadian health protection branch

December 8, 1976
Oral Questions
requesting permission to sell a bread called Fresh Horizons which is made with an ingredient called wood pulp in this country?


Marc Lalonde: I will inquire about this. I am not aware of this particular representation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the minister whether he will make a commitment to the House-


An hon. Member:: To eat it!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -that there will be no relaxation of the food standards of this country unless the consumption of this bread containing large amounts of wood pulp is proven absolutely safe. I want to send the minister a load of this bread so that he can begin his personal testing.


Marc Lalonde: Definitely. I have a long briefing note on the subject here about which I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member if he will give me a few minutes.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this matter with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Like him, I have received a large number of complaints from people across Canada, especially in the Province of Newfoundland, concerning rusty Fords and related problems with the Ford compensation program. Is the minister aware that consumers across Canada have been experiencing tremendous difficulty in obtaining satisfactory compensation from the program and is he prepared to intervene on behalf of the consumer in this regard?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I had occasion a week ago to talk to Mr. Bennett, the President of Ford and I look forward to a further meeting with him and the company to discuss both their warranty program and the settlements made in connection with the rusting issue. I have not yet had a chance to arrange that second meeting. However, on Friday I am having a meeting with representatives of all the car manufacturers and we hope to make a good deal of progress on the whole issue of rusting. I hope this will be the beginning of an improvement in the situation.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlau (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. I

should like to welcome her back from her Marco Polo travels. I wonder if she could tell the House anything in relation to her discussions with the government of Manitoba in connection with her efforts in reaching an agreement there. Is there any hope of further agreements covering all the provinces along the lines of the agreement which was signed with Manitoba?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan at the present time to have the same agreement with all provinces. This particular agreement I have signed with the government of Manitoba suited the particular circumstances of that provincial government. We hope to have agreements with other provincial governments as well, but it is not certain that with respect to all provinces that type of agreement would be suitable. As the hon. member knows, the position of the telephone companies is not the same from one province to another. However, it becomes increasingly important to clarify the way in which the different governments will implement their respective jurisdictions in the field of cable, and agreements similar to the one signed with Manitoba would, of course, be desirable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this matter has not been canvassed too much lately, and in view of the uniqueness of the agreement signed with the government of Manitoba, as a result of the discussions the minister is having with the various provinces could she indicate whether we are going to have such individual agreements affecting cable across this country, so that in effect we will have a balkanization of the boob tube?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this kind of agreement would lead to that sort of thing. There is no balkanization possible under this kind of an agreement, although the agreements might not be the same for each province. We already have a situation in which a private telephone company will offer one kind of contract to the cable operators and a different contract in another province. I am not inviting balkanization in the field of cable, but different arrangements already exist within different provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government been able to ascertain the circumstances that led to the killing of three Canadian missionaries in Rhodesia a few days ago, and is the minister prepared to give the House the circumstances of that incident?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries
December 8, 1976

pursuant to the hon. member's interest and 1 have not yet been able to confirm that Canadian missionaries have been affected in Rhodesia. I am continuing the inquiries, and when and if I uncover any information I will make it available.


NUMBER OF CANADIANS IN RHODESIA AND COUNTRY HANDLING CANADIAN INTERESTS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House how many Canadians are living in Rhodesia at this moment, and which country is looking after their interests and their security on behalf of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide that information at the present time.


HIGH LEVEL OF DUTY IMPOSED BY SOVIET UNION ON GIFTS-POSSIBLE BREACH OF TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that duties levied by the Soviet Union on gift articles such as clothing, household furnishings and personal items, sent by Canadians to relatives in Baltic countries and the Soviet Union have recently risen some threefold from already exceptionally high levels, levels that are several times higher than duties levied on commercial transactions, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce investigate whether the Soviet Union is in breach of its trade agreement with Canada when it levies such exceptional duties, and will he attempt to determine if these duties on articles sent from Canada are at the same level as on similar articles sent from other countries including those in eastern Europe?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member informed me of the problem, I made an inquiry and was told that while Soviet authorities admit that taxes are levied on clothes or other imported items, there is no discrimination against any country. Countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, which are much closer to the U.S.S.R. than we are, are subject to the same regulations when they send clothes or some other merchandise to the country.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Supply and
Oral Questions
Services or the parliamentary secretary. Since an audit has already been started by the Department of Supply and Services of a loan of some $465,000, followed by an investigation by the federal government of the expenditure of this amount, which has either been lent or granted to an outfit in Manitoba that is building a lodge some 250 miles north of Winnipeg, I should like to ask whether there has been any conclusion to this audit. Can the acting minister outline to the House any economic reason for supporting this kind of venture at this time?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough details to answer the hon. member's question, but I will take notice of it and provide a reference to the minister tonight.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways is operating a viable rail passenger service between Montreal and Ottawa and has been working hard to improve its service and attract more passengers, will the Minister of Transport advise the House why he is planning to force the CNR to discontinue its service between Montreal and Ottawa in favour of the CPR upgrading its service?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no such plan. Decisions about the kind of passenger service which will remain in Canada will be taken progressively, always with the objective of having improved service compared to that now existing.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Mr. Speaker, will the minister further advise the House as to the extent and nature of consultations that took place between the Ministry of Transport and officials of the CNR and CPR?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly get that information for the hon. member.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. This question relates to a problem facing Canadian forces long service pensioners. In light of the fact that contributions to their pension fund are near the $3 billion mark and are drawing 7 per cent interest, would the minister explain

December 8, 1976
Oral Questions
why the department will not set aside the approximately $9 million needed to cover the cost of further indexing of pensions, particularly since the interest for one year alone amounts to over $210 million?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question at the moment. I will take note of it and provide the hon. member with an answer. I must say I am surprised to hear the opposition asking for the expenditure of more money.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to direct this supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary, but seeing he is so knowledgeable about the matter I would ask what the government is doing with this money, particularly the more than $200 million created in interest?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that is, funding the obligations that are involved in a pension plan.



RESEARCH


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of representations made to the minister and many members of parliament by representatives of most of the scientific organizations within Canada to the effect that the purchasing power of university research funds has declined by more than one-third in the last five years, and the serious implications that can have, would the minister indicate whether serious consideration is being given in the 1977-78 estimates which are being prepared to a substantial increase in the funding for scientific and medical research in Canada?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of research funding is now being considered. The representations to which the hon. member alluded that have taken place in this House over the past few days have in my judgment been a model of intelligent representation, and I congratulate the participants on both sides of the House. They have presented a very reasonable request which I think will be very helpful in arriving at a decision on the estimates.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the knowledge of our fish stocks, such as their size, the varieties, the predator-prey relationship, which is necessary for sound management, is inadequate, is the minister giving any consideration to building wooden ships of the schooner or dragger type in excess of 100 feet to be utilized for surveillance, research and management, as well as strengthening our coast guard capability, thereby making maximum use of the funds available to the minister for this kind of work?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, we have one vessel which is being launched in May. The funds available are being used to bring in other departments which have vessels and planes which can help in this function. I think this is a wise way to spend public funds.



MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT INSHORE LOBSTER FISHERMEN HAVE PROPER SHARE OF CATCH

Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of the small lobster catches by the inshore lobster fishermen since the start of the season last week in South Western Nova and the fact that the inshore fishermen feel that there is a relationship between the small catches and the unregulated offshore lobster fishing catches, and since the offshore lobster fishery is to be looked at again to see what the effect on the inshore lobster fishery would be, would the minister now consider looking into the matter to see whether something cannot be done to ensure that the inshore lobster fishermen's fears are being taken into consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a very clear cut representation to the minister as opposed to being a question.
December 8, 1976



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 327, 680, 708, 752, 845 and 897.



Mr. Orlikow: For each year since 1969, how many derailments as a result of track conditions occurred on the (a) Canadian Pacific Railway (b) Canadian National Railway?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: derailments reportable to the Canadian Transport Commission attributed to track conditions:
Year	Canadian National	Canadian Pacific*1969	N/A	N/A1970	89	261971	75	211972	97	351973	82	281974	108	421975	120	36**1976 to September 1	61	38
Breakdown by carrier not available. Total derailments all carriers reporting to the CTC-73.
[DOT][DOT]Subject to revision pending outcome of on-going investigations.


NEW BUILDING (UNNAMED) CORNER OF SPARKS AND BANK STREETS, OTTAWA
Mr. McKinley: 1.	Which government departments are to be located in the new building, as yet unnamed, on the corner of Bank and Sparks Streets in Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	What is the rent per square foot for office space in the Building?
3.	Is the Building covered by a "lease to purchase" contract and, if so (a) what is the cost to the government each year for the lease (b) in what year does the lease expire and the purchase option become available (c) what is the final purchase price of the Building when the lease does expire?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Industry, Trade and Commerce, Auditor General, Department of Environment (Fisheries and Marine Service), Justice (tentative).
2.	$7.04 per net rentable square foot, net lease basis not including the costs to the Crown to acquire the land and build the sub-structure.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Yes. (a) $6,100,000. (b) The lease will expire in 35 years-year 2012-but the Crown could terminate the lease at its option and purchase at the end of the 20th year in 1997, 25th year in 2002, or 30th year in 2007, by payment of the present worth at that time of the remaining years of rental, (c) $1.


NEWS COMMENTARIES OF CBC FOR THE DEAF
Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is CBC giving consideration to providing captions or to have someone in the background using sign language during news commentaries for those deaf and hard of hearing citizens who miss much of the news because of a hearing impairment?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: because of the time required to prepare captions and the distraction caused to most viewers by sign language, neither of these methods is being considered for The National or other major newscasts which contain a large amount of film footage. Discussions have been held to explore the possibility of providing captions on the noon television news, but no decision has yet been reached.


PASSENGERS ENPLANED AND DEPLANED AT MALTON AIRPORT TORONTO
Mr. Stevens: What was the (a) number of passengers enplaned and deplaned, including those making a connecting flight and those originating or terminating a flight (b) amount of pounds of cargo (c) number of air carrier movements (commercial) (d) number of general aviation aircraft movements in (i) 1973 (ii) 1974 (iii) 1975 (iv) the First six months of 1976 for Toronto's Malton Airport?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Table I (below) presents enplaning and deplaning revenue passenger data for Toronto International Airport for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. Table II tabulates similar cargo information. Passenger and cargo figures for the first six months of 1976 are not yet available. Table III presents the requested information on the number of air carrier and general aviation movements.
Table I
Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers
Enplaned	Deplaned	Total1973	4,618,520	4,658,908	9,277,4281974	5,204,740	5,278,381	10,483,1211975	5,215,951	5,297,462	10,513,413Table 11 Enplaned and Deplaned Cargo (000's lbs.) Enplaned Deplaned	Total1973	127,560.1	139,542.9	267,103.01974	140,504.9	152,067.6	292,572.51975	137,912.7	152,088.6	290,001.3
December 8, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Table III
Itinerant Aircraft Movements
	Air Carrier	General Aviation
1973	142,370	66,4051974	151,678	75,2431975	150,958	77,7301976	73,082	39,933
(1st 6 mos.)


PASSENGER TRANSFER VEHICLES-MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Horner: 1.	How many times did the Passenger Transfer Vehicles (PTV's) used at Mirabel Airport freeze or disfunction during the 1975-76 winter season?
2.	What steps are being taken to prevent a repeat of the problems during the 1976-77 winter season?
3.	Have studies or discussions taken place of the possibility of removing the STOL hangar at Montreal to Mirabel Airport to house the PTV's when they are not in use to prevent freezing and, if so, what is the estimated cost of the removal of the STOL hangar?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. During the 1975-76 winter season, records maintained during the operational period from January 1, 1976 to April 30, 1976 show a total of 8,197 PTV assignments completed. 27 of these assignments were affected by PTV breakdowns causing passenger delays as follows: 20 delays less than 5 minutes; 6 delays less than 15 minutes; 1 delay over 15 minutes. The total delay time represents 0.32 per cent of the total assignment time.
2.	The detailed operation and maintenance records of the 1975-76 winter operation were continually reviewed by transport management and the manufacturer to identify and document problem areas and to implement action necessary to improve the performance record. As a result of this review, a vehicle improvement program was initiated in the early spring to ensure maximum operational efficiency of these units.
3.	Studies and subsequent tender action response to move the Montreal STOLport hangar to Mirabel proved to be prohibitive in cost. Other alternatives are being studied to provide suitable PTV shelter for the coming winter.


CBC GUIDELINES TO PREVENT TELEVISING ACTS OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Howie: What guidelines does CBC-TV follow in order to prevent the televising of acts of violence or immoral behaviour and by what procedure are the guidelines enforced?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The CBC has policies on all aspects of programming, including violence and the question of good taste. The policy on violence in television reads as follows: The CBC shares the concern with violence in television expressed by responsible community leaders and social scientists in Canada and elsewhere. While there is room for debate about the cause and effect relationship between violence in television and outbursts of violence in
society, the CBC's view is that no broadcaster can abdicate responsibility for making a judgment in this field. It has been the CBC's practice not to broadcast entertainment programs which have unduly exploited violence, and not to schedule a large number of program series built around themes of violent action. The CBC intends to continue this policy, although this may involve accepting a significant competitive disadvantage in relation both to United States border stations and to Canadian stations, especially on the part of the English-language service. In its news and public affairs programs, the CBC has acted with restraint in showing scenes of violence; for example from battlefields or riots. It continues to be CBC policy to reflect the reality of violence in the world in its information programs, but not to dwell upon scenes of violence for their sensational effect. In the application of this policy, the CBC expects program officers, film editors, and producers to apply careful standards of judgment in selecting scripts, in commissioning or purchasing films, and in scheduling programs at times suitable for younger audiences. The use of violence must be justified by strict standards of dramatic integrity and by its honest reflection of reality. The use of violence for its own sake, or as a substitute for other dramatic values is not acceptable. Staff who are responsible for selecting or scheduling programs are expected to inform themselves about the available experimental evidence linking television and violence in a causal relationship, and to keep up to date with the literature on the subject. Special attention should be given to children's programs, including cartoons, many of which offend by depicting scenes of violence with sexual overtones, or by linking violence with physical or racial types.
The appropriate paragraphs in the good taste policy read as follows: Questions of good taste, convention and propriety vary almost immeasurably between generations, between social groups, between sexes and between individuals... Examination of any sensitive subject such as religion, politics, sex and morality will probably be objectionable to some. Good taste, however, must not be taken as implying the rigid exclusion of anything that might give offence to anybody ... Purely visual aspects of some sensitive areas, particularly sex matters, call for special exercise of discretion. The permissible degree of nudity, for instance, may vary with circumstances; what may be harmless in a documentary could be found objectionable in a chorus line. Realistic close-ups of love scenes should be considered valid only if motivated by dramatic necessity and not by a desire to be daring. The temptation to linger unduly over such scenes should be avoided.
The policies are implemented through the regular lines of authority within the CBC.


STARRED QUESTIONS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 591 ?

December 8, 1976

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


MARITIME POLLUTION CLAIMS FUND
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What is the amount remaining in the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund?
2.	(a) How many payments have been made out of the fund (b) in each case (i) in what amount (ii) to whom?


Ralph Goodale: 1. $41,744,586.51 as of October 25, 1976.
2. (a) One. (b) $345.90. Mr. William Guimond, fisherman, Pointe Au Pere, Quebec.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 23 and 50.
[ Text]


COPIES OF REPORTS, REVIEWS OR STUDIES WITH RESPECT TO LEG HOLD TRAPS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any task force reports, reviews or studies with respect to the use of leg hold traps.
Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, while the subject matter of this particular situation has been referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the government has no reports or studies with respect to the use of leg hold traps as requested by the hon. member. I would therefore request that he withdraw his motion.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE, DIRECTIVES AND TELEGRAMS BETWEEN CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, directives, telegrams and other pertinent material between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commission appointed to carry out redistribution of boundaries in the Province of Newfoundland.
James Bay Agreement
Walter David Baker: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will stand. Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, last night when I called it ten o'clock I was drawing a parallel between the James Bay agreement and what was happening with Manitoba hydro and the native people of northern Manitoba. A consulting firm was hired, because of basic questions reaised by the flood committee of Manitoba, to reassess the initial assessment of the Churchill diversion project. They found that there was no evidence in the summary report-the summary report is the report of the Lake Winnipeg and Churchill River study board-that the people of the region can, in both the short and the long term, obtain the greatest advantage from the social and economic opportunities resulting from the construction of the works and associated developments. However, they made the following further observation regarding governments and Indian people:
Protecting the interests of Indian people in the impact zone of the project is a heavy responsibility encumbent on governments. Having reviewed the complicated legislative history of the development, it appears to us that the narrow "power vision" of hydro engineers, and the actions and omissions associated with it, have, over the years, greatly outpaced our limited governmental capacity to establish and achieve a frame of hydro development parameters within which native rights, and other guarantees under federal and provincial statutes, are clearly outlined and effectively protected. Therefore, our criticism must be hardest on those in whom we place the greatest amount of hope for the future- governments.
As of today, after the Manitoba Hydro development has been in progress for several years, no settlement has been
1786

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
reached to compensate the people for the loss of the use of their land. In fact in July, 1975, the issue became so heated that several Conservative members of parliament from Manitoba issued a statement calling on federal and provincial governments "to immediately refer the entire matter to the courts for arbitration and settlement" of Indian land claims.
What the native people of northern Manitoba do not want is an extinguishment of their aboriginal rights. The Churchill River diversion project has already violated these rights by making unfit for use certain traditional lands presently used and occupied by native people. I am referring to reserve lands. The native people want to be justly compensated, but before such compensation is possible they must know the total effect the project is going to have on their lands.
As a member of parliament whose native constituents are threatened by circumstances similar to those of the James Bay Indians and Inuit, I cannot support the passing of Bill C-9 which will extinguish all the land claims of the native people involved in the James Bay agreement. The renouncement by the native people of all further claims against the government in exchange for certain immediate benefits will, I believe, prove over the years to have similar adverse effects as did the treaty promises.
The James Bay and northern Quebec bargaining with the Indians and Inuit is referred to as an agreement. The government is careful not to refer to the bargaining as the James Bay treaty. Yet it is a treaty not unlike the treaties signed between the Indians and the federal government in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Treaties were land transactions. The James Bay agreement is nothing more than a complicated real estate transaction. Today, in retrospect, Indians view the treaties as unconscionable agreements. Is this how the James Bay agreement will be viewed in the future?
Indians have experienced many unfulfilled promises in the treaties, and already we are hearing similar rumblings in regard to the James Bay agreement. The terms of the James Bay agreement are already open to questioning. The Northern Quebec Inuit Association has accused the Quebec government of violating the land selection provisions of the agreement. It appears that Quebec wants to involve Hydro-Quebec and it is using criteria for land choice not in the agreement. Land selection was to be between the Quebec government and the native people. The Northern Quebec Inuit Association feel that the government is trying to stall land selection until November 11, 1977, when it will have the power arbitrarily to give the Indians and Inuit any land it chooses.
The government has stated its commitment to the settlement of land claims of the aboriginal people of Canada. How these claims are to be settled is the question. Will the government wait until hydro development or pipelines are required that will affect Indian lands before settlements are reached?
The government must consider what the majority of the aboriginal people of Canada are saying. They say that settlements must be based on preservation of rights that will assure

them of economic and political power; settlements must ensure their rights to self-determination; settlements must be based on honourable and decent foundations for the future of native communities; and settlements must be made by governments on the basis of rights and not of charity.
I am concerned about the settlement in Manitoba regarding the Churchill river diversion project. I know the native people of that area do not agree with the settlement reached in Quebec. I believe it is incumbent on this government to reconsider its direction and to set a different precedent for future settlements, settlements that will be based on the preservation of aboriginal rights.
I have a few concerns with regard to the James Bay agreement which I should like to express. Even though the Cree of Quebec have asked to have Bill C-9 brought before the House, it was delayed to enable the Naskapi Indians to reach an agreement. It is coincidental that the delay occurred exactly when the Quebec election was announced. Given the subsequent election of the Parti Quebecois and the fact that the province of Quebec is a co-signatory of the agreement, I should like to know if this government does not foresee any problems arising in the carrying out by the new government of the terms of the agreement reached by the previous Quebec Liberal government.
In a press release yesterday the Native Council of Canada asked for the suspension of the agreement. It sought:
1.	Re-examination to determine that all guarantees, safeguards and commitments undertaken by the government of Quebec will be maintained by any future political jurisdiction in Quebec.
2.	Renegotiation of the agreement with all native people in northern Quebec to ascertain if they wish to cede their lands and territories to a political jurisdiction committed to independence from the federal government. Logically, the native people should, at the very least, be entitled to a referendum within two years to decide their future participation in confederation.
3.	Reassessment of the terms of the proposed agreement to ensure that the rights of the Metis and non-status Indians of the territory and several other groups of Indian people not included at present are safeguarded by any new or revised agreement that may result.
As I read through the agreement and the information that has been provided to me on this matter, I see that the $5.5 million referred to by the minister was provided in the form of grants and loans. I would be most interested to know whether the Indians and Inuit are in support of the $5.5 million being deducted from the $225 million. I believe that this should be a straight grant to cover the cost of the James Bay project.
I would be most interested to have a complete breakdown of the grants and loans. I suspect that, based on the arrangement, the repayment of loans would come directly from the financial settlements, that is, a substantial portion would be made on the basis of a loan. I wonder if the minister would be willing to give me a complete breakdown of the grants and loans. It would be much appreciated and it would help to clarify some of my concerns.
Many references have been made to the benefits which the Indians and the Inuit are to receive from this agreement. I wish to reiterate that I cannot see any benefits flowing from it apart from monetary benefits which these people would not
December 8, 1976

have without this agreement. For example, the minister stated with regard to education that the Cree and Kativik school boards will have jurisdiction over and responsibility for elementary, secondary and adult education under the provincial education act. I would like to remind the minister that the Indian people in Canada, under the policy of Indian control of Indian education and through their band councils, already have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the education of their people. In fact this policy is not bound by the restrictions imposed by provincial education acts, which puts it one step ahead of the James Bay agreement.
The minister also made reference to the use of the term "extinguishment". I want to make it clear that it is not a criticism of semantics, as he suggested, but rather a criticism of the principle of the extinguishment of rights.
In terms of government loans, I fear that the highly paid lawyers and consultants are guilty of ripping off the Indians and Inuit. I believe that these fees should have been charged directly to the James Bay project and not deducted from the $225 million that has been negotiated as the settlement for 20 years.
In conclusion I would like to say that I was pleased to have the opportunity to express my feelings and the feelings of my party on Bill C-9. I want to go on record as opposing Bill C-9 because I believe that this poor piece of legislation will come back to haunt the native people of Canada.
Mir. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, recently I received a request from a writer preparing a magazine article attempting to determine what is a Canadian and what is Canadian culture and identity. I have yet to respond to his request because that is difficult to do in a difficult period of transition and evaluation.
However, the bill before us today is a clear definition and statement of policy regarding the values of the government. It demonstrates values which I for one reject, and I feel Canadians generally reject them as well. Surely Canadian culture must in part be the sum total of the collective values of all Canadians. I think the values of the native people of Canada speak loud and long and very clear to Canadians.


Mr. Allmand:: They signed the agreement.


Mr. Wenman:: The native people are sacrificing their values for money.


William Warren Allmand: Ask them.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I question their judgment, but that is their judgment, and I respect their right to make that judgment.


William Warren Allmand: You don't seem to.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: You just follow along. I have a few points to make about this.
Let us look into some of these traditional values which are usually found in our native community. These values are
James Bay Agreement
steeped in the traditions of freedom of thought, movement, and choice, and freedom to hunt, fish, trap and move freely throughout an abundant undamaged and unviolated environment. The phraseology of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) last night reminded me of some of those values. He spoke of being too proud to ask his neighbour, and in a poetic treatise he used phrases like "as long as the rivers will flow," "as long as the grass will grow" and "as long as the sun will rise."
As the rivers are stilled because of the backup of flooding, as the grass of the wildlife habitat rots and dies on the floor of the wounded, flooded valleys, and as the sun rises on the devastation of the flooding, will the Cree and the Inuit stand on the highland shores of these new inland seas and cry, as the pieces of silver jingle in their pockets? The 68,285 squares miles of land affected does not belong just to the native people who inhabit the land nor to the people of the province of Quebec. It is still a big part of Canada, and as such it belongs to and is of concern to the whole nation. I believe Canadians value this part of Canada and want their national government to speak out on their behalf.
As I speak today of the environment, I demand that Canadians listen before they finally, through impotence or indifference, dismiss for the final time all responsibility, all concern, and all right of action to ensure the protection of this largely unviolated area of the natural environment of Canada. Who will speak for the national environmental interests of all Canadians? Who will recognize that Canada is not a vast empty country just because every lake and river is not contaminated and because every piece of land is not put to its supposed highest and best use of high rise apartment, industrial park or pavement? Who will remind Canadians that every piece of Canada is in full use as a natural part of the broader environment? We should weigh the value of changing one use for another, against the attitude of creating something where there is nothing. That is the attitude of the government. It is a development attitude which says that this is a vast wasteland-


William Warren Allmand: Nonsense.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -which, unless we can flood it, unless we can develop it, destroy it or change its use, is nothing. All that land is used and is a part of the national environment of Canada and of the great heritage we share with the native people of this country.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) take a stand for the environment, or will that same minister, who has been given the responsibility for the environment, literally decimate his own department by reallocating his environment budget to sovereignty patrols for the 200 mile limit? I doubt if he will stand and defend the environment of this 68,285 square miles of Canada.
The whole province of New Brunswick, from where the minister comes, is only 28,354 square miles, and the James Bay project is more than twice as large. I feel certain that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment would be the first
80005-451/2

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
one on his feet if the entire province of New Brunswick were to be submerged below the sea.
Then again, even if the minister was prepared to speak, what could he really say to the Parliament of Canada? Would he apologize for having no legislation requiring an environmental impact assessment, let alone for not having authority to act upon such assessment recommendations? Would he recognize that the only real action he could take would be to gain support and authority from the cabinet, and thence from some other minister holding some portfolio other than environment? What weight could his judgment have, under a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a cabinet who place environment at the bottom of their budgetary priorities, or under a minister who has reigned over the virtual demise through cutback of his own environment department?
This bill in fact would further weaken the capacity of the Department of the Environment to act. Without this legislation, while the government had almost nothing which would give it any measure of control, there was some control, but this legislation would give up that control.
It seems clear that Bill C-9 would create a unique legal entity by insulating a large part of Canadian territory, and we must realize how much land we are talking about here. We are talking about approximately 68,000 square miles, a piece of land which is approximately the size of Europe. That is the amount of land affected by this James Bay project. What are we going to do with that land? We are going to exempt it from the laws passed by the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act. The extent of the impact varies with the statute concerned, but where conflict exists between federal laws and the agreement, the agreement would prevail over the laws of Canada. How can we allow an agreement which would prevail over laws passed by this parliament?
What are the laws and what are the effects? With regard to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, handing over this jurisdiction would have the effect of creating confusion over the administration of quotas, and it could impede the imposition of remedial action in the case of species decline. In the case of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the effect would be to surrender in advance federal powers to remove impediments to water traffic. With regard to the Fisheries Act the effect would be to remove some specific protection of migratory fish, and the use of the act in preventing indiscriminate dumping of waste in rivers could be curtailed.
Environmental impact assessment procedures are another important factor which have not been covered adequately by the government. The first full fledged environmental assessment of the project was conducted in 1971 by the joint federal-provincial task force. Like the feasibility study on the project commissioned by Hydro Quebec, this report was completed only after the irreversible decision to go ahead with the project had been made and announced by Premier Bourassa to a Liberal party rally in Quebec city on April 29, 1971. This is typical of Liberal policy, whether it be in the province of Quebec or at the federal level.

An impact study was announced after the project itself was announced. First we should have had the impact study and then the announcement that the project would or would not go ahead, based on what the impact study told us. A token $30,000 was allocated to this study, thus placing emphasis on assessing the meagre resources of existing data rather than building a complete baseline picture. With $30,000 you could not even correlate the data available now, let alone go out into the field and closely examine what is really required. At the time a Hydro Quebec Spokesman said that time constraints would not allow such a detailed study. So we throw $30,000 on the table and then forget about the whole thing because we do not have time. If proper studies had been initiated even at that stage, perhaps today we would be in a better position to make a judgment. This compares with the preliminary investigation into the Mackenzie pipeline proposal in an unsatisfactory fashion, despite the fact that the environmental impact of a pipeline is inherently much less than that of a major hydro development.
Let us compare the two projects, Mr. Speaker. The Mackenzie valley pipeline is going to transgress truly across the land, but it is not going to submerge the land forever and lay it waste. We are talking about spending $30,000 on a study for the present project, but $30 million to $50 million was spent for similar work on the Mackenzie valley pipeline. A commission-and a most responsible commission under Mr. Justice Berger-was formed. He did what should have been done and is still to be done on the James Bay project; he talked to the people affected. He did not just talk to them about how much money they would have in their pockets; he talked to them about how this was going to change their way of life; how this development would infringe on the last frontiers of Canada. He asked if we want to make those changes, and we all agreed we would wait for that kind of assessment.
James Bay is a different story, Mr. Speaker. Is it a different story because of what was a companion provincial Liberal government, or is it a different story because it is a government, period? Is it a different story because it is individual enterprise that wants to develop the Mackenzie but there are different rules for expediency by government to undertake a project as many times as devastating to the environment as the potential devastation of the Mackenzie valley pipeline? The government's attitude is-move right on ahead; forget it.
The James Bay assessment was completed after the project had been authorized. In the case of the James Bay assessment no pubic environmental hearings were held by the joint federal-provincial task force. Contrast that to the hearings of Judge Berger, Mr. Speaker. Can the government tell me that participatory democracy is not lacking in the James Bay project and that in conscience it should not do exactly the same thing or even go one better? This cavalier approach to the management of the country's environment belied the words of the Honourable Jack Davis who was minister of the environment in 1972. On April 28 of that year in this House, as reported at page 174 of Hansard, he said:
December 8, 1976

I think that the essence of the concern in respect to the environment relates to timing, to ecological studies and to environmental investigation which must be carried out before the final decision to undertake large scale development and construction is made.
Where are these studies, Mr. Speaker, where are the decisions? Where is the input of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment? I hope he is going to speak on this and stand up for the environment of Canada.
In point of fact construction had begun on the LG-2 dam before Environment Canada was in a position to make a full assessment of the impact. The introduction to the Environment Canada report, entitled "James Bay Hydro-Electric Project: A Statement of Environmental Concerns", pointed out three full years after April 30, 1971, that:
This report is not intended to present a complete environmental impact assessment. Rather, it is an attempt to discuss concerns which have been identified ... It is important to keep in mind that some of the 1973 and virtually all of the 1974 field data have yet to be analysed and translated into detailed results.
This did not strike many observers as the ideal method by which to proceed.
The first major study completed by the federal-provincial task force was the "Preliminary Study of the Environmental Impacts of the James Bay Development Project". Suddenly the government decided it had better have some more window dressing. It pulled together a few million dollars for window dressing-less than a third of what was available for the Mackenzie valley environmental study. The report, which was funded at an extremely low level, was in consequence more a collection of existing data than a comprehensive investigation. The report mentioned possible serious effects on migratory birds, adverse conditions from water fluctations, decrease of desirable fish species, and called for a "preserve area" for vulnerable animal species.
One of the principal recommendations was that a large program of ecological research be undertaken and that its findings be closely integrated into the project as it was developed. Although substantial additional resources were found for environmental studies-under agreement in the neighbourhood of $8.4 million-these studies have at best only been partially integrated into the construction program. Even with the government's afterthoughts-realizing that it had better do something about the situation-it did not use the information at hand or accept the recommendations.
This report made a comparison of the Nottaway-Broadback-Rupert river system and the La Grande river system and came to the conclusion that there were insufficient data to support a clearcut over-all preference between the proposals. One very specific area of concern was the impact of a La Grande complex on the Caniapiscau river which flows into Ungava Bay. The effect of the complex on this watershed is unknown even today. But the government goes ahead, and we sit in this House today discussing the project, when all kinds of information are still unknown.
The study also made a comparison of the Aswan High Dam, which ranks as one of the worst examples of hydro-electric projects, and the James Bay project. The only difference is the
James Bay Agreement
number of people involved and the location. The study showed that the environmental damage, however, could be equal or perhaps even more severe, yet we cannot learn from that example. The report was virtually ignored.
Then there was the 1974 Environment Canada report entitled "James Bay Hydro-Electric Project: A Statement of Environmental Concerns and Recommendations for Protection and Enhancement Measures", prepared in January, 1974, revised October, 1974, and released March, 1975. This report, although prepared before all the field work data had been analysed, represented a tremendous advance in knowledge of the hazards posed by the project compared to the 1971 report.
I want to give credit to the Department of the Environment which was struggling to do its best in spite of this government, struggling with technicians who knew what they were talking about, and was making recommendations that should be followed. But the department has fallen so low on the government's list of priorities that it might as well not have made any recommendations. For example, the recommendation for the protection of the polar bear population through strict observation of basic rules concerning disturbances and camp maintenance, was not part of the James Bay agreement. And the recommendation that measures be implemented to minimize the impact of road construction, especially with respect to stream crossings and culvert design, was not part of the agreement, although some progress may be made later in some other way.
There was a recommendation about mitigation of the loss of the beaver habitat, but no action was taken. Because of greater accessibility to the area there was a recommendation for increased forest fire control, but no provision was made for this in the agreement. The report recommended a full scale environmental impact assessment of the Caniapiscau diversion. A study group has been established to determine the environmental impact of the project, but its recommendations do not appear to be binding and this is a problem. It is fine to say that there will be studies and reports, but there is no binding legislation. The people of the area will find out one day that the dam has been built, the water level has risen, and that they are left with all kinds of promises but nothing binding. These are minimum requirements and they should be implemented, Mr. Speaker.
It was recommended that a flow of at least 12,000 cfs be maintained in the lower La Grande during the filling of the LG-2 reservoir, but there was no commitment under the agreement. There has been little input in this regard, and these questions have been largely ignored.
The basic structures for environmental management are incorporated in sections 22 and 23 of the agreement. Section
22	deals with development south of the 55th parallel, section
23	with development north of the 55th parallel. Essentially the difference between the two regimes is the participation of the Cree in section 22 procedures, and of the Inuit in section 23 procedures. The regime purports to provide for a system that

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
will involve native people in a process which provides sound environmental assessment and protection. It puts into place a three tier structure of environmental impact assessment process which is mandatory for projects of significant size.
The first step in the process is the assessment of the project by an evaluating committee established by the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment. The James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment is a 13-person committee consisting of four members from each of the provincial governments, federal government, and native regional authority. It is chaired by the chairman of the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Co-ordinating Committee who will be appointed in rotation by the Cree of Quebec, and the Inuit and Canada.
The evaluating committee, which is a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, is to prepare an impact statement on the proposed development. This statement would be submitted to the administrator who must come to a final decision. The administrator is to be the director of the Quebec Environmental Protection Service, or in federal matters a federal official, except in the case of those decisions which involve category 1 lands, in which case the administrator is deemed to be the relevant native local government administrator.
Public hearings are held by the Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee consisting of three provincially appointed members and two members appointed by the relevant regional authority. Within 45 days of the submission of the impact statement to the review committee the administrator comes to a decision based on the impact assessment submitted by the evaluating committee, an impact statement submitted by the developer and the recommendation of the review committee.
Although it may be said that the environmental review process represents a good start, it must be noted that it suffers from a number of serious defects. I shall list some of them.
There is no specific agreement for funding the research that the evaluation committee must perform to prepare fully documented impact assessments. I point out that Mr. Justice Berger's commission paid people with scientific background to provide some input. If there is insufficient funding for the evaluation committee to prepare impact assessments, how can it prepare such assessments? Also, the composition of the review committee or panel is stacked against the native population.
Another defect is that appeals procedures against the decision of the administrator are ill-defined. In other words, once the administrator decides, his decision is final and binding, and no further action can be taken.
The federal and provincial governments have reserved the right to withhold information from the evaluation committee. That is typical of the Liberal government. Here we have set up a committee to evaluate and assess a certain process and then the government says, "We shall withhold information from you." I do not know why this government will not release information it has gathered. For some reason it refuses to

release such information. All relevant public information should be made available to environmental assessment committees so that they can make adequate judgments.
Although the significant expansion of existing communities is an assessable development, the powers of the environmental management process to control undesirable urban growth are not defined.
I have tried to list some of the shortcomings of the present legislative proposal. Let me say that I shall present a private member's bill dealing with some of these matters. It covers extensively some of the items mentioned. Perhaps I shall be able to mention some of the provisions of the bill if time permits.
If I may, I should like now to speak about the report of the Quebec Consultative Council on the Environment, 1976. This report, which examined the environmental management process under the James Bay Agreement, concluded that there are serious deficiencies in the structures of the agreement. Its principal conclusions were that work undertaken in the James Bay area lacked suitable controls. According to the committee this deficiency was responsible for the pollution phenomena and for the degradation of the environment. The committee deplored an absence of controls over such degradation by the provincial services for environmental protection.
The Consultative Council pointed out important inadequacies. With regard to administrative responsibilities for the environment it noted that administrative responsibilities for the James Bay area are diffuse, ambiguous, and not suited to ensure adequate environment protection. The committee notes that such an administrative ambiguity results in increased environmental responsibilities for other parties.
I turn now to the efficiency level of the environmental services. The committee has noted recently an added concern for environmental quality within the environmental services of the JBDC and JBEC corporations. However, the technical impact of the James Bay project is so important and the speed of suitable authorization and of implementation is such that environmental concerns do not really measure up to the level of human intervention upon the territory. Consequently the committee is convinced that the presence of the environmental norms and of suitable implementation structures will not forcibly determine the orientation of James Bay development work.
In addition, the committee wishes to note that environmental protection norms established by the JBDC and by the JBEC are by no means always followed. On this point the committee wishes to draw attention to the sore lack of environmental inspectors in the James Bay area. Since the government wishes to cut back spending this year, I am sure it will not appoint any more federal environmental inspectors. The powers of intervention of inspectors are also weak and nonfunctional. In any case, why appoint people who do not have authority to enforce decisions they make?
The committee believes that once environmental norms are established they should be enforced with the same rigour as
December 8, 1976

rules dealing with construction, fire, or work area safety and access rules. Such norms should be as binding as those contained in the labour code, or those which afford protection against fire, for instance. Finally, environmental norms should apply throughout the territory in the same manner. Will such regulations be applied? I suggest that it is highly unlikely.
I deal now with the role of the Quebec Environmental Protection Services. The committee believes that the territorial development of the James Bay area, at least on the environmental level, should not be considered as an exceptional case in Quebec. The principle of an accelerated development designed to save Quebec's economy must not reduce the necessity of suitably husbanding resources and of protecting environmental quality for future needs. That bears repeating, Mr. Speaker. The principle of an accelerated development designed to save Quebec's economy must not reduce the necessity of suitably husbanding resources and of protecting environmental quality for future needs. It would be comforting if we could be assured that the government had the necessary legislative authority in this regard. As it is, the government has neither the will nor the authority to enforce the principles enunciated. Apparently the government now wants to give away what little authority it possesses. I suggest that is tragic.
The committee therefore believes that the Quebec Environmental Protection Service should be systematically monitoring the quality of the environment in the James Bay area, just as it does throughout Quebec elsewhere. The relationship between the SPEQ and the James Bay township should be similar to that involving any other Quebec township. But how can such a relationship exist, considering the authority which has been transferred from the federal government and the Quebec government to the Crown corporation?
Several recommendations have been put forward. It is proposed that the Ministry of the Environment should intervene before the JBDC authorities in order that the recommendations of the QEPS shall be followed within a specified time frame and that the environmental service of the JBDC shall have direct powers of intervention within specified sectors.
It is also recommended that the environmental protection services, in keeping with their general control and surveillance powers, article 126 of the "Loi de la qualite de l'environne-ment" should energetically intervene before the management committee of the JBDC, in order that their recommendations should be followed within specified time limits, and that the SPEQ should utilize all powers conferred upon them.
It is also recommended that the Minister of the Environment, or the environmental protection services, in keeping with Article 126 and Article 4, should immediately exercise over the JBDC their general surveillance and control authority and that necessary measures be taken to utilize such powers usefully.
It is also recommended that the Minister of the Environment take necessary steps to ensure that the JBDC, through functional methods, assumes effective control of its own activi-
James Bay Agreement
ties, of those of its subsidiaries, and of that private enterprise which could affect the quality of the environment.
Regardless of the recommendations that we make, the after-the-fact recommendations, they are always too little and too late. Why can we not place before the Parliament of Canada environmental legislation which demands that, before any project of a substantial size goes ahead, there be a full environmental impact assessment? That assessment should be analyzed and a rectification of the proposals made before the project is allowed to go ahead.
Why must we in Canada constantly develop and build, and then after we start polluting, damaging our environment and destroying our rivers, lakes and air, look at what we are doing? We have after-the-fact legislation again and again.
Here we have 68,000 square miles of Canada. Canada is a big country. We have a lot of land, a lot of open space, but a lot of space in full use by the environment of Canada. This usage is a great heritage. Our low density population, clean environment, and potential for growth and development that will not destroy the environment, are among our strongest assets that are envied throughout the world.
Would we callously and carelessly affect 68,000 square miles of Canada's potential and Canada's future? What is the hurry? It is time that we had a Berger type commission, working with the people of the area and people in other parts of Canada to try to determine what lifestyle the people of that area want. What lifestyle do the people of Canada want for that area? In fact, what values do we have for Canada?
Are we so blinded by expediency that we must charge forward having only the value of money and energy demand outweighing and overweighing everything? Certainly progress must continue. Decisions must be made, but they must not be made without appropriate concern for the values of Canadians as they relate to the environment and the quality of life that Canadians must share.
I urge the government not to pass this bill until the environmental consequences can be minimized, or perhaps even a decision made that it is not worth it. Let us examine all of the evidence carefully in this parliament, or in the committees of this parliament, and make our decision on the basis of the kind of Canada that we all want to have, not just for now or the next decade, not just for the Inuit or the Cree people for the next 20 years, with money in their pockets during that time, but for the broad future of this great country.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), and again today, and to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) as they put forward their impressions. They showed us some of their misunderstandings. Also, there was some political double talk in their discussions on this particular bill.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West spoke of the older policies of paternalism. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West spoke very

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
much of his environmental concern. I wonder whether any of those from the other side who have spoken consulted with some of their Tory colleagues from the province of Ontario who are about to give Reed Paper enormous amounts of land in the northern part of Ontario to do with as they like, in spite of environmental concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) had an opportunity to make his speech, and now the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) has the floor.


Roger Carl Young: I wonder whether the hon. member would care to consult with some of his Tory colleagues in New Brunswick who show only passing lip service to environmental concern in the onslaught against natural resources.
I wish to take a few minutes to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. It seems that members opposite have an almost holier-than-thou attitude toward the James Bay agreement and this legislation. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent said that he did not want to see the federal government continue a paternalistic attitude toward the native people. However, he and his colleagues suggest that they know better than the native people who have been involved in these negotiations for the rights, details and the land use that they want. He overlooks the fact that the whole emphasis of the agreement and the whole purpose of this legislation are to allow the native people to become independent and as autonomous as possible, to preserve and enhance a culture, and allow the Cree and Inuit to develop at their own pace.
This legislation will ensure that these people can develop at their own pace. The Inuit and Cree will be the decision makers of their own future. They will become a self-determining, self-governing people. This legislation will put aside the old paternalistic policies and programs.
It was not until the development of the James Bay region that the native people learned that they were going to have to do this, but necessity is the mother of invention. The needs of the native people have been brought to the fore. Out of those pressing needs that they felt, their concern for their lands, their traditional territories, and these negotiations, they have been able to make enormous strides in their own growth.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent seemed to put forward the idea that the agreement would be continuing a policy of paternalism. I talked to some of these native people recently. I also talked to a number of the executive of the Grand Council of the Cree. They told me how much they have been able to mature and how they have become decision makers in their own right. They tell me how happy they are to have been able to bargain for themselves. They now feel that the Cree are the ones who are dealing with the question of Cree rights. All the native people feel they are able to use this agreement to get what they want.
I believe history will record that the federal government did the native people a tremendous service in enabling them to

express their wishes, to fight for this arrangement and to show their spirit of pride in their accomplishments.
Last evening the hon. member for Lambton-Kent gave the impression that it was the federal government which imposed all the deadlines. I am told by members of the Grand Council of Cree that they were the ones who imposed the November 1, 1975, deadline for reaching a final agreement. Agreement in principle had been reached about a year earlier. It was the Cree who gave an ultimatum to Quebec to sign by November 1. They said to the province, "Sign, or we are going home; we have talked enough; let us put up or shut up." The native people wanted to get on with the job. The hon. member spoke of the short period in which the vote was taken. He did not explain that the period of preparation for ratification ran from November, 1975, to March, 1976.
It is important to realize the purpose of the agreement and of the legislation from the point of view of the Cree and the Inuit. They had it in mind that through this vehicle they could rid themselves of poverty and of dependence on the hand-out system; that they could build their own houses and maintain their traditional way of life. I am told that many benefits of the agreement have already begun to show up in these areas. I am told by the Grand Council of the Cree that over two thirds of the Cree people are practising their traditional way of life. They are not being assimilated. They feel the policy of alert neutrality on the part of the federal government was one of the best which could have been followed in their case. It led to the formation of the Grand Council and to decisions being taken at the grass roots. Native people have begun to decide what is best for native people.
I am told that one of the first instructions the native leaders received from their bands was to negotiate in three areas, land; fishing, hunting and trapping rights; and the question of changes in the project. But in the course of the negotiations the Cree and the Inuit soon realized that they could go much further, that they could take over other fields such as education, health services, housing, and so on. In essence they could begin to look after all the day to day decision-making processes which so closely affect their communities. More power to them.
If my understanding is correct, about two years ago members of the Conservative party and some members of the New Democratic Party were saying to us on this side of the House, "Tell the Cree not to go to court; tell them they should resort to negotiation and try to work out a deal for themselves." Today, when an agreement has been signed and when legislation is before the House, they are not happy with the situation. Indeed they are saying the Indians should not have negotiated, that they have not done well enough out of it.
Again, from conversations I have had in recent days with members of the Cree Grand Council I find they do not feel they were ever left out, or held at the point of a gun. As a matter of fact one council member said to me, and this is a direct quotation, "We feel we have the tomahawk in our
December 8, 1976

hands." The Indians felt that it was they who had set many of the deadlines and conditions. Conversely, I know there are some in the province of Quebec who feel the native people were able to get too much, and now they are beginning to have second thoughts.
I do not believe the native people got too much. They got what they were there for. They had to make compromises, of course. They realize that all their demands could not be satisfied. But my impression is that they are happy with the outcome. They have developed. They have gone a long way toward getting what they wanted in the first place. They are able to set their own policies and make their own decisions.
In the minds of the native people, comments like those made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West will, I fear, give the impression to the native people that Ottawa is against their negotiating and developing their own governmental systems. Many of those people do not look on this chamber, in Ottawa, as being composed of members from one party or another; they do not always see the difference between Conservatives, Liberals, and members of the NDP. They look on Ottawa as a monolith. I am afraid that some of the benefits which will flow from this legislation might be lost as a result of comments such as we have heard from the other side. The native people have learned the necessity for compromise. They learned that not everybody can be entirely satisfied. But they tell me they can live with what they now have and that their primary interests are protected.
Let me comment further on what was said in the debate by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. He stated, if I recall correctly, that all the documents were in French and that all the negotiations were carried out in French. According to my understanding, this is incorrect. I am told that everything was negotiated in English and that all the documents were prepared in English, even the working papers and discussion notes, with the exception of one brief paper which came from the Quebec department of Justice, which was in the French language. The documents which were prepared in English were taken back to the bands, to the native communities, and translated at band council meetings by the negotiators themselves. They were carried back, explained and translated by the Cree, and I understand that a similar process was undertaken in the case of the Inuit people.
I do not hear complaints of any hassles on that score when these things are explained to me. It is true there are complications attached to translating and explaining the details of lengthy and complicated agreements. I sometimes wonder how much any of us understand with respect to the detail of legislative items which appear before us. I suggest that very few of us at any time are truly conversant with such details. On the other hand, most of us have gone through our own translation process here. Most of us have a good general idea of what the legislation we pass will do, together with some specifics.
The general sense of this agreement, the main principles, were fully translated and understood by the people back in the
James Bay Agreement
settlements. I understand that the decision to accept the final proposals was taken at local levels and brought back to the negotiating table while work was done on the over-all agreement.
Last evening the hon. member asked some questions about the Naskapi. I understand that the Naskapi could have been included in the final agreement but that they decided on their own not to sign the agreement in principle. It was not a case of the federal government keeping the Naskapi out. It was, rather, the Naskapi themselves who decided they were not ready. Their decision was respected by the government. They were left out by their own desire and not because of any action on the part of the federal government. The Naskapi position was respected by the federal government. They themselves felt they were not ready at that time. Since then they have been organizing and negotiating to be brought into the agreement and to derive the same benefits along with the Inuit and the Cree. Bill C-9 will provide for this as well. It provides for room to enter into agreement with the terms and conditions they like.
There will be further developments as a result of this legislation, and it may very well be in the future that many of the powers the federal ministry now holds will be turned over to the Indian peoples. This is designed to end the paternalism of earlier days, to allow them to become self-determining and self-governing. The agreement and legislation are designed, and here I use the exact words of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, "to allow them the opportunity to grow and develop on their own". The agreement will give them this opportunity not only to grow and develop, but to do so at their own pace, not one set for them by a provincial or federal government.
I had a very interesting conversation with Chief Billy Diamond. One of the things he said which struck me most was that as a Cree he believes that being an Indian is just not enough any more. He believes that the benefits of the agreement and the legislation will give him and his people the opportunity to reinforce their identity. It will allow them to become masters of their own destiny and of their own plans.
Last evening the hon. member for Lambton-Kent said it was not possible to set out a master plan for evolution. I do not think anyone could do that because things are never static, they change from day to day. However, the agreement takes that into account and leaves room for change. It can be redefined and reorganized with the agreement and consent of all parties to better meet the needs of the native people as they themselves grow and develop. With this legislation the opportunity to grow and develop becomes possible, and the opportunity becomes theirs. If there is no agreement and no legislation, the native people see a rather dark future in which they will continue to be overwhelmed by the trespassers of their traditional lands; by the developers of gigantic projects. The agreement and the legislation are going to prevent that from happening.
1794

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
The native people will be the ones to participate in decisions regarding their own developments. I think that is the essence of this. I am happy to see this kind of legislation before the House. I am even more happy to sense the spirit of accomplishment, maturity and development the native people feel within themselves. Now is their chance. They can develop, they can define their own programs and their own growth and needs. I think they have long deserved this chance. It is about time we stopped trying to tell them how to do things and gave them the opportunity to develop and do things for themselves. I welcome the agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say this afternoon might not be well received by some of my Indian friends. My reputation as a parliamentarian and as a worker for the Indian cause is well established, and I can call them friends.
I do not like the James Bay agreement. I am disappointed in the early result of our effort to recognize the principle and concept of aboriginal title which only occurred about two years ago. The James Bay agreement is probably the first of its kind and one of many agreements that will have to be worked out with our brothers throughout the country.
I represent an area in western Canada almost as large as the area affected by this agreement. I am afraid I would have to fight to the bitter end before seeing a similar agreement or situation perpetrated on my native friends in my constituency.
The leaders who are urging us to activate this agreement by passing this bill have, in my opinion, not considered the long-range implications and effects of what they have signed. Their eyes have been blinded by a promise of instant wealth and prosperity, and long-range guarantees which are no more valid in this agreement than they were in treaties which their forefathers signed 100 years ago. The difference is that this agreement, if in fact it is legal, which I doubt, constitutes a sellout of the birthright of our indigenous people in this country, and that includes the birthright of generations not yet born.
I understand all the human factors involved. I know what it is like to anticipate. I understand how they feel; being on welfare for five generations; being a member of a family of five and each will receive $10,000, which is just around the corner and all that is holding it up is the passage of this bill in the House of Commons. I understand all that. This would amount to $50,000. Just imagine what it will do. It will buy a brand new house, two new ski-doos, and all the things the people have always wanted for their families and loved ones.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, when the new house needs repairs and the ski-doos have run out of gas? What happens after the years have passed and new generations have come along and want to cash in on their birthright?
Let me talk a little bit about the area that is to be affected. The James Bay agreement represents the surrender of native rights over a huge territory which Indians have been using and occupying fully since time immemorial. It extinguishes all native land claims in Quebec north of the fifty-fifth parallel,

and any south of that arising from the project. The James Bay development projects will affect drainage areas stretching from a point 200 miles north of Montreal up to Ungava Bay, a distance of 1,000 miles.
The agreement affects roughly 10,000 people; 6,500 Cree Indians and 3,500 Inuit. In addition, of course, there is an unidentified number of others who can and have been designated as non-status and Metis. In modern terms they have been identified as the forgotten people. They have been identified in that way because the provincial and federal governments have forgotten that they exist. I am afraid now that some of their own brothers may have forgotten that they live in the area as well and should have their interests protected.
For the most part this population in northern Quebec has maintained a traditional way of life in which the main economic pursuits are fishing, hunting and trapping. This native lifestyle has as its elements freedom to move over ancestral lands, to use these lands fully, and to maintain an identity, culture and language. Both Indians and Inuit are recognized as special federal responsibilities under section 91(24) of the British North America Act. This section specifies that the federal government is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians, the designation "Indians" being extended by a later Supreme Court decision to include the Inuit as well. Responsibility has also been interpreted by subsequent court decisions to include lands occupied and used by Indians which are not necessarily reserves as defined by treaties or the Indian Act. Responsibility for Indians, moreover, is taken by most legal experts to mean Indians wherever they may happen to live; on reserves or away from them.
Although the applicability of section 91(24) to non-status Indians and Metis has never been the subject of a court decision, there are legal grounds for believing that this constitutional reference would be found to apply. There are grounds, therefore, for arguing that non-status and Metis people also have a stake in special status as one of their future options. Given this possibility, they should have a legitimate cause for concern if the actions of a province or the federal government had the effect of forever closing the door on such an option. The James Bay settlement in effect does this very thing in northern Quebec. The principle of native title is well established. As a matter of fact I question the constitutionality of this agreement on the following grounds, namely, the principles established by the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 and other similar acts, and a variety of court decisions upholding the British North America Act in subsequent years.
Let me review briefly, Mr. Speaker, the legal proceedings leading to the James Bay agreement. In May, 1972, the Crees and Inuit of northern Quebec launched a court action to have Bill 50, which was an act respecting the development of the James Bay area, declared unconstitutional. They asked for a permanent order of injunction to halt all work on the James Bay project. The action was taken against the James Bay Development Corporation, the James Bay Energy Corpora-
December 8, 1976

tion, Hydro-Quebec, and a number of other contractors engaged in the project. The hearings on the petition began in November, 1972, and lasted till June, 1973.
The basic native position was that they had territorial rights in those areas which would be affected by the development. It was argued that these rights were reflected in the terms of the statute of 1912, the Quebec Northern Boundaries Extension Act, which transferred a part of the territory to Quebec. This act stipulated that:
. .. the Province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory above described to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights and has obtained surrender thereof, and the said Province shall hear and satisfy all charges and expenditures in connection with or arising out of such surrenders.
The southern part of the James Bay area had been transferred to Quebec in 1898 without any undertakings from the province to recognize native rights. Nevertheless, the native people claimed rights in this particular territory, too. They referred to an Imperial Order-in-Council transferring Ruperts Land from the Hudson's Bay Company to Canada; a federal order in council of May 2, 1910, which commented on a January 17, 1910, order in council and stated that the act of 1898 did not give any land to the province of Quebec free from the burden of Indian title; the Dominion Lands Acts which stipulated that none of the provisions of these acts applied to territories where Indian title was not extinguished; and treaty making as a policy of the federal government was held to be a clear recognition of aboriginal title. Of course, Mr. Speaker, all of their arguments were valid and well founded.
The native people claimed that the James Bay development was resulting in substantial harm and disruption to their way of life. They insisted, moreover, that they had never surrendered their rights, and therefore the lands in question belonged to them and could not be used without prior agreement.
On November 15, 1973, Mr. Justice Malouf of the Superior Court of Quebec heard the case and ruled in favour of the native people's position. The judge held that since the native people of James Bay had never signed treaties ceding their land, they had rights to the land, including the right to fish, hunt and trap there. He considered the question of the "balance of convenience" on which the various development corporations placed great emphasis in putting forth their case. In effect, they argued that there would be great monetary loss suffered by them if work was stopped in midstream. The judge rejected this argument because he believed it would establish an unusual principle in dealings with native people; it would permit a person to change the status quo prior to or pending a court hearing and subsequently plead "balance of convenience". The injunction was therefore granted, ordering the developers to "cease, desist and refrain from interfering in any way with the petitioners'-native-rights, from trespassing in the said territory, and from causing damage to the environmental and natural resources of the said territory".
The case was appealed immediately. The Court of Appeal suspended Judge Maloufs order of injunction, permitting work to be resumed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court
James Bay Agreement
of Canada. The Court of Appeal, in effect, denied the principle that the rights of a weak party should be balanced against those of a strong one by accepting the "balance of convenience" doctrine. These judges believed that the inconvenience of Indians as a result of the project was less than the inconvenience of stopping the work at high cost and in the face of growing energy need in Quebec. The judges did not, of course, consider that the right way to go about this would have been to ask the Indians before the project started, so that this inconvenience would not have resulted either to the companies concerned or to the people of Quebec.
On December 21, 1973, in a three to two decision, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, thus forcing the native people to negotiate. The natives of James Bay learned, in fact, that once the project had been started in their territory there was nothing they could do to stop it. There was nothing they could do, moreover, to re-assert the rights which the construction of the project was violating. They had to negotiate- literally with a gun at their heads.
Let me talk briefly about the settlement, Mr. Speaker. On November 11, 1975, a final agreement was signed by which the native people of northern Quebec surrendered their rights to the territory forever. The agreement provides for a cash settlement and certain land rights-$225 million to be paid over many years, and retention as owners, surface title only- and that is important-of less than 2 per cent of traditionally used lands. The money does not amount to much, regardless of how anxious they are to receive it. Discounting the current cash value, it works out to about $10,000 per capita. I have to add that, of course, the words "per capita" apply only if the status Indians and Inuit are considered. However, if status Indians were to share this bounty with some of their non-status brothers, this figure of course would be reduced.
As we know, in the agreement land is divided into three categories. In category 1 the lands are those immediately surrounding the existing community. The native people affected by the agreement have exclusive right to about 5,000 square miles, representing for the most part existing communities. Exclusive rights really mean that these lands will be treated in a way similar to municipalities. When the minister leads us to believe that these lands will be treated in a way similar to existing reservations, he is, of course, misleading us. The agreement does not establish any reserves as was done under earlier treaties.
Category 2 land covers about 60,000 square miles and is available for hunting, trapping and fishing. Presumably permission to use these lands for these purposes could be gradually withdrawn, either as the native lifestyle fades over the years or when more pressing uses for this land occur.
Land in category 3 is the balance of the land and it covers around 250,000 square miles. On these lands the native people will have no rights whatsoever. The land settlement does not provide any sub-surface right in any of the categories of land.
80005-461/2

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
Native people will therefore have no claim to oil or minerals already discovered or to be found.
In summary, therefore, of a total of around 315,000 square miles of territory to which the native people have rights, they have retained about 2 per cent of the land on which to live, and 25 per cent of the land on which to hunt, trap and fish. The balance of about 73 per cent has been given up for development purposes. In effect, under the agreement the province of Quebec has reorganized the territory and set up institutions and structures which are subject to provincial control only.
On June 30, 1976, bill 12 of the National Assembly of Quebec, an act approving the agreement concerning James Bay in northern Quebec, was passed. I should like to read some quotes here because the bill passed through the provincial house and some interesting statements were made there which I should like to place on the record. They were made in committee by one John Ciaccia, a former employee of the provincial government concerned with matters to do with Indians. This is what he said as he tried to steer the bill through the provincial legislature:
This means that where facilities such as schools and hospitals already exist under federal jurisdiction in native communities, they will be transferred to the jurisdiction of Quebec. In the case of certain federal programs already operating, the Quebec government will assume the responsibility for them.
The next sentence is very significant. He said:
This agreement will in fact take precedence over the federal Indian Act.
Bill C-9, the federal counterpart of Bill 32 in Quebec, has received first reading in parliament and is now before us for second reading. When it receives second reading and final approval, the James Bay agreement will be fully implemented.
Let me talk about some of the implications of the agreement. The agreement represents a regional abdication of the philosophy and intent of the federal government's White paper of 1969. The White paper was designed to terminate federal responsibility for Indians by doing away with the constitutional reference to Indians; by eliminating the Indian act; by doing away with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; by removing federal protection of reserve lands by turning them over to Indians in fee simple; and by transferring all program responsibilities to the provinces.
When we talk about turning over the program responsibilities to the provinces, we have to consider the fact that we are now dealing with a province which is identified is a press statement issued yesterday by the Native Council of Canada as follows:
The federal government has no right to sign over its responsibilities for the Indian and Eskimo lands in any part of Canada to a jurisdiction whose avowed goal is independence from federal authority. Previous guarantees and safeguards built into the proposed agreement are meaningless in a Quebec that may not, in the future, be part of Canada under the constitutional authority of a federal government.
We are talking about the surrendering of the federal government's responsibility for native people to a government which said publicly and as a matter of policy that any agreement with the federal government at this time will be viewed by this government as interim at best, and that they have no intention

of honouring any of these agreements once they have achieved their avowed goal. I would ask my native friends to consider that.
I too believe that this new government in Quebec may be more conscious of its social responsibilities and may be better prepared to respond to the special needs of my native friends. But who are we dealing with? How long will we deal with that government, and what safeguards can we build in, in light of what we have been confronted with after the election in the province of Quebec, which is now governed by a separatist government? Of course the native people may argue that they cannot be any worse off than they were before, and I agree with them on that, but I would like to ask them whether, having waited 100 years, they would not want to wait two more years to check the record and see what we on this side of the House have achieved for them in the last three years. Let them check the commitments we have made to them and the policy that we have developed to deal with the very special needs throughout our country, not the special needs in northern Quebec but the needs of all our indigenous people regardless of where they live.
The James Bay agreement has brought about all these measures for the native people of northern Quebec through an agreement which takes precedence over federal, legal, constitutional and historical jurisdiction over the native people, by avoiding the creation of reserve lands which would have had a special protective status, and by leaving the entire responsibility for the native people to the province. In other words, special status or the possibility of special status for our native people will be eliminated by this agreement.
Contrary to the rhetoric of the agreement, it is purely assimilationist in its approach, and if the native people have made a commitment to assimilate and integrate into our society and if they are ready for all the consequences which will flow from that, I say the agreement is good. However, they must allow me and some of my colleagues to express some doubt.
The institutions and structures which the agreement sets up provide for non native participation in a manner which will leave most native communities defenceless in the face of a large influx of people from the south. Those native people who are unwilling or unable to assimilate will be left on the fringes as dispossessed outsiders looking in. In the circumstances it seems reasonable to expect frustration, loss of pride, hostility, and all the social, economic and psychological problems which plague many of the native communities further south.
The James Bay agreement is just as iniquitous and one sided as nineteenth century treaties which were forced on natives under former colonial regimes. Yet there is some tendency on the part of the federal government to set this agreement up as a model which can be followed in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia and elsewhere. I am serving notice on this government right now that when this kind of
December 8, 1976

thing is proposed to the people I represent, the government will have to deal with me.
Native resistance to intrusions on to their lands will have to cease being a rearguard action if native identity and native rights are to survive into the next century. The process of extinguishing, in northern Quebec, native rights of possession and use of their lands also includes, under the agreement, the termination of existing and potential special status for these native people under the constitution and the Indian Act.
I would like to read the full text of the press release which was issued yesterday by the Native Council of Canada, which represents all those people who are not recognized under the Indian Act as being status Indians. However, they have the same problems and the same difficulties in finding their way in this complex society which we have established on this continent, finding their way into the institutions which are set up to service this society and the people within it, and finding their way into an equal partnership which they will eventually need if they wish to establish a brighter future for their future generations. I am going to read this statement because I do not think the press, which received it at twelve o'clock yesterday, has featured it in any publication which I saw this morning. That shows that neither this institution nor society as a whole is aware of the real problem. I quote from the statement as follows:
Legislation is now before the Parliament of Canada to ratify an agreement signed last year between the Cree and Inuit people of northern Quebec on the one hand, and the government of Quebec on the other. The native council believes that parliament should not move quickly to approve this agreement because of the dramatic political changes which resulted in the election of a separatist government in the province of Quebec. As matters now stand there is absolutely no guarantee that native rights can be safeguarded in the event that a new political structure is in place in Quebec two years from now.
The federal government has no right to sign over its responsibilities for Indian and Eskimo lands in any part of Canada to a jurisdiction whose avowed goal is independence from the federal authority. Previous guarantees and safeguards built into the proposed agreement are meaningless in a Quebec that may not, in the future, be part of Canada under the constitutional authority of a federal government.
The whole matter should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee, prior to second reading of the enabling legislation, for the purpose of exploring several new options:
1.	Re-examination to determine that all guarantees, safeguards and commitments undertaken by the government of Quebec will be maintained by any future political jurisdiction in Quebec.
2.	Re-negotiation of the agreement with ail native people in northern Quebec to ascertain if they wish to cede their lands and territories to a political jurisdiction committed to independence from the federal government. Logically, the native people should, at the very least, be entitled to a referendum within two years to decide their future participation in confederation.
3.	Re-assessment of the terms of the proposed agreement to ensure that the rights of the Metis and non-status Indians of the territory and several other groups of Indian people not included at present are safeguarded by any new or revised agreement that may result.
The Parliament of Canada is the guardian of the native people and the lands they occupy and cannot, under any circumstances, divest itself of federal responsibilities for these groups. A full inquiry is essential! No amount of pressure, from whatever source, should force the Parliament of Canada into a hasty ratification of an agreement that will allow the Quebec jurisdiction to extinguish rights of the native people to land they have used since time immemorial.
James Bay Agreement
I agree that the Quebec election has added a new dimension to the James Bay agreement. I endorse the statement made by the Native Council of Canada yesterday that there should be no rush to get this passed and that there is time for a sober second look at what went on in the province of Quebec. We will have to continue to safeguard the rights of native people. This government has no right to abrogate its responsibility to native people and pass it on to a province, particularly a province which has as its avowed goal separation from confederation.
How can we possibly safeguard rights and how can we insist on the provisions of this agreement if separation should in fact take place? Even if it does not, does this agreement not open the doors to a whole series of constitutional conflicts which will arise?
I wish to quote from statements made during the debate by our friend in Quebec who acted as the special representative of Premier Bourassa to negotiate on his behalf the James Bay agreement. He said this:
We have negotiated with two minorities which felt themselves threatened with extinction. The Native peoples are battling for their survival. If the state does not succeed in establishing principles aimed at assuring the survival of these minorities it could well happen that we might not even be able to guarantee our own.
He was speaking for the government of Quebec. He was concerned about the survival of his own society. What guarantee can the province of Quebec give us-even if it does not separate-that it will continue to safeguard the commitment made to our native brothers, to our friends, to the indigenous people who have lived in this country since time immemorial?
The James Bay agreement will probably be ratified, because my experience in this House teaches me that when this government has made up its mind, little happens to change it. I would warn my native brothers, however, that the waters will continue to flow, the wind will continue to blow, and the sun will continue to shine. But I wonder if the sun will shine as brightly when future generations are born as it was shining before this agreement was signed and ratified by this House. I wonder if the waters will be as clear and as sparkling as they were, after they have sold out all their rights. I wonder if the wind will be as pure and as fresh as it is now. I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to give a warning to my native friends. When we reassess this decision ten, 15 or 20 years from now, when the snowmobile needs a new belt and the house needs new windows, I should like to be on record as having told them of the mistake they were making.
I agree that no option was open to them. They probably achieved the best agreement possible when the gun was at their head. But, Mr. Speaker, they did not come and ask us for help when we were ready to fight for them. We offered our help and told them that together we could have achieved a better agreement. Maybe we could have delayed the project a little, but we were not asked for help. I am afraid the leaders

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
who have been hailed as the authors of this agreement in this House must have been blinded by the instant prosperity offered to them. I am afraid their days will not be as bright when they try to explain what happened in the James Bay area to their children and their children's children.
I do not know what will happen to this bill in committee, Mr. Speaker, but this party is committed to some very significant amendments. I appeal again to those who negotiated the treaty to sit down with us and help us fight these amendments through the committee stage. There is still time to build in some safeguards. We respect their decision, but we seek their help because we cannot do this alone. We might need them to voice their opinion to our friends opposite, who respond to political expediency and political pressure. We will put up a fight in committee but we cannot do it alone. I am afraid this bill will pass, as does any other to which the government has put its mind. With many of my colleagues on this side of the House I consider this to be one of the dark days for all natives, all Indian people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in this parliament we used to have a procedure of debating resolutions prior to the introduction of specific bills. As I listened to this debate which has been going on since last evening it seemed to me too bad that most of the speeches could not have been made before the introduction of the bill. There might have been some amendments that would have made the legislation more useful and helpful in light of the needs of the native people across Canada.
Some very interesting statements have been made, however. It is interesting that the emphasis has been on the precedent that will be established by this major initiative on the part of the government for a rather substantial land settlement. This could become the basis for future negotiations of land settlements, many of which are in process or on the horizon. I hope government supporters will enter the debate and indicate that they are just as concerned as the opposition about the needs and welfare of this very significant minority group-in fact the most important minority group of Canada, the native people. I hope that my hon. friend, the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) will enter the debate. On many occasions I have heard him say that the problem with all the native people in this country, and particularly with regard to land claims, arises from the fact that they did not have a more effective immigration policy back in the early days. If they had, of course we would not be in this parliament today discussing the important issues of native land claims.
The reason so much concern is expressed by spokesmen on the opposition side is because this country's record with respect to native land rights has not been good. There is some justification for the native people being suspicious of the motives of the present legislation. It is understandable that the Native Brotherhood presses for careful consideration of the terms of the bill. This will certainly be the posture of members of the opposition as the bill goes through the various stages.

The Brotherhood is engaged in an amendment or complete replacement of the Indian Act-which is really a white man's act for Indians as the Indians never had any input. Many of the precedents that will be established if this bill is approved will have a serious impact on the final recommendations of the Brotherhood with respect to an adequate Indian Act, one which will arise out of the input of the native people themselves.
I speak as a member from western Canada where there is a fairly substantial Indian population. There are two reservations in my constituency, both made up of the Sioux band. Long before I came into this parliament I was concerned about conditions on these reservations, and as minister for northern affairs and national resources in a previous government I found that the same situations that existed in my constituency unfortunately and tragically applied right across this great country of ours.
The initial land settlements obviously did not favour the native people who were exploited by means of treaties and material allurements which, to put it mildly, represented downright theft and hypocrisy on the part of the original negotiators of the treaties. Aboriginal rights were never dealt with in any of those treaties concerning western land settlements, as I have examined them.
Only because of the role of the RCMP, originally the North West Mounted Police, in these negotiations, a role which led to the establishment of trust and confidence among the native peoples, was it relatively easy to persuade the native peoples on the prairies to enter into totally inadequate land settlement agreements. What happened was not the fault of the RCMP. They did not do the negotiating, but they established the basis for the trust and confidence which, from the white man's viewpoint, made the successful negotiations possible. I must say that Canada's reputation in this regard is better than that of the United States, because land exploitation there was accompanied by violence, even military action. That never occurred in the wide open spaces of western Canada. I use the phrase "wide open spaces" because the particular territory involved in the agreement now before the House is an area of wide open spaces so far as population is concerned. We are considering an area the population of which is between 20,000 and 30,000 people.
Perhaps because the sense of guilt of the United States government was stronger than that of the Canadian government, authorities in that country moved more quickly than we did to deal with land claim settlements and to renegotiate land claims. They have had a land claims commission functioning for a number of years, and major land concessions and settlements have been made.
Canada attempted to follow the same pattern by adopting almost the same formula, because in 1963 there was legislation before parliament to set up a land claims commission. The idea in setting up a commission was to establish a body which would have sufficient manpower and legal expertise to apply
December 8, 1976

policies, decisions and agreements consistently right across the country. Unfortunately there was a change of government in 1963 and legislation to set up the land claims commission did not proceed. Instead the new Liberal government chose to proceed on an ad hoc basis by appointing a land claims commissioner, in the person of Dr. Barber. He has since that time been compiling information on the various land claim issues across the country.
If I may speak to the agreement before the House, I strongly agree with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), who made an excellent presentation to the House last night. He said that we must give this issue our earnest and careful consideration because we are making major decisions about the future of a minority group in this country. And we are pausing to consider the question carefully and earnestly because of the bad record of the past, to which I briefly referred earlier. For, out of those earlier agreements came poverty, poor housing and a shocking infant mortality rate. There was ill health which resulted in a mortality rate of almost astronomical proportions when compared with rates of other parts of the community. All those things are a matter of record, and have been a matter of frequent public discussion across this country.
Because of the attitude of the Canadian government and of Canadians toward the land settlement issue, the native peoples have been exploited. But some improvements have been made in recent years; some important initiatives have come to the fore. Wishing to take the initiative, we decided to launch a massive attack on tuberculosis, a dangerous disease which was infesting our native peoples. I remembered that until 30 years ago pundits had been saying that the native problem would disappear in due course because the native people were a vanishing people, largely because of the crisis of disease. That attitude was callous, cold and cruel; but the question was mentioned in those terms just 30 or 40 years ago in this country.
Today the native people are no longer a vanishing people. Actually, they have this country's highest birth rate. It was one of the encouraging aspects of my ministerial responsibility that I should be involved in this major attack on tuberculosis; now, the disease has been practically eradicated both from the native Indian people and from the Inuit people as well.
Housing has improved; that is much to be desired. There has been major emphasis on improved housing for the native peoples. As well, the question of education has come into focus. In my constituency, at Brandon University-the Chancellor of Brandon University is present in the House in the person of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I am sure he will agree with what I shall say- major educational emphasis today is placed on native studies programs. At present some 350 native people are on course in that institution in various departments of study. They will be majoring in educational training so that they, themselves, can go out into the native communities, particularly northern communities, and become involved in the educational process
James Bay Agreement
of those native communities. These are improvements. We hope that this pattern will continue in future.
It is in the light of the new approach on the part of governments that I approach at this time the consideration of the implications of Bill C-9. It deals with major areas of concern. It will take a lot of unravelling to undo the wrongs of the early treaties on the prairies. Dr. Barber has been collecting dossiers on this matter for at least ten years. The process of settling the land agreements, trying to redress some of the wrongs that were committed in the early days, is going to be a long and tedious one.
The major areas of concern are in the northern parts of Canada. The native people, the Indians of northern or nouveau Quebec, as that part of the province of Quebec is sometimes referred to, the Indians and the Inuit of the Northwest Territories, and the Indian population of the Yukon, all these groups are now in the midst of very important and delicate negotiations on native land claims which will be influenced very strongly by the approach that this parliament takes to the legislation before us and the final decisions that will be made.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who just spoke, said that we will be introducing many amendments in an attempt to improve the legislation. That is certainly true. We are hoping too that there will be some representations from native organizations and groups so there will be a direct input from that source. We are not quite convinced that the total story, presented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) yesterday, has been brought before the House.
One of the treaty negotiations that will be strongly influenced by the decisions that are made with regard to Bill C-9 is the final resolution of treaties 8 and 11 as they apply north of the sixtieth parallel. Negotiation has been going on for a number of years. The whole thing has been brought into focus because of the Berger inquiry in connection with decisions on the pipeline along the Mackenzie River.
I remember during the time I was involved in the negotiations that we were very careful to avoid the decision where treaties 8 and 11 would be dealt with by an isolated financial settlement. It is fine to have a substantial sum of money given in a lump sum, or even over a period of time. However, to my mind that is not the best way of dealing with some of the problems that occurred in earlier land settlements which led to the degradation of the native population, one of the great shames of this country. I know there are some recommendations that it should be made on a per capita cash settlement basis, each native in the land area concerned being granted a specific cash settlement. Some have even suggested that we go back to the old reserve system. Therefore, there are all sorts of choices in this regard. In the decisions made with the natives involved in the James Bay power development area, there were some overtones of this thinking. There are patterns that have been affected by past experience. These are the patterns we want to avoid.

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
For example, it was not because of the concern and the initiative of the federal government that we arrived at the present situation in so far as achieving an agreement of land claim settlements. We know it is only under pressure that the federal government has become involved in the negotiations.
Initially the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was very reluctant to acknowledge the fact of aboriginal rights. I remember a visit to northern Manitoba in 1968. At that time a power development was very much on the minds of the native people in northern Manitoba. The provincial government was going forward with a massive power development on the Churchill and Nelson Rivers. The native people, in an audience with the Prime Minister, were pressing the claims of aboriginal rights. The response of the Prime Minister at that time was that they should forget these rights and become good Canadians like the rest of us and be a part of the great Canadian community.
It was only after the Nishga settlement that the Prime Minister changed his mind. Speaking to them directly, he said perhaps they have more legal rights than we originally thought. There was not any great anxiety and concern on the part of the highest level of leadership in this country to assure, spontaneously and from a thorough knowledge of the situation, the rights of the native people with regard to the James Bay power development.
At the provincial level the decision to proceed with the development has been put before this House by at least two speakers. It was made without any reference to or negotiation with the native people in the James Bay area. It completely ignored the guarantees under the 1912 Extension of Boundaries Act. The earlier act did not even take those rights into consideration because we were still in the era which was typical of land settlements on the prairies. The white man proceeded as if it was his divine right to move in and occupy these territories.
The decision on the part of the Quebec government and the James Bay Power Corporation to go ahead with the project had been made on the basis of an election promise. This was in spite of technical advice to the contrary. I repeat that the posture of Ottawa at that time was to maintain, as the hon. member for Lambton-Kent described it last evening, alert neutrality and silence.
I know we have a new Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Allmand). He has a reputation for humanitarian considerations. However, he was a member of the cabinet at that time and these matters would have been discussed around the cabinet table. He was also a member of parliament from the province of Quebec. Therefore he should have had particular insight into what was taking place in this regard, even back in those early days of the seventies.
It was the native people themselves who took action. One of the encouraging aspects of the whole episode is that the native people had enough knowledge, background, and gumption to get into action and call for an injunction. The decision of Mr. Justice Malouf was one of historic significance. He gave an injunction favourable to the native people of the northern part of Quebec. Since that time the native people have been able to

put forward fairly substantial material to support their position. But it should still be remembered that it has been a case almost of negotiating with a gun at their heads because both the provincial and federal governments had indicated they were going ahead, in typically irresponsible fashion, without reference to the native people at all until the people themselves took action in their own defence.
I do not intend to go into the details of the legislation; there are others who wish to take part in the debate. What concerns me is the emphasis which is placed on monetary settlements. That is fine, as long as monetary settlements are directed toward meeting the real needs of the native people-if they are to be used to establish health programs, housing programs, and educational programs which will enable the communities to avoid the degradation which arose in the early days of native land settlements. Funds could be used to ensure that natives in the area concerned will have a continuing opportunity for employment, which has not been the case in the past in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon. Even with the best of intentions on the part of governments it has not been possible to bring the native people into the mainstream of 20th Century industrial economic life. The situation has largely been brought about by failure to understand sufficiently the real needs of the native people.
These are some of the aspects of the legislation to which I shall be giving special attention. One of the areas of concern which has already been dealt with is the transfer of responsibility from the federal to the provincial level. I believe some amendment will be needed in this regard because the course now proposed violates the fundamental protection provided for the native people in the constitution, according to which the senior level of government is ultimately responsible for the well being of the native people.
The minister makes much of the fact that most of the communities in the north have voted in favour of the agreement, but I am reminded that there are many kinds of voting. I recall talking at the United Nations to a delegate from one of the countries which happened to be behind the Iron Curtain. He was a gentleman very learned in jurisprudence, and I told him I was amazed that he followed so supinely in his voting activities the directions of a certain power which had strong influence on his delegation-I am not mentioning countries or persons, I am merely illustrating a principle. He defended himself by saying, "You in the western democracies misunderstand what is happening behind the Iron Curtain. You boast about the secret ballot. When you vote, only you know who or what you are voting for. Behind the Iron Curtain we have carried that procedure to a far higher level of secrecy. When we vote, we do not even know who or want we are voting for." I am just wondering how much of that guided democracy has gone into the decision made by the native people in this regard. If it is that sort of direction, by handing out monetary rewards, I think it is the worst kind of paternalism and should be avoided at any cost.
December 8, 1976

At this stage of the discussion nothing more needs to be said. We have expressed our concern. This is a precedent which can have enormous significance for the other land claim issues which are before the people and the Government of Canada at the moment, and we want to make sure that in every respect and by all possible means the rights and privileges of the native people will be respected right down to dotting the last "i" and crossing the last "t".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us this afternoon a bill which marks another sad chapter in the history of negotiations between the white man and the native people of Canada. As my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories stated in the debate last night, we in the NDP have serious reservations about Bill C-9, the manner in which the James Bay agreement was brought about, and the implications for future land settlements in this country.
Bill C-9 sets an important precedent, and will cost the native people a very high price. The native people in the area saw the tremendous injustice of what was done to them, and when I hear them tell their story I am reminded very strongly of a Biblical parable. We read in the Book of Genesis that those who lived in the Garden of Eden lived in harmony with their environment. Look at the people of James Bay and see how they have been in harmony with their environment, respecting the land and adapting to what it provides for them. They have protected it well, and the environment in turn has treated them well. Listen to statements such as one made by a great trapper, Joe Bearskin, who says:
This land is our garden. In this garden, things grow and multiply. The Indians are one of the things which grow there. We all love our garden.
Observations such as these bring home to those of us who live in the white community how important hunting, fishing and trapping rights are to native people who need those rights not only as a means of sustenance but also as a means of preserving their ancient culture and identity as a people who use only what they need, so that the land and the animals on it may replenish themselves. The land is their livelihood. It is an insurance policy not only for themselves and their children but for their children's children. It is a very precious element of their culture. Faraway governments here and in Quebec City are making decisions which will affect these people not only today but for generations to come.
This James Bay development is a modern day flood affecting the people in that area in no less dimension than the flood of ancient times as recorded in the Book of Genesis. We have here in the James Bay development proposal in northern Quebec a project that will flood an area of over 20,000 square miles, larger than Nova Scotia. It will divert numerous rivers; it will destroy fish spawning grounds; it will destroy wild fowl nesting areas and the habitat of animals; it will alter the migration of many animals, the deer, the moose and the caribou; it will divert the food resources of the natives, and in
James Bay Agreement
many respects force many to rely on alternative means of subsistence, the white man's food, for which the native people must pay cash. It is a flood that will cover potential mineral and forest reserves. It is a flood of immense proportions. As one of the residents, a trapper by the name of William Matoush, says:
When we don't kill so many beaver as we could, it is like putting something away in the bank. The beaver are our savings. Now if the white man is going to come and flood the land he is wiping out our savings.
We have a new flood; a flood designed coldly and calculatingly by the James Bay Development Corporation. The repercussions are going to be immense. As one anthropologist, Dr. Richard Salisbury of McGill University, reported, after leading a task force study of the area:
Any reduction of the supply of bush foods would clearly have an effect on the economy of the local people, especially in terms of the quality of the diet.
The replacement of a high quality meat diet by a diet of low quality store-bought carbohydrates is a phenomenon that has been reported throughout the Third World as a reaction to urbanization, and that has seriously lowered health and nutritional standards . . .
Existing levels of cash earnings and transfer payments are tolerable while costs for food can be kept at a minimum and diet kept at a high quality through hunting ... Once subsistence hunting is let go, the northern people are involved in a downward spiral of dependency, with wages in the north never catching up with the built-in inflation of prices in the area.
Faced with this modern day flood, what is the ark that the Cree and Inuit of James Bay are forced to take refuge in? What kind of alternative salvation to the massive development project is there that they have to accept? It is known as the James Bay Corporation, or the James Bay treaty as it really turns out to be, and the complementary legislation in this federal parliament, Bill C-9.
In return for this development the native people of the area have been forced to give up their aboriginal rights over a huge territory they have been using since time immemorial. In return they are granted small reserves, or land analogous to reserves. They are given temporary guarantees of exclusive hunting rights in the surrendered part of the territory until such time as it is needed for occupation and settlement by white society. They are given local government and control over education, administration and justice, and they are also given a cash settlement, as in the old treaties; a cash settlement of approximately $10 million a year for the next 20 years, or a cash settlement that works out to about $1.50 per acre of the land that has been signed away. That is the ark; that is the refuge that the native people have been forced into because of the flood of the modern day James Bay development.
I use the word "forced" because that is what has happened. The native people were forced into accepting the settlement and not given time to negotiate the best kind of deal possible for the people in the area. Certainly once their injunction against the project had been overturned in the courts it appeared inevitable that they had no alternative but to accept the proposal put forward by the James Bay Development Corporation. There were no meaningful negotiations, in my opinion, in the entire history of this development. There were

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
token negotiations. It was made to appear that the Indian and Inuit people were being consulted.
When you look at the history of this sad case of white exploitation of the people in the area, I do not see how anyone could conclude that negotiations were in any way meaningful or just, because at the same time that supposed real negotiations were taking place between the native people and the James Bay Development Corporation, that same corporation was beginning construction on native land without native permission. In other words, they were proceeding on a course that would present the original inhabitants of that area with a fait accompli. It soon became apparent to the Cree and the Inuit people of the area that it would be a fruitless course to proceed further in the courts to halt the project after Justice MalouPs decision or injunction granting a temporary halt to the development was overturned.
The courts definitely appeared unsympathetic. The federal government, which should have been acting on the natives' behalf, was becoming impatient. There were veiled threats to withdraw the federal funding that was helping the native people conduct their research and other support activities.
The history of the development in that area, without meaningful consultation and without giving the native people time to do all the necessary environmental and economical assessment, is indeed a sad one. Let us briefly look at the series of events which illustrate how meaningless the negotiations were, and how the native people always had their backs to the wall.
In April of 1971 the Quebec Liberal government first announced the grandiose James Bay project. In July of that same year a number of Indian chiefs of the James Bay area petitioned the federal government to stop the project. No action was taken by the federal government. This was the first sign that the federal government was abrogating its responsibilities under the British North America Act and subsequent legislation to have a direct input into this development because it affected native people.
The Indian Act, the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Canada Water Act-any of these instruments could have been used by the federal government to get the government involved in the project, so it could demand of the government of Quebec that the project be halted until meaningful studies had been done by the native people, and alternative proposals to the James Bay development projects as then conceived could be presented. But there was no such action on the part of the federal Liberal government. It sat back and delegated its responsibility to a provincial government that was closing its ears to the pleas of the native people in the area that elementary justice be done.
By the end of 1971, Mr. Speaker, work had begun on the project without consultation with the native people. By January 6, 1973, 175 miles of access roads had been completed, and contracts had been let for the remaining 260 miles. In June, 1973, docks and wharves had been built on Fort Georgia

Island ready to receive heavy equipment. The first dam reservoir was built at site LG-2, delivery of the equipment was completed by April, 1973, construction of the portals begun by May, 1973, and tunnel construction was begun in October, 1973. All of this preparatory work, moving of equipment and commitment of money, was undertaken before any settlement had been reached with the native people. The native people were being forced to negotiate with a gun to their heads; they could see the development already starting in the area, without any formal authorization or a treaty having been signed. Not only was construction of the dams begun, but by 1973, 20,000 tons of equipment and material had been moved into the area; in 1974 the amount increased to 75,000 tons. Planning was also under way for transmission lines.
That illustrates, Mr. Speaker, what was going on and the kind of intense pressure that was being put on the native people. In fact they were presented with a fait accompli. They were told "You can negotiate according to what we, the James Bay Development Corporation, want in terms of a timetable; or you can refuse to negotiate and the project will go ahead anyway." What kind of meaningful negotiation and elementary justice is that, Mr. Speaker?
So on one hand we have a $16 billion hydroelectric project, all the might and talent available to the huge corporate interests which were pushing ahead with the project; on the other hand, you have a few thousand native people caught off guard, expected to do in a few months the kind of research and prepare the kind of case that it had taken these companies three years to do prior to 1971. At the same time the native people were given a deadline; they had to sign an agreement by November 1, 1975.
The native people were in the process of negotiating away their birthright, not with the Government of Canada-as was the obligation under the legislation-not directly with the government of Quebec, but with a Crown corporation. What kind of indication is this of the seriousness and respect that white governments show the native people in the area? It is a very sad commentary indeed.
The native people were given two years to complete their study on land use and the environmental effects of the project. I suggest the period was completely inadequate. At the same time that they were supposed to complete their study the project was pushing ahead. Construction of the dams was proceeding, and equipment was moving into the area. How could there be a real consultative process going on with the people of the area who were scattered across a vast region in small communities, many out on the traplines? How could the implications of this complicated agreement be brought home to all these people in time? There is no human or physical way that that could be done.
I am convinced that the treaty will be viewed by future generations as a tragedy, as an illustration of how the people of the day in that area were forced, without any real option at their disposal, to sign away their birthright. I hope that the provisions in the bill, some of which are commendable in terms of granting more local autonomy and giving opportunity for
December 8, 1976

development of the native people, will offset what I see as the great disadvantage, but 1 am pessimistic that they will. So in view of the terms of the bill and what they mean for the future of the people of the James Bay area, I can only conclude that their future is rather pessimistic unless there is a real change in the way governments from this point on start to honour their agreements and commitments, and begin to treat Canada's first citizens in a just and fair manner.
The ramifications of the James Bay development must certainly go beyond simply native rights. I question the project not only on social, legal and humane grounds, but also on economic grounds. First of all, there has been no adequate environmental study done on the effect of the flooding of the area. There has been no complete environmental study done on the ecosystems, not only in the immediate James Bay area but in areas beyond the actual project itself. The project will have severe ramifications for northern Quebec and northeastern Ontario.
No studies have been done into what this massive flooding will do to the climate of the region. It could be altered immeasurably and have consequences not only for the people of the immediate area but for southern Quebec and elsewhere, in the form of a climatic change that would affect crops, snowfall or rain. Surely with a project of this magnitude we should expect a thorough environmental analysis, but one has not been done.
So far as the financing of this $16 billion project is concerned, many serious questions remain unanswered-for example, the actual cost allocation and the ramifications of the cost upon the Canadian economy. Money has had to be borrowed from outside Canada to help finance this project, but the interest, of course, has to be paid by Canadian taxpayers. The importation of vast amounts of capital for the James Bay area is surely one of the factors which have put pressure on the Canadian dollar and caused its recent devaluation, with all kinds of implications of higher import prices on products used by Canadians.
The question has to be asked whether the $16 billion, or portions of it, could not have been far better spent on alternative energy development rather than on going into such a huge debt to provide hydro-electric power from the James Bay development.
The other question is, who will be the primary beneficiaries of this hydro-electric power? My understanding is that most of it will be exported to the United States. We have to consider also that under the vast areas that are flooded there are potential mineral resources that will be lost forever in terms of possible future royalties to some of the native people who have territorial land claims over it or for development for future Canadian use.
When I look at the James Bay project, I must ask myself whether we have learnt anything from our experience with the Columbia River Treaty and the kind of environmental and economic disaster which that development has proved to be for
James Bay Agreement
Canada and for our future. I think that historians down the line will rank the James Bay project as a debacle much greater and much more severe in its repercussions than the mistakes made with the Columbia River Treaty.
I am saying that the James Bay hydro electric project is a mistake for economic, environmental and social reasons. I say that Bill C-9 which is before us today ratifies this agreement at the cost to the native people of losing forever their traditional enshrined rights, because in clause 3(3) of the bill we read the following:
All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be, and all the native claims, rights, title and interests whatever they may be, in Canada, of all the Inuit of Port Burwell are hereby extinguished ...
That is a tremendous price to pay for the people of that area for the sake of hydro-electric power for white communities in southern Canada and the United States. Surely if this government and its Quebec counterpart had been serious about developing the area, they could have done so and provided compensation to the native people without requiring them to give up forever their aboriginal rights. That is what we object to most about this settlement.
I cannot impress upon the House enough that this James Bay project, by flooding such huge areas of land and by altering so much of the environment in terms of the river systems and the animal habitat, is of such immense proportions to the people living there. We in our society, I am afraid, do not understand or comprehend how important the land is to the people of that area and why they should have some future claim to use it in order to provide not only an economic livelihood but a cultural identity as well.
I refer hon. members for their reading to a report by Peter J. Usher who was a consultant to the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. This report dates back to April 6, 1973, and it was prepared mainly in the context of the native people in the Northwest Territories, but the sentiment and the implications are certainly the same for the people living in the James Bay area. I should like to quote briefly from Mr. Usher's report. He writes:
To native people, the land is more than just a source of food or cash. It is the permanent source of their security and of their sense of well being. It is the basis of what they are as people. The land, and the birds, fish and animals it supports, have sustained them and their ancestors since time immemorial. Properly cared for, it can always do so. Native people know how to take care of the land, and they know why that must be done.
We can offer them jobs, but the history of the Northwest Territories, of northern Quebec and of any area where we have offered native people jobs has usually been a boom or bust cycle. When the bust occurs and the jobs disappear, the white people in the area can always move south, back into the white culture, the white society, but where do the native people go when there are no more jobs and they have given up forever their rights to the land?
That is why we in this party disagree with Bill C-9 because it says that the people of that area must forever give up the rights to the land that they have had to this date. I do not trust this government nor the government of Quebec to honour the

December 8, 1976
James Bay Agreement
subsequent guarantees in the James Bay agreement or in Bill C-9, and to honour other compensation that the native people have negotiated in return for giving up those rights.
In my opinion this is a bad agreement signed by the native people under duress. Bill C-9 is a bad bill because it extinguishes native rights in return for questionable guarantees, and it sets a bad precedent for future land claim settlements in Canada. The federal government has failed in its responsibility to see that justice is done and due process of the law is followed for the native people. It has failed in its responsibility to .uphold basic human rights, and neither 1 nor my party want to be a part of this decision, and so we will vote against the bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put the appropriate question to the Minister without Portfolio
(Mr. Guay) in his capacity as chief government whip? We know about the business for tomorrow-it is an opposition motion of non-confidence. If the government survives that, can the minister tell us what the business will be on Friday?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to carry on with Bill C-9 on Friday. There will be discussions among the House leaders of the various parties with regard to the business of the House if by chance we complete the debate on Bill C-9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 9, 1976