1978-06-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the disheartening response of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to the question of the government's plans to combat record inflation prospects facing our country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House reject the only stated government policy, namely, that Canadians should henceforth cease eating, drinking, lighting, heating or cooling their homes in order to bring down the rate of inflation to the level projected in the last budget of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I request permission to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the promise made by the Prime Minister during the 1974 election of early action to provide a first-class air service to western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan in the interests of economic growth, and in view of the press release of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on January 31, 1977, requesting applications from carriers to provide commuter air service and jet service to these areas, and the application of Great Lakes Airlines to provide the necessary jet service now before the air transport committee, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the minister use his good offices to urge the air transport committee to reach a decision on the application at the earliest possible date, particularly in light of the air transportation requirements of the Canada Winter Games to be held in Brandon next February.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last Friday, the U.S. announced that beef imports to that country will be increased by 16 per cent. As a result of the American move, Canadian beef markets have already fallen by 10 per cent. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the Minister of Agriculture assure this House that the government will not increase beef imports but, rather, will adopt measures to bring about self-sufficiency in the Canadian beef industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As Canadian steel mills are unable to supply the current demand for wide-flange beams in Canada, in view of the fact that Canadian steel mills are on controlled bookings allocation and, as a result, the British Columbia industry is unable to purchase wide-flange requirements from Canadian mills within practical time-frames, and because importers are unwilling to import wide-flange steel beams before the determination of dumping duty, thus causing hardship and injury to the B.C. steel industry, with unnecessary lay-offs involved, I
6430

June 15, 1978
move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That nominal dumping duties be announced immediately so that the steel industry can import wide-flange steel beams that Canadians mills are unable to supply.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the letter that the Premier of Manitoba sent to the leaders of the United States Congress requesting that they not continue funding the Garrison project. In view of the immense harm the project could do to the ecology of Manitoba water systems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House expresses its complete support for the letter sent by the Premier of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Tuesday last, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, "The task that was committed to the Prairie Rail Action Committee was premature and impossible of fulfilment within the time-frame given that committee". He also said PRAC recommendation to abandon the portion of the rail line from Liberty to Dilke was "a serious mistake". Therefore, before the Prairie Rail Action Committee can do any more damage to the grain handling system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House request the government to require the Minister of Transport to reject PRAC abandonment recommendations to date, to disband the PRAC, and to bring forward legislation to set up the prairie rail authority as recommended by the Hall royal commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OPERATION OF SAINT JOHN, N.B., BRIDGE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the report of the Auditor General in 1976, and again in 1977, describes loans to the Saint John harbour bridge authority as being uncollectable, and in view of the fact that a write-off of these loans would be in accordance with standard accounting practices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the Government of Canada commence negotiations with the province of New Brunswick in the near future, with the ultimate goal in mind of the write-off of the $25 million in loans to the Saint John harbour bridge authority and toll-free passage for all vehicular traffic, with operating costs to be assumed by the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning evidence presented by the Crown at the preliminary trial of Peter Worthington under the Official Secrets Act several years ago; specifically, a statement by RCMP witness Spooner that Soviet diplomat Mikhail Kvatov was a KGB agent involved in certain activities from 1975 to 1976, the revelation of which by Mr. Worthington in the Toronto Sun allegedly prejudiced the security of the state. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Solicitor General explain to the House the complete inconsistency between the RCMP testimony and information given on request to the member for Leeds by the RCMP during the week of June 3, 1975, with regard to the same Mikhail Kvatov stating that he was a bona fide diplomat and was not engaged in KGB activities and, finally, that the minister confirm whether or not the court was lied to by the RCMP or whether the member for Leeds was lied to.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
June 15, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is based on very unhappy statistics brought out by Statistics Canada last week indicating that the exodus of capital from Canada continues, $335 million having been invested by Canadians abroad in that quarter alone, resulting in an outflow of capital in the 90-day period of over $3 million a day. Is the Minister of Finance aware of these figures? Does he find this exodus of capital alarming and, if so, would he give some explanation to the House and the people of Canada as to why this is occurring? I might add that over $1 billion has gone out in the last 12 months.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the policy of the government is to let capital flow inside and outside of the country, we do not want to impose exchange controls. In order to have a lot of foreign capital in our economy, we must allow Canadians to make their own decisions about their investments. However, we are looking at the situation and watching it very carefully.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is, again, to the Minister of Finance. It is obvious from the figures, which the minister does not deny, that the international community is now judging Canada as an unprofitable place in which to invest. Would the minister indicate whether he plans any steps to make the Canadian investment climate a little more attractive, so that needed capital for this country's development might start flowing in, instead of going out as has been the case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been recognized as a good place for investment. A tremendous amount of money enters the country regularly, and we have the best illustration in the articles published last week which indicated that U.S. bankers who established a $3 billion line of credit for Canada said that if we had wanted more it would have been possible to obtain it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not see the difference between raising debt funds to cover current
Oral Questions
account expenses of his government and needed capital that is not coming into the country. Is there an industrial strategy in place in this country to which the minister can refer us, and is there an industrial strategy that the world can see because, frankly, it is a very confusing picture? We have the Export Development Corporation financing pulp mills and steel mills to compete with Canada's in future years. We even have Petro-Can planning a $500 million investment to heighten the outflow of capital still further. Do we have an industrial strategy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are working very intensely on that. I do not know if the hon. member is aware, but I discussed that matter very thoroughly last February with the premiers of the provinces. As a result of the February conference, studies are being made in order to elaborate the strategy in every sector of the Canadian economy. We have made a lot of progress in that regard. In terms of the difference between debt and equity investment in Canada, a lot of people in Canada were complaining for a hell of a long time that there was too much equity coming in and not enough debt financing.


INVESTMENT IN UNITED STATES INDUSTRY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There is a grand total, including bonds, short and long-term investment, of $18 million in investment capital leaving Canada daily. The Conference Board recently reported that 26 Canadian Firms have made major investments in the United States. That is a clear indication that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has completely failed in his portfolio: he cannot attract business here and he does nothing to keep in Canada those already here. Can the minister explain to the House why these 26 Canadian firms are investing in the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the figures, you will see that since the beginning of 1978 the balance of payments in trade in Canada is in favour of Canada: it is increasing from year to year. Three years ago we had a deficit in trade balance; with the trend this year, we will have a trade balance in favour of Canada of more than $5 billion. That means we must be doing something right. We are one of the few nations which can claim such a favourable trade balance in favour of its own economy.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Perhaps the minister can explain why they are not consulting firms such as John Labatt Limited, which has announced plans for a wheat-starch and gluten facility in South Carolina, and the St. Laurence Steel and Wire Company which has leased facilities in New York state and will produce hockey masks. Will the Minister of Finance make inquiries, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is obviously not doing anything to keep these firms here. Why can these hockey masks not be made in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to defend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: he can defend himself very well. I just pointed out the great balance in terms

June 15, 1978
Oral Questions
of trade for Canada. It is improving from month to month. That is certainly due to the fact that we have a very good Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


TAKEOVER OF HUSKY OIL COMPANY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the struggle which is going on between Petro-Can and Occidental Petroleum Company of Los Angeles, each seeking to acquire a controlling interest in Husky Oil Company of Calgary. If the government follows its previous practice, this matter will not be referred to parliament but dealt with by FIRA and then by cabinet. Members of this House may find some day that this great asset has been transferred to the control of a foreign company. I ask the minister whether he is prepared, either today or on motions tomorrow, to make a statement to the House concerning the negotiations which are in progress and the intentions of the government with respect to a matter which he himself said in the House the other day was of national interest.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am sure there will be opportunities during the question period from day to day to answer questions such as those put forward by the hon. member today and on previous occasions. I shall be pleased to bring hon. members up to date on events as they may unfold. With respect to making any more formal or lengthy statement, I am not planning one at the present time-it might be premature-but, as I say, I would be pleased to answer specific questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the House is entitled to a statement of the government's intentions. The minister knows perfectly well that Husky controls more than 1.5 million acres of proven oil reserves on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and that by using new technology it has a possibility of recovering 16 billion barrels of heavy crude oil. This is of great importance to Canada in a period when our light oil is being phased out.
Is the minister prepared to give specific assurances to the House that the government will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the control of Husky Oil Company and of its assets will continue to be maintained in Canada either by Petro-Canada or by Petro-Canada in partnership with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have said in the House in the last few days and on many occasions in the past, development of the heavy oils of western Canada, particularly those of Saskatchewan, is very much a national priority. Indeed, at a meeting of first ministers, the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Prime Minister addressed themselves to this question. One of the

results of that meeting was a commitment to move forward with the development of this heavy oil. We have regarded the takeover bid by Petro-Canada as being fully consistent with the priority we have assigned for the development of this heavy oil. Petro-Canada decided on the takeover route because its officials had reached the conclusion, as a result of negotiations and discussions with Husky Oil in the preceding months, that they would not be able to bring this oil-rich land into production for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. That is why Petro-Canada has gone forward with the blessing of the federal government.
If, as a result of the offer by the Occidental group, development of this heavy oil would be in every way guaranteed, one would have to come to the conclusion, it seems to me, that a Canadian objective had been secured. For this reason, I do not wish to prejudge either offer at the present time. The offer has been put forward in good faith by Petro-Canada. The president of Petro-Canada has told me his organization intends to proceed with this offer. What further action the consortium of Husky and Occidental may take, I am not in a position to forecast, nor am I in a position to speculate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
direct a final supplementary to the Prime Minister? Can the Prime Minister tell us the policy of the government with respect to this matter? We have just heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say that the acquisition of Husky is in the national interest. The press quotes the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as saying, "I am not shedding any tears over Petro-Canada". He says Petro-Canada can go out and buy land and put up a refinery of its own.
What is the policy with respect to this matter? There have been conflicting statements from two ministers and I think the House and the country are entitled to know whether the Prime Minister, as head of the government of this country, is prepared to commit himself to saying that this tremendous economic asset will be retained under the control of Canadians and preferably under the control of the federal government and the two provincial governments involved.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member either misunderstood or misinterpreted the answer of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He did not say it was in the national interest that the acquisition by Petro-Canada move ahead. He said it was in the national interest that these heavy oils and the freehold land under which the oils lay be exploited. He was quite clear in indicating that Petro-Canada was seeking that, and if somebody else was seeking that, that would also be in the national interest.
June 15, 1978


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Statistics Canada has just reported that railway car loadings, which are an accurate measurement of industrial activity, decreased by 7 per cent during the first five months of this year compared with the same period a year ago, and that Canadian industry is operating at only 82.7 per cent of its capacity, the lowest point it has reached in three years-and it is going down. Would the minister advise the House, either now or on motions tomorrow, what plans he has to turn this very serious situation around and restore Canadian industry to a healthy condition?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have in progress right now a number of distinct measures which will assist Canadian industry a great deal. While Canadian industry might well be operating at 85 per cent capacity-


George Harris Hees: It is 82.7 per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is 82.7 per cent, then, I am not going to argue about the figure. What I am saying is that we must be realistic. Part of that industry is always under repair and all of it is not capable of producing at 100 per cent capacity at all times. I think the House should bear that fact in mind.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, It has been made very obvious that the minister has no plans to turn around this very serious situation. Has he nothing better to offer than his present plan for helping Canadian industry, that of reducing import tariffs by an average of 40 per cent against all products coming into this country which compete with Canadian industrial products on the Canadian market which, if allowed to take place, will make competition for our Canadian industries far more difficult on the Canadian market and will increase unemployment very materially indeed?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was aware of the things we were doing to help Canadian industry. We have set up 22 sector studies which encompass management, labour, provincial governments, the federal government, retailers and importers. These 22 sector studies will result in reports by the end of this month. We hope to make the reports public by about the third week in July. They will be submitted to a national board which will make a coherent effort on behalf of industry to make a presentation to the first ministers' conference.
With respect to tariff negotiations, I am amazed at the negativism-I really should not be amazed, after the months I have listened to hon. members opposite-in the hon. member's suggestion that a reduction of tariffs will hurt Canadian industry. A reduction of tariffs will broaden Canadian industries' marketability around the world. We have 23 million people, but there are 200 million people immediately south of us, so if our Canadian industry has a better opportunity to get
Oral Questions
into that larger market we will enhance opportunities for Canadian industries.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, these problems have been with us for several years. Long before now the government should have had a concrete plan for turning around this very serious situation. Does the minister not realize that the time for setting up boards, commissions and studies and more boards, commissions and studies has long passed and that we should have been getting action long before now to get the economy of this country rolling?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West.


EMERGENCY MEASURES TO ASSIST INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the last quarter of last year, Canadian industry operated at a rate of 84 per cent utilization. It is down to 82.7 per cent this quarter, the worst since 1961. Last spring the minister said that Canada's economy would be a lot healthier next spring, that the devalued dollar would begin to be felt and the devaluation would give the manufacturing industry room to breathe. How is it that the minister's forecast is not accurate and that, instead, Canadian manufacturing is in its worst state since 1961? What emergency measures is the minister taking, apart altogether from studies and task forces?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree, and I do not think the House should agree-certainly, Canadians should not agree-that our industry is in as terrible a shape as opposition members make it out to be. We have had a continuous merchandising trade surplus for the last 17 months.


An hon. Member:: Selling our resources.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Selling resources? Let me tell the House that 10 per cent of our total exports are agricultural goods, 20 per cent are oil, gas and minerals, and 66% per cent are manufactured and semi-processed goods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are becoming a large industrialized nation and we are doing very well at it because we have built up a trade surplus in the past 17 months. In retrospect, if one looks at the United States, one finds that they have had a merchandising trade deficit for the last 32 months. So we are doing very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian industry has so much room to breathe that it is not even operating. Last fall,

June 15, 1978
Oral Questions
in November, the Economic Council of Canada said that we faced five years of high unemployment, continuing inflation, modest growth and a large deficit in international payments. The minister said then that the council probably did not have all the available information at its disposal when it was doing its forecast and that it was wrong, it was too pessimistic. Now we have exactly what the council said-high unemployment, continuing inflation, modest growth and large deficits in international payments.
Would the minister apologize to the Economic Council of Canada, and will he produce the data that he had which showed that the council was wrong? In other words, will he continue talking through his stetson, or will he admit that we are in serious trouble and tell us what we are doing about it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should read a more up-to-date report of the Economic Council of Canada.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who I understand is aware of the concern over the controversial proposal to build a 450-unit housing development beside Centennial Park in Etobicoke, just to the south of Toronto international airport. In view of the fact that provincial approval to build the units was based on the hypothetical noise exposure forecast figures produced by the minister's department, will the minister order his officials to conduct on-site testing, financed by the federal government, of the actual noise levels in order to ensure that local and provincial authorities are in possession of up to date, accurate information about noise levels in the area?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the suggestion under consideration. I have already asked my officials to do a further analysis of the noise situation and of the impact upon the airport of any possible further housing development in that area. I also hold the fairly strong personal view that such development is rather inadvisable notwithstanding what the technical situation may be with regard to the noise contours and location of the houses, because from knowledge in the past it has been clear that where housing has developed near an airport there is later increased pressure to decrease the usefulness of the airport and the great investment we have in it. Accordingly, I am today writing to Mr. Snow to this effect.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and ask whether or not he is aware of the proposal that has been made by Alderman Dick O'Brien, of Etobicoke, that the federal government will do as is done in other instances around federal airports, which is to purchase the land which would be used for this housing development and contribute it

to the borough of Etobicoke as an extension to Centennial Park upon which it abuts. Is the minister giving serious consideration to that proposal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, kept me fully aware of all opinions and events in this area. Of course, it is the tradition with regard to airports that the zoning should ordinarily be done by the province and by the municipality, and therefore that the impact upon lands should be taken into account by them as well. I think it may be seen as a fair division of responsibility if we, as the federal government, involved in investments in major airports put those investments in place and that the local people should make a contribution with regard to zoning.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, since the matter involves the responsibilities of several ministers. Last June, the government tabled a document entitled "A Food Strategy for Canada" and in it the government appeared to be committing itself to carry out a number of specific measures to "concentrate on the competitiveness of food processing, distribution and retailing " and "to encourage the food system to provide food and food services" to consumers in, among other things, "the simplest, most economical and most direct manner."
Would the Prime Minister himself, or through the relevant ministers, inform the House when all these programs will be implemented, or at least the extent to which they are already implemented, in the light of public concern over the current rate of increase in food prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed in part yesterday, and I think the relevant answer to at least part of the minister's question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Freudian slip.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, if you wish, Freudian slip.


George Harris Hees: Is he coming back?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He will certainly come back before you will, George.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Not if you have the courage to call an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You couldn't think of a comeback, Pierre.
June 15, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you know who this loudmouth is, ladies and gentlemen? It is the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I name him.


George Harris Hees: Your memory is improving.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If you read yesterday's Hansard, you will see what I said to you. So, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the very serious question of the hon. member for Windsor West, let me say that we have assurances that there is no excess profit gouging or profiteering in the food retailing or processing industry. But of course, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said yesterday, we are looking into the matter and we are making sure that our information is correct and continues to be correct.
As to improving the situation, the minister said yesterday that we hope in the weeks to come to make any announcements which will become government policy.


MONITORING OF FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The new monitoring agency announced today by the Economic Council of Canada to take over during the post-control period will not have the investigatory authority that the Food Prices Review Board had under the Inquiries Act. Would the Prime Minister tell the House how this monitoring agency can function effectively in the marketplace if it does not have this investigatory authority, and whether or not the agency will, as did the Food Prices Review Board, report publicly or to the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member refers to the letter which was made public this morning by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, I believe he will have the answer to both those questions. In the case of inquiries under the Inquiries Act or in any other form, the answer is that in areas where the Economic Council of Canada's special commission finds that a special inquiry is called for, it will so recommend to the government, which will then act in one way or another under the present legislation or by putting another proposal before the House. 1 believe that covers the question asked by the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: Members of the House have not received a copy of the release this morning and hence we do not have the advantage which the Prime Minister has. Is he saying to the House that the new monitoring agency will only be able to operate after the fact-in other words, they can only recommend an inquiry after the fact-as opposed to being able to move in and identify abuses which are taking place in the marketplace? Is that the position of the new board and, if so, how can it operate effectively and do a job in monitoring the marketplace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is after the fact and it is with material which is readily available publicly. Power has not been given to this new body to carry out investigations or to call witnesses on
Oral Questions
its own. I might remind the hon. member that this government, early this session, put legislation before the House to set up a post-AIB monitoring board. We heard great argument from all sides but particularly from the Tory party that they did not want to support it. In particular, at the first ministers' conference in February, a majority of the provinces indicated that they did not want, and would not support, the initiatives for post-controls of the Minister of Finance. As a result of that, we accepted a compromise, which was moved forward by the provinces, that we would make a request to the Economic Council. That request was made and the Economic Council studied the matter. The answer is given in a letter which was made public this morning at a press conference by Mrs. Ostry and equally, I believe, it was made public by my office.


KICKBACKS TO SUPERMARKETS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is in the area of prices and concerns the kickbacks which are being made to Dominion Stores and other companies in Ontario as revealed by a special committee of the Ontario legislature. Now we have evidence that at least one dairy is giving a 26 per cent kickback to Dominion Stores in fluid milk, a canned food processor gives a rebate or a kickback of some 10 per cent to Dominion Stores, and a kickback of some 15 per cent on vegetables by some chain stores as well as 10 per cent on apples.
In view of the fact that this will result in rapid concentration and that some stores are now paying more at the wholesale level for their commodities than the large supermarkets are at the retail level, can the minister indicate if he has had a chance to investigate this entire area of kickbacks by processors, and so on, to the chain stores? If he has not had a chance to look at it, what will he do?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I said approximately a week ago, this matter has been under examination by the director of investigation and research under the combines act. According to the combines act, if these rebates were offered to all stores on an equal basis, then they would be legal. However, if the evidence indicates, as the hon. member states, that there is discrimination in the offering of rebates, then of course it would be illegal and the director could take legal action against them. At one point we did not have that evidence, but if evidence has now come in, then of course it would be illegal under the combines act and action can be taken.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there is at least one case where the kickback from canned food processors to Dominion Stores is at least 10 per cent greater than it is to A and P. Therefore, I assume that is illegal and the minister will take action. I can provide him with that evidence.
I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Testimony before an Ontario committee indicated that

June 15, 1978
Oral Questions
Loblaws' rebates are paid out in part to a separate company called Intersave, a name which I think is quite appropriate for Loblaws. In view of the fact that supermarket profits are already high-for example, in the case of Safeway, up 61 per cent and in the case of Loeb, up 163 per cent-can the minister indicate if her department has investigated these kickbacks? Can she assure us that chain stores are not using this method of kickback in order to evade taxes which are otherwise due to the Canadian people?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will transmit to the Department of National Revenue the allegations of eventual tax evasion by the companies the hon. member referred to.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On Monday, the hon. member for Central Nova questioned the Minister of Finance who was the Acting Prime Minister at the time. His questions concerned a meeting which was held some time ago between the present Minister of National Defence and the chairman of the National Capital Commission wherein the following quotation appeared:
The minister (meaning the present Minister of National Defence) wants to make sure that the firms chosen for major contracts of this sort are cleared politically with the ministers responsible through this office.
Can the minister tell the House if that quotation still represents his method of handling bids for government contracts?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the context of that particular quotation, which I do not recall, it accurately reflects my position. It was not on bids. Of course, bids always go to the lowest bidder unless there are exceptional circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: We are talking about contracts for professional services. I would always consult the regional minister in an area to make certain all the contracts which do not go by tender are distributed properly and do not all go to one company in a region, and to ensure that ample opportunity is given to smaller companies in different parts of the region, smaller communities and disadvantaged areas, in order for them to take full advantage of it, rather than the traditional firms which might have very close connections in the public service. 1 think it is up to ministers to fulfil their responsibilities to see that there is proper distribution of contracts throughout an area and that all companies have an opportunity, particularly when there are no bids.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the procedures for awarding the contract for the new fighter aircraft entail the Minister of

National Defence taking the final selection of his department to cabinet. If the five firms involved are to be screened in any way to determine their political clearance, does the minister not believe an undue advantage will accrue to that firm which has on its board of directors the former minister of finance, the Hon. Donald Macdonald? Has the minister issued any directives to ensure that his former colleague will not exert any influence whatsoever on the decision?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are a whole number of factors involved in that decision and no political influence in that sense would be exercised. If it was the purpose of MacDonnell-Douglas to get one of the finest directors on its board that it could choose from among Canadians. They have achieved that purpose. If that company believes it is helping them to get a contract, of course they have made a mistake because they would be underrating both the government and Mr. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: The fact of the matter is that he is a man of great integrity. I might say that he has had no contact with me on this matter since he went to that board of directors. The only effect it might have is that that company perhaps will have to prove itself 110 per cent, where the others have to prove themselves 100 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You mean it does have an effect.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Defence actually believe that MacDonnell-Douglas took on Mr. Macdonald for his knowledge of aircraft, particularly fighter aircraft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question, concerning youth and student employment, is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance who is the chief economic minister. According to statistics which I have in my hands today issued by the government, 605,000 students will leave Canadian educational institutions in 1978 and become available to the labour force in 1978. Because of these unusually large statistics, can the Prime Minister tell us specifically what the government plans to do about it in terms of new initiatives to employ these young Canadians, in view of the general employment situation in Canada?
June 15, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in part an overwhelming proportion of these young Canadians will find jobs in the private sector.


An hon. Member:: Tell them to leave the country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the others are concerned, just yesterday and the day before the Minister of Employment and Immigration gave figures to the hon. member and his colleagues indicating that a very high proportion, something like 30 per cent to 40 per cent, of government direct spending for job creation will be going to young Canadians.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government is not reacting on the basis of these statistics today because they are based on the babies born in the post-war baby boom. In view of the very high rate of unemployment among students and young Canadians, and the very high statistics which the government has been well aware of for some time and informed us of today, can we not expect, without delay, some new and dynamic initiatives from the government to challenge the excellence of the younger generation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the hon. member, certainly not his party, is suggesting that the government be the employer of last resort for all Canadians. That is why I insist that the private sector is creating jobs, as has been made clear repeatedly in this House, at a rate which is substantially higher than that of any other industrialized society. The rate has been something like 300,000 jobs on a year over year basis. This is a higher rate than the 10-year historical average in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Bunk.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Someone over there says "bunk", Mr. Speaker, or something that sounded like that. I am not sure what this Latin word means in English, but I can tell him that the figures I am giving are the true figures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, they are not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It serves no purpose, to the opposition or anyone, to say that this country and this economy are not creating jobs at a very high rate. They are, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I am sure the minister is well aware of the developing impasse between the CBC staff announcers and management of a renegotiated contract which expired last July. In view of the conciliation report which was brought down earlier this week which, as I understand it, has been accepted by the announcers and rejected in part by the
Oral Questions
CBC management, and the report that there were over 250 violations of the previous contract during the last ten-year period by CBC management, has the minister expressed any concern to the president of the CBC, on behalf of the government, about the questionable industrial relations that exist within CBC management, or has he conferred with the Minister of Labour about possible violations of the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in a general way there are continuing discussions between myself and the president of the CBC about a variety of problems that exist in the corporation, including those of management and labour relations. As to the second part of the hon. member's question, there have not been specific discussions with the Minister of Labour to which he referred.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very high series of reported violations undei the previous contract, and the fact that there seem to be very real threats posed to present CBC staff announcers under the proposal brought forward, that they would adopt such a situation as a new category of short-term announcers with, seemingly, no particular benefit to the corporation, could the minister indicate whether, in view of one strike vote already being held by NABET and the possibility of another one next week, there will be any attempt made to have the CBC management adopt more appropriate industrial relations for a Crown corporation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I do not interfere directly in the management of the CBC; but I will be happy to do as I have in the past and bring his representations to the attention of management.


SAFETY OF NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of press reports concerning the serious allegations of Mr. Arthur Porter, commissioner of the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, that information on the safety of nuclear generating plants was withheld from his commission by the Atomic Energy Control Board, has the minister investigated those allegations and can he assure the House that safety information of the Atomic Energy Control Board was not withheld from this royal commission?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have assured myself of those facts. I asked the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board what the allegations were based on and he told me he was not sure what they were. He then talked to Mr. Porter, the royal commissioner. I think the royal commissioner was perhaps under some misapprehension and had not realized, when he made his statement, that indeed the Atomic Energy Control

June 15, 1978
Oral Questions
Board had placed before the royal commission information of which the royal commissioner should have been aware. Subsequently, in a radio interview, the royal commissioner made a statement to the effect that he had erred in his judgment with respect to the words he had chosen and that, indeed, there was no risk with respect to the safety of Canadian nuclear reactors.


TAKEOVER OF HUSKY OIL COMPANY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He said a few minutes ago that Petro-Canada had the blessing of the Government of Canada with respect to its offer to Husky Oil. I would like to ask the minister whether Petro-Canada has secured the financial backing of the Government of Canada with respect to this offer which, as I understand it, amounts to something in excess of $500 million altogether and, if so, was this taken care of in the cash requirements put before the House at the time of the budget of the Minister of Finance?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the financial arrangements for the transaction, in the event that it is a successful bid, have been considered. Petro-Canada has negotiated a line of credit for the purposes of financing the greater part of the purchase. It would require some assistance from its capital budget which has already been submitted and approved, so there will be no additional funds provided to Petro-Canada by the federal government with respect to its over-all capital budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amount of capital it is anticipated that Petro-Canada would raise on its own, would this be raised by Petro-Canada without the guarantee and support of the Government of Canada? Is the minister saying, in effect, that this transaction would add nothing more to the cash requirements of the Government of Canada other than the amount already provided for in the budge as presented?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the fact.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In a statement released by the minister's department on June 13 concerning the results of ICNAF consultations in Bonn, we read that negotiators established reserves on several important stocks which will be allocated later either to Canadian fishermen or to other states in return for economic and commercial benefits offered by those states.
In light of that statement, and in view of the impact caused by the present boundary negotiations that are under way between Canada and the United States which reflect upon Canada's fishermen, plus their need for expanded markets, I

would ask the minister what kind of economic benefits he has in mind and what steps he has taken to secure the lowering of the 15 per cent tariff on Canadian fish when sold to the European Economic Community to a 3 per cent or 4 per cent level as charged by the Community to Norway and Iceland, for example, so that Canadian fishermen would at least have a fighting chance in those European markets.


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member did not mention our success in negotiating the prevention of countervailing with the U.S. authorities; but since he has not, I will. It was a very great victory for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who in fact was able to demonstrate that we had separated the issue of countervailing and duties from the issue of boundaries. I recognize that hon. members opposite did, in fact, rejoice at the success.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member, as he knows, quotas are being discussed for the year 1979. In some cases we expect Canadian fishermen to reach and even go beyond their quotas in the offshore fisheries and therefore there may be room for expansion in 1979. For that reason, we have kept some reserve for Canadian fishermen if they demonstrate that they can, in fact, take the additional quotas. The idea of commensurate benefit is exactly for the purpose expressed by the hon. member, namely, to gain access to markets. We are willing to say to certain nations which have vessels that are not sufficiently occupied or plants that are very short of supply, "if you offer us good access to your market, we will consider the possibility of offering some access to our zone".


WHA SIGNING OF JUNIOR HOCKEY PLAYERS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). It concerns the announcement today that three more under age junior hockey players are about to sign with the World Hockey Association, a clear violation not only of their own rules but of the minister's stated government policy that she opposes this kind of raiding of junior hockey. Can the minister advise the House what she proposes to do to stop what could be a state of anarchy existing in junior hockey if we continue to allow professional teams to sign under age players across Canada?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to set up an inquiry into the non-professional levels of hockey as recommended in the all-party committee report on international hockey, chaired by Senator Buckwold. It is my intention to have that committee meet before the end of this month.
June 15, 1978


POINTS OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not deliberately mislead the House, and I know that he would want to correct the record in his reply to my question when he accused this House of opposing legislation to set up the regulatory monitoring agency to succeed the AntiInflation Board especially during the post-controls period. That, of course, is not true. I have checked with my House leader, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and with the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). They confirm what I knew anyway-that we did not oppose that proposition. I know the Prime Minister would not want to mislead the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I accept the word of the hon. gentleman, but this is an interesting development. If the House would really prefer the act which had been proposed by the minister for the post inflation period, I wish we had heard about it before now. The difficulty in getting it through the House was precisely because we had been hearing it had not been accepted by the other side.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister said there was no act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister said that he was prepared to move in the post inflation period with a special monitoring body. This was before the House for debate for quite some time-this was stated, if I recall correctly, in the Speech from the Throne. When we had the first ministers' conference it was indicated by the premiers that they preferred something else, and it is the something else that we have now, Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada.
If the hon. gentleman says they have not taken a position on that, I wish they had, because we would now have some other form of action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see two other hon. members rising on points of order. The Minister for Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) has indicated his intention to participate in the question of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I wonder if I could take these points of order briefly, and then take the minister's intervention.


MR. CROUSE-FISHERIES-COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I raised a question with the hon. Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). In his response the minister stated that he was somewhat surprised that we on this side had not referred to the agreement that had been reached on the countervailing duties proposed by the United States. In defence of my position I must say that we did not
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
raise the question of countervailing duties during the period that this matter was under discussion, at the expressed request of the minister. He stated to me personally that to raise this matter at such a delicate period in the negotiations between Canada and the United States could jeopardize those negotiations to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian fishing industry.
As the minister is well aware, the United States government has the right at any time to implement countervailing duties. It was only because he insisted or suggested that they would take away some of the assistance, namely, the two cents per pound paid to fishermen on October 1, that he was able to obtain agreement, so we are still in a very delicate situation with regard to the interests of Canadian fishermen.
I regret that the minister took what appeared to me to be an opportunity to make a cheap political attack on this side of the House when we had done everything possible to assist him in securing a rational and reasonable solution to what is, in my opinion, a very serious and very delicate problem.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if I offended the hon. member, I apologize. The fact is, in the preface to my answer to his question, I alluded to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) whose heated exchange with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is recorded in Hansard. He certainly showed signs of great nervousness at the possibility of countervail which, by the way, had been discussed for many, many months, and which had nothing to do with the present boundary difficulty.
I certainly recognize that the hon. member, in response to my request at one point, abstained from questioning in a delicate moment in our negotiations before this agreement was suspended, and for this I give him full credit. If I did have a complaint it was not with the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who has shown great responsibility in these matters, but it was possibly to make a point to the hon. member for St. John's West.


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the remarks just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he indicated some type of monitoring agency bill had been suggested to parliament and that the official opposition had somehow discouraged either its passage or introduction.
There is a great misunderstanding here, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I would not say that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled the House. The fact is that a draft bill, some 30 or 40 pages long, calling for the setting up of a monitoring agency and extensive regulatory powers to be given

June 15, 1978
Business of the House
to the federal government, came into our possession, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) denied it categorically. He said there was no such legislation. He refused even to accept the draft I had in my hands, and in any event said he had no authority at all concerning such a bill and, if it had been drafted, it had not been done on his instructions. For the Prime Minister to indicate that the Minister of Finance was on the verge of introducing some such bill, is totally wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the point raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), further to that raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), constitutes essentially a difference of opinion or a dispute as to interpretation between them and the Prime Minister of what he said. It does not constitute a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business of the House. The government House leader has indicated the list of legislation on previous occasions. If the deputy House leader has anything to add from the point of view of the government, I would appreciate knowing it. While he is on his feet perhaps he could designate Tuesday, June 20, and Thursday, June 22, as allotted days, in accordance with the discussions I had with his colleague.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question first, I am pleased to confirm that we will designate Tuesday and Thursday of next week as allotted days, the two remaining days in this period. As the opposition House leader realizes, today is an opposition day. Tomorrow and on Monday we will carry on with Bill C-56, if the debate continues until then. Then we will set aside the two opposition days which I have noted, and continue with the balance of Bill C-56 until it is concluded through third reading. Following that, we will call Bill C-36 and deal with report stage of the Export Development Act, then the language of trial bill at report stage, Bill C-42; next, the continuation of report stage of Bill C-48, the Customs Tariff Act, and on to Bill C-59, second reading of the bill affecting small businesses.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister's colleague indicated there might be some flexibility in the order of calling these bills. I wonder if the deputy House leader could indicate if that stands, and then we could discuss the order.
There has been a considerable amount of concern in the House about the case of Alexander Peter Treu. There has been some suggestion by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), supported by the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan), that it might be appropriate for the House to consider establishing a special joint committee with the other place to deal with the Official Secrets Act. Given

that kind of feeling on both sides of the House that it is perhaps time to examine that statute, would the deputy House leader convey this to his colleague and see if there can be some discussion about establishing a committee so that the matter could be examined in a way other than that which it has been heretofore?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, the government is always prepared to be flexible about the priorization, although we are committed to those particular bills. Our House leader will discuss that with House leaders of the respective parties.
With regard to a special committee to deal with the Treu case or the Official Secrets Act, I can indicate in a preliminary way that there is no disposition toward this at the present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that there are three ministers here seeking to table documents under the regular tabling of documents. I wonder if we might move to do that and release them before we take the intervention of a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of correspondence between myself and the Premier of New Brunswick outlining a publicity agreement between the federal government and the government of the province.


PRIVILEGE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without directly reopening the matter, which you did rule as closed, I think I owe it to the other side, with their permission, to make a point clear which was raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). He did indicate that I had alleged the existence of a bill. I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) that there was no such bill. The matter was discussed. I personally talked about it with leaders of the business and labour communities in meetings which I had with them. I know the substance was discussed in the committee. But the hon. member is correct,
June 15, 1978

there was no bill and I should not have indicated that the bill was before the House.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Correctional Investigator covering the period from June 1, 1976 to May 31, 1977.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table under Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, the submission of the Public Service Commission to special committee on personnel management.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be brief. On June 8 the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) raised by way of privilege the question of my misleading the House in my statement on "Measures to Strengthen and Encourage Research and Development in Canada", which I made to the House on June 1.
The hon. member made reference to two points in his remarks, and I would like to reply to both points, first on the question of gross national product versus gross domestic product.
Economists calculate gross domestic product on at least two different bases. No doubt it is this fact which has led the hon. member for Calgary Centre to suggest that a research and development expenditure target of 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product is substantially lower than a target of 1.5 per cent of gross national product.
In Canada gross domestic product is published at factor cost, but for international comparisons of R and D expenditures the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development calculate on what they term purchasers' values. The OECD calculation is higher because it includes indirect taxes less subsidies.
Point of Order-Mr. D. Munro
Based on this OECD definition of gross domestic product, which we have used for standard international comparisons, our target of 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product for 1983 translates to 1.46 per cent of gross national product. For practical purposes we believe in setting a five-year target; 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product, as I have used, is equivalent to a target of 1.5 per cent of gross national product, which is a much more widely known term.
The second point which the hon. member for Calgary Centre raised related to the question of accuracy of footnoting which appeared in the discussion paper. On that point, Mr. Speaker, the historical figures of Canadian research and development expenditures expressed in terms of gross national product which I used in my statement are the latest and most reliable data available from Statistics Canada and the cited "Bank of Canada Review." The research and development expenditures appear in a 1978 Statistics Canada publication on "Research and Development Expenditures in Canada, 1963-1977" and will in due course appear as revisions to the Statistics Canada Catalogue 13-003. Due to an oversight, the footnote to the table in my statement was not amended when the original data, from an August, 1977 publication, were changed to reflect the latest information available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister has now replied to the point referred to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I will have to give both arguments some consideration, together with the two arguments on the point raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I will try to conclude the matters either tomorrow or Monday at the very latest.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, when 1 rose to speak on my point of order before Statements by Ministers, the deputy House leader on the government side was still in the House. I had intended to ask him if any progress had been made on securing a broadened reference for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Since he is not in the House, I will put it on the record. I do hope that some sort of a report will be forthcoming soon, particularly in light of the fact that on the 19th of this month the negotiators for the two sides will be meeting to continue their discussions toward a permanent treaty between our two countries on these matters.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: The request of the hon. member has been conveyed to the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who is now taking it into consideration.

June 15, 1978
Order Paper Questions COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT USE OF LOSS LEADERS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-463, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to outlaw the practice of the use of loss leaders. This is a practice to sell goods below cost, which has been detrimental to the operation of small businesses and has resulted in a concentration of power, especially in the food industry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 347, 963, 1,281, 1,282, 1,283, 1,472 and 1,596.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister during a recent visit to London and the western Ontario area in the course of a speech state that Canadians were too concerned with summer homes in the country and two cars in the yard and, if so (a) what were the exact words he used (b) in what location did he make the statement and to what audience (c) is the Prime Minister aware that radio news broadcasts carried voice clips of such a statement?
2.	Has the government adopted a policy to close the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake as a restraint and economy measure and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the government adopted a policy to sell one of the two $85,000 Cadillacs used by the Prime Minister as a restraint and economy measure and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, citation No. 171(a), (e), (h), (1) and (q).


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, did the Department of Justice pay or engage outside lawyers or consultants to assist directly or indirectly in the preparation of legislation?


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: During his early February 1978 visit to British Columbia, did the Prime Minister meet with a group of labour leaders and specifically did he say to them "Do you think we are out to screw the Canadian people?" and, if so (a) what is a full explanation of what the Prime Minister meant by this remark (b) is the Prime Minister prepared to immediately produce evidence to Parliament showing that he is not out to "screw" the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Prime Minister did not meet with labour leaders on the February, 1978 visit to British Columbia, his only visit to that province during the first quarter of 1978.


Mr. Cossitt: During his early February 1978 trip to British Columbia did the Prime Minister in a speech in Prince George state in part, that unemployment has grown faster in Canada than elsewhere and specifically did he say "Let's not get into subleties" and, if so (a) has it been or is it the policy of the government to let unemployment grow faster in Canada than elsewhere (b) what is a full explanation of what the Prime Minister meant when he said "Let's not get into subtleties"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. During his February, 1978 trip to British Columbia, the Prime Minister did not say in a speech in Prince George that unemployment has grown faster in Canada than elsewhere. He did say, "We have a worse rate of unemployment than the average of industrialized nations", which is, of course, a different thing. He did say, when referring to the Canadian labour force participation rate, "let's not get into subleties". (a) No. (b) The Prime Minister was explaining why our unemployment rate was higher than the average of the industrialized nations despite the fact that we create jobs faster in Canada than in other industrialized nations. One reason was the high rate of growth of the labour force. Another was the high participation rate. Explaining the latter, the Prime Minister said, "let's not get into subleties".


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Prime Minister's trip to certain points in British Columbia commencing on or about February 2, 1978 (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, including transportation, accommodation, food and drink for the Prime Minister and all those accompanying him on the trip (b) what specific government aircraft were involved in this entire operation and what was the total cost (c) what are the names and job designations of all persons accompanying the Prime Minister at any time during the trip?
2.	Did the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), the Minister of Justice and the Minister of State (Environment) accompany the Prime Minister at any time during the trip and, if so, what are all the costs including transportation, etc. for their participation?
3.	Is it government policy to use government aircraft at taxpayers expense to shuttle the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet to various places in the country for pre-election campaigning and, if so (a) what reasons are such privileges extended by the government only to the Liberal Party (b) what reasons justify such expenditure of public funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See reply to question 2,881 answered October 17, 1977.
2.	Yes. See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.
June 15, 1978


Mr. Beaudoin: Over the past ten years, has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized any documents from the Canadian Dairy Commission and, if so (a) in which years (b) for what reasons (c) what was the nature of the documents seized (d) have there been any lawsuits as a result?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.
Indian Affairs


Mr. Beaudoin: Were any railway lines abandoned in the province of Quebec between 1967 and 1977 and, if so (a) how many belonged to (i) CNR (ii) CPR (b) which municipalities were affected by the decommissioning of the lines?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission replies as follows:
Branch Lines Abandoned in the Province of Quebec 1967-1977
Railway	Subdivision	Between	Order No.	Date of Order	Municipality(ies) concernedCN	St. Stanislas	St. Prosper-Garneau mile 1.57-mile 15.69	R-24481	08/03/77	St. Stanislas Village; St. Stanislas Parish; Proulxville; St. ProsperCP	Temiscaming (Kipawa Spur)	Gendreau-Kipawa mile 0.0-mile 1.5	R-I1886	07/06/71	County of TemiscamingCP	Drummondville	Knowlton-Foster mile 0.0-mile 5.24	R-24044	15/12/76	Lac Brome; Knowlton; Paroisse de Sainte PudentienneCP	St. Guillaume	Ste. Rosalie-St. Guillaume mile 28.4-mile 46.7	R-23930	15/11/76	Corporation of Bagot County; Ste. Rosalie Village;CP	Sawyerville	Cookshire-Sawyerville mile 0.0-mile 6.9	R-24306	25/01/77	St. Isidore d'Auckland
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,463 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,463 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rodriguez: Since 1970, how many Canadian police officers under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General attended training programmes abroad and, in each case, what was the (a) name and location of the training institution or programme (b) name of the sponsoring organization (c) nature of the course (d) number and rank of Canadian police officers attending?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the provisions of the Indian Act;
That fifteen members, to be named at a later date, act as members on the part of this House on the said committee;
That the said committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to report from time to time; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
That the committee have power to travel from place to place within Canada; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said; Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner), and to the government that the motion before the House is not viewed by my party as one of non-confidence.
The motion is in response to the serious problems afflicting the aboriginal people in Canada and holds the promise for a more enlightened Indian policy. One of the remarkable paradoxes in Canadian history is that at the very time Canadians are debating the historic constitutional rights of the two "founding races" we continue to proceed with a policy of assimilation of our aboriginal people.
There is irrefutable evidence that the policy of assimilation, which has been part of our political history, most recently expressed in a formal way in the policy white paper of 1969, has not only been rejected by the Indian community but more important has failed to resolve their serious social, economic, and political problems.
It is essential to have a brief glimpse of the past if we are to understand the present and forge a new future.
There has been considerable legislation affecting the Indians in Canada since the eighteenth century to the present. During this period, government policy has shown little variation from its original position of assimilation for Indian people into white society at the earliest possible time.
Prior to 1844 Indians were administered by the British Indian department, which was a branch of the military. Indian policy began when the government sought military alliances with the Indians to aid in war ventures, and to secure their friendship during peace time. After 1844 the administration of Indian Affairs was transferred to the Province of Canada, away from the authority in England.
By 1867 the Province of Canada had an intensely developed Indian policy administered by the Crown Lands Department. Two statutes passed in 1856, "An Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of Indians in Lower Canada", and a similar act in Upper Canada, were introduced by government to protect the Indians and their lands from abuse only until such time as they became "civilized or assimilated".
In 1857 the Civilization of Indian Tribes Act expressly made assimilation its goal. It was declared that Indians who were "sufficiently advanced education wise or capable of managing their own affairs" would be enfranchised.
The Management of Indian Lands and Property Act declared the commissioner of the Crown lands to be the chief superintendent of Indian Affairs. He was vested with the power to dispose of lands reserved for the Indians which they had released or surrendered.
At confederation, the policy of the Province of Canada was inherited by the federal government in the British North

America Act, section 91(24), giving the government legislative authority over "Indians and lands reserved for Indians".
The bases of the policy were several: alienation of Indian interest in land through treaties; reservation of land for Indians; and the existence of a government department charged with managing the affairs of Indians. The main objective of the policy was to bring about a "detribilization" from the native way of life to that of the white majority. In 1868 the federal government integrated this policy into legislation which eventually became the basis of the first federal statute, the Indian Act of 1880.
The main quality running throughout this act was the pervading power of the superintendent general. The Indian Act of 1880 was not a new policy but rather an aggregation of previous legislation. The protectionist and assimilation attitudes of pre-confederation remained the central theme of the policy. This was apparent during Sir John A. Macdonald's speech during debate on second reading of the bill when he stated, as reported at page 1991, volume II, 1880, of the House of Commons debates:
We are bound to protect them-the general rule is that you cannot make the Indian a white man-all we can hope for is to wean them by slow degrees from the nomadic habits, which have almost become an instinct, and by slow degrees absorb them or settle them into lands. In the meantime, they must be fairly protected.
Despite subsequent revisions and modifications the 1880 Indian Act is in essence still in effect today, indicating that the Indian Affairs branch has undergone no major ideological shifts.
During the years 1946 through 1948 a joint special committee of the Senate and House of Commons considered the Indian Act and the general administration of Indian Affairs. The 1946 hearings dealt mainly with witnesses from the Indian Affairs Department. The thrust of their argument, that more funds and a larger and more highly paid staff would solve the problems, failed.
The hearings represented the first attempt to consult the Indians themselves on such matters as treaty rights, the Indian Act, enfranchisement and band membership. However, only two major briefs were submitted by Indian associations. The presentation by Dr. Diamond Jenness, an anthropologist, entitled "The Liquidation of Canada's Indian Problem within Twenty-five Years", was widely heralded, and with the exemption of abolishing reserves and enfranchisement, the plan was substantially implemented.
These proposals formed the backbone of Indian Affairs philosophy and was reflected in the 1969 white paper, the 1975 local government guidelines, and the James Bay legislation.
As a result, the present Indian Act was passed in parliament in 1951 which primarily consolidated all previously independent changes. Although in some minor ways the 1951 act was a slight improvement, there was little change in the federal government's restrictive attitudes toward Indian rights and freedoms.
The 1959 joint committee was not established to study a revision of the Indian Act, but devoted its energies and gather-
June 15, 1978

ing of material to issues such as education, housing and band funding, which eventually lead to some amendments.
In the intervening periods, a commendable study on education was carried out under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Otherwise, virtually nothing occurred until the June, 1969, white paper. The white paper introduced by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) proposed the abolition of the Indians' special constitutional position, repeal of the Indian Act, and phasing out of the Department of Indian Affairs. In total it denied the existence of an Indian cultural and political reality.
At the time of the tabling of the white paper, my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), stated on June 25, 1969, as reported at page 10583 of Hansard:
It would be callous gamesmanship and a very real tragedy if this statement had any other inspiration than a genuine attempt to help the Indian people.
The white paper was rejected by the Indian community and the Indian sentiments were expressed in the red paper of 1970, prepared by the Indian chiefs of Alberta, who described the 1969 policy as:
A scheme whereby a generation or shortly after the proposed Indian Lands Act expires, our people would be left with no land; and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos.
They recommended that the Indian Act should be reviewed by Indian people but should not be repealed. The paper went on to say:
The only way to maintain our culture is for us to remain as Indians. To preserve our culture it is necessary to preserve our status, rights, lands and treaties. Our treaties are the basis of our rights.
The review process of the Indian Act commenced in the Indian community, and that process continues and will be invaluable in the revision of the act. In response to the obvious fact that the Indian view was essential when determining how the Indian Act would be changed, a joint cabinet and National Indian Brotherhood committee was established to determine the best way to amend the Indian Act to suit the future needs of Indians. After lengthy discussions between the committee of the National Indian Brotherhood and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Justice, an Indian Act consultative process was agreed upon by the joint National Indian Brotherhood cabinet committee on December 12, 1975. To date that process has met with failure. I have no doubt the minister's comments of last Friday in response to the NIB withdrawal from the joint cabinet committee will be used by the minister in an effort to convince the House that progress has been made and that the situation is well in hand. That tactic will not succeed.
The joint National Indian Brotherhood cabinet committee has undoubtedly served a useful function and may do so in the future. However, I am not convinced it is the most appropriate structure to deal effectively with the Indian Act. Let us have no illusions as to who will shoulder the blame and suffer the
Indian Affairs
consequences if the joint committee fails in its objectives; it will be the Indian leaders and the Indian people, not ministers of the Crown.
Why do I have reservations about the existing structure? The government, despite the withdrawal of its policy white paper, has through administrative and legislative action continued to pursue a policy of assimilation and integration. The 1975 local government guidelines which we debated in this chamber on June 12, 1975, were based on the principle of assimilation. The James Bay legislation, by setting a precedent under which the Cree and Inuit decided to accept lands under provincial jurisdiction, is a glaring example of the assimilation policy pursued by the present government. Under these circumstances I ask: are this government and its ministers to be trusted with an issue as fundamental as the Indian Act?
The joint NIB cabinet committee, by its very nature, is shrouded in secrecy, and this prevents members of parliament, the Indian community, and the public from assessing the motives and actions of the government. During the past decade, matters before cabinet have been hidden from the public under the guise of cabinet secrecy. Lack of information constantly thwarts our attempts to ensure responsible, open administration, and the government has not been timid in exploiting every opportunity for political gain. Such a committee is advantageous to the cabinet, but a liability to the Indian leaders, the Indian community, and to parliament.
We should recall that by introducing the white paper in 1969 the government skillfully trapped Indian organizations into supporting the Department of Indian Affairs. The government knew the white paper would be rejected by the Indian community and that it would be forced to accept the only alternative available at the time-support for a department committed to assimilation and integration. We all know the Department of Indian Affairs has increased in size since this manoeuvre was carried out, and has extended its influence over the Indian people. Again, the question should be asked: is this the most appropriate structure, knowing the department plays an integral part in the negotiation process and recognizing that it is ingrained with the philosophy of paternalism and assimilation?
The current situation in Canada is not unlike that which existed in the United States in 1969 At that time the findings of a government study commissioned by President Nixon stated that the termination issue in the United States still "poisons Indian affairs and causes almost every act of government to be viewed with suspicion."
The government has antagonized Indian leaders in all areas of the country, producing a polarizing effect on the policy of assimilation. Many Indians see assimilation and integration written into every administrative decision and, as a result, are frequently reluctant to accept help. At times they refuse help which is desperately needed because they fear and believe that to do so would lead to a further undermining of their rights. The policy of assimilation has had dire consequences for the Indian people both in political and human terms.

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
Important issues such as Indian culture and identity, consultation and self-determination, rights and treaties, hunting and fishing rights, education, health, economic viability of reserves, urban migration, enfranchisement and membership, are but a few of the political problems which remain unsolved.
Last Friday the minister made reference to the enfranchisement of Indian women. The hon. gentleman knows members of all political parties have expressed their concern about the matter and are anxious to see the Indian Act revised. However, if the minister was serious in his statement-and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity-then he must realize it is essential to review the broader question of enfranchisement and membership. The minister knows the law not only affects Indian women but discriminates against Indian men and Indian children. My colleagues will enlarge on a number of these issues as the debate progresses.
In human terms, present conditions are scandalous. An infant mortality rate of 40 per 1,000 live births among the Indian community compares with 21 per 1,000 live births among Canadians generally. A suicide rate of 20 per 100,000 population compares with a national figure of 9.7 per cent; 87 per cent of Indians live in sub-standard housing as compared to 11 per cent for the rest of Canadians; 54 per cent of Indian households receive incomes of under $2,263 per annum, while the figure for other Canadians receiving similar incomes is 20 per cent. The life expectancy for Indian people is 36 years as compared with 62 years for the rest of the population. Only 6 per cent of Indians complete high school education though the figure throughout Canada is 88 per cent.
It is now apparent that the serious social, economic, and political problems experienced by the Indian community will not be resolved until we can assure the Indian people that it is our desire and intention to honour the special relationship between the federal government and themselves. Such an assurance could best be achieved by bringing in a new Indian Act which derives its authority from the British North America Act. Such an act should be a sensitive and accurate reflection of the views of the Indian community.
The Indian Act is the single most important piece of legislation affecting Indian people. By its very nature it focusses on virtually all the fundamental issues relating to Canada's Indians, including their continued existence as an identifiable culture.
The issue involves minority rights, acquired rights, and aboriginal rights. Since the past has too often seen misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Indian rights and liabilities, it is essential that the Indian people be active participants in the deliberations. In our search for solutions in the past we have either intentionally or unintentionally attempted to impose our values on a minority group. It is therefore not surprising that the Indian people may well reject many of our values. This should not be viewed as a failure of our system, nor as individuals should our personal values be perceived as being inadequate or threatened. Rather, we should view the differences as the expression of a people attempting to retain its culture and identity. It is therefore essential that members

of the House of Commons and of the other place-and, indeed, all Canadians-have a clearer understanding of these differences.
Those with a knowledge of the Indian Act and related matters are aware of the voluminous legal opinions which have accumulated over the years. I have no doubt that such documents will be of immeasurable assistance to those involved in the deliberations. However, since we are dealing with a disadvantaged minority, it would be useful to remind hon. members of an observation which is frequently made in discussions concerning equality, and specifically legal equality, as it relates to a disadvantaged group. Individuals who have equality in fact or who have a very strong bargaining position usually find legal equality invaluable. For those in a position of political and economic weakness, legal equality alone serves the stronger interest in society at the expense of the weak.
To a group struggling to assert and protect a special identity, equality may in fact be a negative concept. I am confident that such a committee would recognize this fact, and its discussions would be based not only on legal evidence but also on the basis of the human elements involved in the issue.
1 want to make one additional comment on why it is necessary to review the Indian Act and the reason for proposing a joint committee of both Houses to assist in the task. To me, an additional compelling reason for this motion is to ensure that the aboriginal people of Canada have a meaningful input into the national unity debate. The government document "A Time for Action" tabled in the House of Commons on June 12, 1978, is long on rhetoric but short on substance. It does not suppress the fears that the concepts forming the basis of the white paper of 1969 have been put to rest.
When the white paper was introduced in 1969 by the present Minister of Finance two legal concepts were used to support the policy of the government, and I think we should be reminded of these. The first concept was that the legal basis for special Indian claims is untenable, that treaties should be terminated, and that aboriginal claims are not real claims. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was forced to reverse his position, and considerable research and a growing body of information regarding this issue have accumulated rapidly in the last few years. However, 1 notice that no reference is made respecting this important matter in the document which was tabled by the Prime Minister.
Second, it was asserted that the division of powers in the British North America Act which makes Indians a federal responsibility is discriminatory and leads to inferior services. It was reasoned that the separate legal status of Indians is charged with keeping the Indian people:
-apart from and behind other Canadians. The Indian people have not been full citizens of the communities and provinces in which they live.
Thus, in 1969 the conclusion was that Indians should become wards of the provinces. Although the argument of the government was and continues to be unfounded, we have seen
June 15, 1978

the James Bay legislation which confirms that the original concept of the government is still being pursued.
We also know that provincial governments have and continue to include Indian people in provincial programs. In addition, the federal government has not been reluctant or timid to use its strong fiscal arm either to entice or to coerce provinces into cost-shared programs, with the expressed intention of assisting regional disparity and helping the disadvantaged.
The argument of the government for transferring responsibility for Indians to the provinces is, therefore, specious. The critical issue, I must repeat, is the federal financial responsibility and constitutional responsibility, and surely the timing is appropriate for a joint committee of both Elouses to study this specific issue.
Following the rejection of the policy in the white paper, research and negotiations over aboriginal rights and treaty rights have intensified, as I indicated earlier. In addition, the National Indian Brotherhood, provincial organizations, and bands have been actively reviewing and consolidating their position with respect to revisions to the Indian Act.
I recognize that the issues are complex and that difficult questions remain to be answered, but I must conclude that the Indian people and their leaders are now better prepared to make a substantive and constructive contribution to a joint committee than at any time in their history. I have no doubt that the Indian leaders across Canada are genuinely concerned about whether they have the political cohesiveness necessary to undertake such a project. That feeling is understandable, and in many ways is analogous to the feelings of Canadians who are reflecting on the broader question of national unity.
If the Indian community desires a more definitive role in confederation, and I have no doubt that that is its view, it must avoid the hazard of being engulfed and forgotten in the broader debate. The responsibilities are onerous, and the path will be difficult. Each of us, whether we are Indian or nonIndian, can be immobilized by the threat of failure. The risk is not failure but, rather, the possibility that the voice of Canada's aboriginal people will be but a whisper or unheard as events pass before us. Such a joint committee would be invaluable as a repository for such a dialogue at this critical time in our history.
In conclusion, let me summarize by stating that the motion was introduced in the knowledge that existing conditions affecting Indian people are unacceptable in both economic and human terms, in the knowledge that meaningful progress in resolving major issues will be impossible until the Indian people are reassured about their rights and relationship with the federal government, and with the conviction that a thorough study of the Indian Act by a joint parliamentary committee, whose mandate and terms of reference are acceptable to the Indian people, will provide the basis for a responsible, sensitive report which will not only allay the present fears of the Indian people but also offer them hope for the future.
A nation's image and the character of its people is reflected in their attitudes toward the disadvantaged. This motion would
Indian Affairs
provide Canada and Canadians with an opportunity to recognize the important contribution the aboriginal people have made to our nation, and would give us a chance to recognize the importance of their culture and indentity, and to ensure that justice will be served.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), who is usually the spokesman for our party on questions such as this, is in his constituency, and he has asked me to speak on behalf of our party and to express some of the views he has on the motion before us today and on the whole question of the problems of native people in this country.
Let me begin by saying that we will support the motion put forward by the official opposition although, since we believe in the abolition of the Senate, we can hardly be said to be enthusiastic about the part of the motion which would provide for membership on the proposed committee of members of the Senate.
However, the problems of native people in this country, both status and non-status, are so tremendous, and native people are in such a perilous situation-they are obviously at the bottom of the ladder in every facet of life in this country which is of importance to the people-that we welcome this opportunity to discuss their problems today, and we are prepared to support the appointment of a committee such as the one proposed by the official opposition.
Hon. members should give some thought to the actual situation. According to the 1971 census there were 295,000 native Indian people in Canada. The average income of Indians on reserves for the last year for which we have figures, 1974-75, was $1,959. The national average income for the same year was $8,200. In other words, the national average was more than four times as great as the average income of native people living on reserves. Do I need to remind members of the House of how poorly any family can live when the average income of a person is less than $2,000 a year? Most of them live in isolated areas in which the cost of many basic essentials of living is much greater than it is in the settled parts of Canada.
There is another problem. Any member of parliament who represents an area with a growing native population-and I represent a part of Winnipeg which has seen an explosion of the native population in recent years-knows that when they are moving into the city, native people are at the lowest economic level of any of the people in the area. Let us look at some facets of native existence. In our federal prisons, of the 9,100 persons held in those prisons, 568 were Indian, 180 were Metis and 115 were Inuit. Since native people make up only 2 per cent of Canada's population, it is obvious that our native people are greatly overrepresented in our prisons, probably ten times as much as they should be.
If one looks at the provincial jails, the percentage of native inmates, especially in western Canada, is staggering. In the

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
case of one institution for women that I know, the percentage runs to over 90 per cent of the total inmate population.
Let us look at infant mortality rates. A couple of years ago the infant mortality rate in Canada as a whole was 15 deaths per 1,000 births; for Indian people it was 38.6 deaths per 1,000 births, and for Inuit it was 53.2 deaths per 1,000 births. When one looks at education, the minister can say that we have made great strides, that native children are staying in schools longer than they had in earlier years. What is happening at present is that native children get to grade 10, but in grade 10 there is a mass exodus. We are not succeeding in holding native children in the high schools more than a fraction of what we do for children who attend Canadian high schools as a whole. Given this situation, I say that we have a crisis.
I was disappointed that the resolution put forward today simply proposed the setting up of a committee to study the Indian Act. It seems to us that simply to study the act would be a mistake, that the problems of the native people are much greater and go much further than simply what is incorporated in the act.
If we are going to discuss the act, there is one provision of the act with which we need to deal because there has been so much discussion amongst the native people themselves. It is an issue which was raised by the hon. member who introduced this debate, and that is the section in the Indian Act which discriminates against native women as against the men. The situation is really quite simple. There is no question that Indian women have been treated unfairly and unjustly, and there is no question that justice must be done, that Indian women's equal rights with Indian men must not only be recognized but restored. The Indian women who are unjustly treated must receive restitution and compensation.
We believe that this unjust and discriminatory section of the Indian Act was brought in, not by Indians but by white political leaders and by white bureaucrats who probably wanted to make their work easier, and to reduce the number of status Indians. We think that that situation cannot and should not continue, and we think it should be rectified by simply striking out the section in the current Indian Act which creates that discriminatory situation, and inserting a clause retroactively reinstating those women and their children who have suffered from that section. I say to the minister that if the government is prepared to bring forward that kind of amendment, he will get agreement from this party to pass it with very little, if any, debate, and I think the same would be true of the other parties. If the minister really believes that this should be done, he should proceed with it and not plead lack of time for debate.
I am concerned about what this year's estimates show in the way in which the government is curtailing expenditures for services for the native people. The estimates for 1978-79 call for an expenditure of $650 million. That is an increase of just $17 million over last year's estimates. That works out, as far as I can calculate it, to an increase of less than 3 per cent. Surely the minister and the government recognize the fact that the cost of living is rising by something between 8.5 per cent and

10 per cent at present. Surely they recognize that just to hold the services where they were last year, an increase of 8.5 per cent to 10 per cent is required. Yet what we see is that the increase proposed, and therefore the increase for the department, is less than 3 per cent. I think this makes that kind of proposal for dealing with the problem of the poorest people in this country a national disgrace. Native people have often wondered whether the department and its personnel are employed to help native people meet their needs, or whether they are employed simply to give well paid, comfortable employment to several thousand white people.
Let me indicate briefly what I mean, in the figures which I have been able to accumulate. 1 will use some figures supplied by the government in response to questions I put on the order paper about 18 months ago which were answered on March 21, 1977. In 1975-76 the department employed 11,543 people; in Ottawa it employed 2,375 people. According to the figures the government provided-and I think I added them correctly, but if they are wrong, they will not be wrong by very much- the number of native people employed by the department in Ottawa, out of 2,375 people two years ago, was just 59. In the 1978-79 estimates we see that the manpower in Indian and Eskimo affairs programs will be 5,913. Of these, three are 26 executives, 2,000 in scientific and professional fields, 1,390 in the administrative and foreign service, 194 in the technical fields, 1,010 in the administrative support section, and 1,289 in the operational section. How many of the people who receive incomes of $25,000 or more are native people? I do not have the figures, but the minister and I know that the percentage would be no more than one or two.
I should like to refer to a press release dated March 8, 1977. It was issued by the Public Service of Canada. The subject is: "Native Employment in the Pubic Service is Studied". Mr. Gallant, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, said the following:
Native people comprise about 4 per cent of the Canadian population, but they occupy less than 0.5 per cent of the officer-level positions in the public service.
It would be surprising if native people felt that white people were doing well when supposedly dealing with aboriginal misery. How much of the budget is used for the benefit of natives? Mr. Gallant has indicated that the government has done poorly in the field of employment for native people, even within the department which supposedly deals with Indian and Eskimo problems.
Dealing with the area of grants and contributions, last year $2.8 million was provided for research into Indian treaties and rights. This year only $2.2 million will be provided, which is a reduction of $600,000. Have the problems concerning Indian treaties and aboriginal rights been solved? Has an agreement been reached? Of course not. Are the differences between the government and native people becoming more apparent? Is the government putting pressure on native organizations by cutting back their funds? As far as I am concerned, that is the

June 15, 1978

real reason. Native organizations are entitled to an explanation of that cutback.
Dealing with the area of contributions under agreements with the provinces for the provision of welfare and other services, as well as contributions to Indian associations and groups, last year the contributions totalled $29 million. This year they have been reduced to $21 million, which is a decrease of $8 million. Why? Is there less need for welfare? Do the Indian bands and associations require less assistance with their problems? I do not believe that. If that money is not to be paid out in the form of welfare, perhaps it should be used for economic development. Approximately $24 million was provided for Indian and Eskimo economic development. That has been reduced to $22 million, which is a decrease of $2 million. Money for both welfare and economic development for native people has been cut back, at a time when needs are greater and costs are rising.
In the last 15 years the government has changed from an authoritarian and paternalistic approach to consultation and dialogue. It seems to be returning to the area of more big brother pressure. At one point larger amounts of money were provided for education and welfare, and then cutbacks occurred. There was the beginning of thinking in terms of employment for all native people, and then there was lack of action. At one point money was provided for economic development, and then cutbacks occurred.
What has been Ottawa's response to this crisis? When native people leave reserves and come to the cities, Ottawa takes the view that they become a problem of the cities and provinces. In cities such as Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, just to mention a few, native people constitute a high proportion of the welfare cases, child neglect cases, the jail population, and the alcoholism problem. When native people remain on the reserves they are the responsibility of the federal government. Once they move into the cities, Ottawa indicates that they are no longer a federal government responsibility and washes its hands of them. The headaches and the problems are left to the cities and provinces. The situations and the problems of native people are the responsibility of all people in this country and on this continent. The native people of this continent have been mistreated since the day white men arrived.
A solution to native problems will not be reached easily. It will take more money than we are willing to spend. It will require more consultation and co-operation with native organizations than we have been willing to partake in. If we are willing to work with the native people, a solution to the problem which has bedevilled this continent for more than 200 years will be reached. If those approaches are taken, we can look forward to the day when native people will live in socioeconomic conditions equal to the rest of Canada. That has not been reached yet, and I see no real desire on the part of the government to attain that.


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


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating calls for the appointment of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider and report upon the provisions of the Indian Act. I was somewhat surprised by this motion because the House of Commons already has the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose members may, if they so desire, obtain the permission of Parliament to carry out special studies dealing with Indian affairs.
That committee can also be empowered to call witnesses and travel. That has been done in the past. I myself was once a member of such a committee; we met with Indians and Inuit in their communities, and we were able then to hear their comments and recommendations on Indian affairs. The only thing that can be added to that committee is the presence of senators to make the same studies which were made before. I say the same studies but it will certainly not be the same studies because although the same problems exist in certain areas, that committee will certainly have fresh recommendations to make.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that with respect to Indian affairs some things are wrong in Canada. In his speech the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) mentioned his fears of seeing Indians being assimilated to our way of life. I believe he may be a bit right and the danger that exists of seeing that assimilation occur might perhaps be confirmed when we see particularly large projects being carried out such as one currently in progress in the province of Quebec with respect to the James Bay power development project. We have one slated to start soon in the Yukon Territory,namely the pipeline to be built across Alaska, the Yukon and part of Alberta to the United States. There is another one planned from the King Christian Islands and Ellesmere Islands for the transportation of natural gas to eastern Canada and the United States. Those are large projects bringing with them in those regions large numbers of white men with modern methods, modern techniques and, in short, all their ways of life.
Today you only have to consider what is happening on the James Bay work sites and you can see that workers expect more than they did in the past. Today they want to have as much comfort as possible and I believe that is reasonable too. They want as much comfort as possible to do that work. Indians working on those projects are inclined to follow our working methods, to take our lifestyle and I am not sure yet that that is good for them because they do not seem to be prepared to accept or learn fast enough that transition from one life style to another.
So when we discussed the pipeline project on August 4, 1977, in the speech that I made on that occasion I pointed out to the government that I agreed in principle with the project proposed by Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd. but I had

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
reservations and I would like to name a few here having regard precisely to the Indians in that region, and I quote:
That the government negotiate with our native people, with every consideration they are entitled to as original owners of the territories concerned.
This is a reservation which I was making on the occasion of the debate on the pipeline. I added:
That it allow them to assert themselves without imposing upon them a way of life to which they were not born and, as our needs for natural gas are very relative, without imposing any temporal constraints upon them as has been the case with the James Bay Inuit with regard to negotiations.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I suggest once again that in all projects of this magnitude one must be very careful and this is where I think that the fears which the member for Lambton-Kent alluded to are justified. In our past relations with the Indians, I think we do not have much to brag about when it comes to what we have given them, either in terms of the projects such as the one I just mentioned, and there have been others before, or in terms of exploration projects for tapping natural or other resources. What we have succeeded in giving them is alcoholism, tuberculosis and many other contemporary diseases caused by the weakening of their natural resistance to the elements.
Mr. Speaker, if this committee is struck, I think it will have to get some feed back from the Indians, and I should perhaps use the word Inuit. It will have to try and understand what they really want and what they expect from a government such as that of Canada. I think they want to participate in the development of this country as well in its economic activities, they want to participate in that in their own way and not in our way. This is what we, the white people, find difficult to understand. I think we must keep in mind quite clearly that they have their own way of living and that we should not proceed too quickly in trying to assuage them to our own way of life. I think this is where we are mistaken when we try to proceed too quickly.
Since Canada became a nation in early 1763, Indian affairs were administered by the British Crown. Starting in 1763, these responsibilities were transferred to the Canadian Crown. In 1912, with regard to the province of Quebec, there was the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, but it was only towards the mid-60s that the Quebec government started to show some interest in Quebec Indian affairs. One cannot overlook the few errors made by the government at that time in dealing with the Indians or their affairs. Those errors were repeated by the present government to the extent where the Indians came to the federal government who accepted to provide them with an amount of about $10 million to help them defend themselves against the encroachments the provincial government was then planning by denying them almost all the rights they had to the lands entrusted to them by the act of 1912.
I think that, all in all, things worked themselves out not too badly, but mostly because the Indians had access to our courts and members of the judiciary who defended them and

obtained rulings that were favourable rather than unfavourable to them. So, I think those will be the tasks the committee will be entrusted with if it is created and, as far as I am concerned, it would be reasonable enough since such a committee has not gone out to the northern communities for several years now.
True, Justice Berger's Commission went around the main Indian communities affected by the development of the pipeline, but many other Indian localities and regions have not been visited for a very long time, and I think that the committee could gather some interesting and important information for the government and the minister. It could also change the government's policy by recommending measures that would be more satisfactory for the Indians. I think we should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent to reshape that committee, not to reshape it but to add to it members from the Senate, to make it a joint committee and to allow it to meet Indians from all parts of Canada, hear their opinions and make the changes that are necessary to meet their demands.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by expressing disappointment with the approach to the resolution. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), in his characteristic and bipartisan way, has attempted to put forward a useful proposal to deal with a difficult issue that has remained unresolved for a period of years despite a great deal of effort by governments, parliamentary committees, and Indian associations in attempting to come to grips with it.
My disappointment, I suppose, stems from the rather lengthy and over-laboured treatment of an issue which is at least ten years old, namely the 1969 policy paper. I would remind the hon. member for Lambton-Kent that it is now 1978. I think there have been at least three ministers who have disavowed the direction of that paper. I know that my predecessor, who is here in the House today because of the debate, others before him, and also myself, have repeated with all the conviction and eloquence that we can severally muster, that we are not talking about assimilation. That is not our purpose; that is not our objective; it is quite different from that.
Despite all those assertions and the concrete steps taken by the government to move to support Indian self determination, the key spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, on an occasion when he could have addressed the difficulties with the Indian Act, spent most of his time going over history-quite interesting but not particularly germane-and then went into a protracted discussion of the 1969 white paper. I do not know if anyone on this side of the House-I am not sure about the other side-is any wiser
June 15, 1978

about precisely how the official opposition would deal with the Indian Act other than to send it to a standing committee.
If there is a subject that has been debated, studied, agonized over, worried about, disputed and contended-if it is not the constitution, then it is the Indian Act. Even the Indians are becoming a little impatient, I suspect, with our inability, often in conjunction with them, to deal with the basic constitutional background that governs their lives internally and their relationship with the Government of Canada, the Crown, and the people of Canada.
I know that the hon. member is trying to do this with immense good will. I must tell him that we will probably be voting against it, however, largely because we see it as a set-back. We are not at the point to refer this issue-which has been under discussion, under analysis, has been studied and had workshops for five or six years-holus-bolus to a joint committee and ask it to come up with an answer to problems with which we have made slow progress. I know the hon. member for Lambton-Kent will in part understand my disappointment and why the issue will not be dealt with that way.
I do not want to labour my disappointments today, because actually I am in a more positive mood than my remarks would indicate. I will come to that in a second, but as I must express some disappointment with the Conservative party, I must also say I was a little disappointed with the New Democratic Party. I have taken into account, however, that as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) pointed out, he was pinch-hitting for the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). He rather skirted around the Indian Act and tended to treat it as a peripheral or marginal issue. I do not have much to disagree with him on some of the things he said regarding jobs, programs, education and other things, and I think the parliamentary secretary will deal with some of these matters when he speaks.
We tend to minimize the significance of dealing with the Indian Act. If there is an analogy it is the analogy of the urgency and importance we attach to dealing with the Canadian constitution.


Miss MacDonald:: Being sent to a committee.


James Hugh Faulkner: There is a stage in these things where I am prepared to see a parliamentary committee work, but it is not now and I will come to what I hope to do instead. Hon. members may come around to seeing the wisdom of my proposal versus theirs. I do not want to be partisan because I would like to enter this discussion and debate in a healthy spirit of mutual respect and willingness to bring it to a head.
Let me repeat that the Indian Act is not a peripheral issue, it is not marginal, it is central. Unless we can deal with it with the best will in the world, governments or departments will not achieve the objectives that the Indians have today. What is central to amending the Indian Act is at long last to deal with the core issue, and that is the powers of the chiefs and the band counsels-at long last to deal with the powers vested in the minister, powers which today are anachronisms at best. It is only through amending the Indian Act that we can achieve
Indian Affairs
that transfer of responsibility from a minister and a government to the duly elected people, the bands, namely, the chiefs and the band counsels. That transfer of responsibility is the only way we will see the sort of development for which we hope.
I am committed to amending the Indian Act. The last major revision was in 1950. The act no longer reflects the needs or the interest of the Indian people, nor does it adequately reflect a proper role for the minister. When we begin to examine the process of amending the Indian Act there is one question we must be clear on and, if we are not, the NIB will be clear on it for us.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the NIB representatives, particularly its president, which reflects their interest in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Conversations with the president of the NIB, members of its executive or president of provincial associations or chiefs will serve to remind the House that any amending process cannot touch, eliminate, or affect the trust responsibilities of the minister, the historic links with the treaties and, in turn, the links between the treaties and the Crown. If we start meddling in that relationship I think we can forget about getting any sort of co-operation from the Indian people in the process of amending the Indian Act. Those links are not just symbolic. To the Indians I have met, they are real and symbolic. They are the principle, the legal, and constitutional connection. Any attempt to fiddle with that will compromise the whole exercise. We have to be clear that that issue, that part of it, is not open for discussion and negotiation.
We must also be clear that in the exercise we are engaged in, that what we are attempting to do on the one hand is to preserve those historic and important links with the past and on the other hand trying to frame a law which will provide new opportunities for the future. Those new opportunities essentially relate to band government, local powers, and things of that kind. I say that simply to reassure the House that I am anxious to amend the Indian Act. I have indicated that to the President of the National Indian Brotherhood and to other provincial association presidents. I am anxious not to lose time as a result of the interregnum caused by the breakdown of the NIB cabinet committee process. I am anxious to continue consultation, and I can tell the House today that continuing consultations are a reality between myself and the president of the NIB, as well as others, and among our staffs. I think there is a general disposition to deal with these issues.
Getting back to the motion, I doubt that one will find there is widespread support that we should simply refer it to a parliamentary committee. I would be anxious, and I hope the Indian leadership will support me on this, to continue to build on the work that has been done prior to the joint NIB cabinet committee during its hearings, and in the future.
6452

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
To deal with the suggestion that not much has happened or that not much has been accomplished, in this connection I would like to review some of the areas of broad agreement that have emerged from the joint NIB-cabinet discussions to give the House some indication of the basis on which I would see the pulling together of the work done to date. In my judgment, on real agreement, in the sense that the cabinet and the NIB and its executive committee agreed to something, the achievements were modest. They dealt with surrenders. In the areas which we had sort of identified as potential areas of agreement, I think the agreements were more substantive, which means we are at a point in time of trying to pull it together rather than to define a lot of new areas. But I am open to new areas that go beyond what is simply defined and dealt with in the joint NIB cabinet committee. I will do that in consultation with the NIB.
Let me review some of the accomplishments in the consultations to date. I would like hon. members to bear in mind that it was a very difficult process. I am surprised the hon. member for Lambton-Kent cjid not deal with it at greater length. When there are a lot of people in a room trying to get an agreement by definition, it is much more difficult than trying to get two people to come to an agreement There were considerable hurdles, suspicions-


An hon. Member:: He was not invited.


James Hugh Faulkner: He would only have complicated it further by just one more voice, reasonable voice as it is. There were serious hurdles to overcome in making this process work. But despite all of that, there were some important developments. In the process, broad agreement has been reached on at least some of the following principles and objectives. The New Indian Act should be regarded by the government, by the parliament, and by Canadians generally as a special constituent law governing the whole relationship between the Indian people and government, and in effect with the larger society as a whole. It should contain a preamble or declaratory section attesting to the continued special status of Indians in Canada, to their aboriginal descent and historical link with the Crown, to the treaty rights for the need to preserve and protect their Indian laws, and to the on-going responsibility of the federal government.
An important point I think we agreed to, and one I am still sort of mulling over, concerned the fact that the revision should be phased rather than an attempt made at wholesale revision. For this reason some of the earlier revisions might subsequently require further modification as later revisions are made. My own feeling on this is that we should try to deal with as much as possible, and if we find that in the process of trying to amend the totality of the Act leads to no progress on some of the substantive areas of agreement, we should approach it in a phased way. I think that is generally agreed with the NIB as well.
There should be an elective or opting-in principle which would allow bands wishing to do so to take advantage of revised provisions of the act, particularly in the area of band

government. This elective principle is intended to take account of the fact that bands all across the country are at various stages of development, requiring flexibility in the legislation to respond to their particular needs.
This opting-in principle would be exercised through a clearly defined procedure for band referendum, which could also be the means whereby bands would make all their major decisions.
The underlying aim of the first phase of Indian Act revision, perhaps of most revisions would be-and this is absolutely crucial-to enlarge the powers, functions and responsibilities of bands to enable them to take charge of their own affairs in ways and means of their own choosing.
One area where we had some difficulty concerned the preamble section. What happened basically was that discussions about the philosophy of the act kept running up against difficult questions of how it might be expressed in its operative sections. One thing we had decided to do was deal with the preamble later in the process but still within the framework of the first phase of the revisions. Accordingly, in the past year or so discussions have tended to focus on a number of specific subjects of particular concern and interest to Indian bands in various parts of the country.
Top priority has been given, for example, to ways and means of giving effect to the agreed policies of Indian control of Indian education. Members of the House who were also members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development a few years ago will recall how that policy evolved with substantial assistance and advice from the standing committee. Since that time an increasing number of bands have been able, through administrative arrangements, to assume local control of Indian education through the establishment of school boards and other means. What is desired by the Indian people, and what is indeed needed now, is a solid statutory base for the transfer or delegation of authority and responsibilities now exercised by the minister under the act, without diminishing his fundamental responsibility in relation to Indian education. How we define that will be an important area of discussion, and one I think we can resolve.
In the joint discussions so far there has been wide area of agreement on the practical measures for carrying out these transfers and delegations. But full agreement has foundered on differences in the NIB cabinet committee about the nature and extent of Indian rights in the field of education. That is still difficult. I recognize that, and it is something we will have to try to resolve.
In the matter of land surrenders, both the NIB and the government are agreed on the formula for allowing Indian bands to assume virtually full control of Indian lands for all purposes except outright sale. The Indians themselves have wished to preserve in the Indian Act the protection afforded to Indian lands by the surrender provisions relating to such sales.
As suggested, the central issues arising out of the current consideration of Indian Act revision relate to the future of band government. There seems to be wide agreement, for
June 15, 1978

example, that bands should be given the opportunity, or option, to acquire legal status and personality under the Indian Act, coupled with enlargement of band bylaw powers. It is recognized, however, that there are some difficult questions that need to be identified and resolved, for example, the extent, if any, that laws of general application, particularly provincial laws, would continue to be applied on reserves where the band government had assumed wide powers and responsibilities. That is an issue with which we will have to deal. There are also problems of bylaw enforcement and the administration of justice on Indian reserves generally.
As I suggested earlier, there is no disagreement with the need and desirability to enlarge band powers to allow those bands wishing to do so to take full control of their local affairs. In this regard we have been discussing a system of band charters, by which we mean negotiated agreements which would in effect become the constitution for the band concerned. The likelihood is that there would be some variation in these charters, in the form of categories of charter from which the bands could choose in order to meet their particular needs.
It is envisaged that the revised Indian Act could provide the statutory base for such a charter system, which would be open to bands wishing to exercise the option and expressing their wish through referendum. Other bands, and for some time this might include a majority of the 565 bands in the country today, might choose to remain under existing provisions of the Indian Act for the purposes of their local government. That would be a decision they would have to make. In other words, they would have a choice. That flexibility may be important in getting agreement to the Indian Act.
The intent in all this is to provide the flexibility of response which the government and Indian leaders agree is needed to meet the situation in which Indian bands today find themselves at various stages of political, social and economic development.
Finally, in these areas of current concern is the pressing question deriving from the discriminatory aspects in the present act in relation to Indian women. The government has decided that such discrimination is no longer tolerable in our society and we know that this view is broadly, if not unanimously, shared in both Houses of Parliament. Ministers have informed the Indian leaders, through the NIB cabinet committee, that the provisions discriminating against Indian women, and in particular section 12(l)(b), must be revised. While there is undoubtedly widespread and grave concern among the Indian bands about this complex issue of discrimination, I believe that there is growing awareness on the Indian side that it is an issue that must be resolved satisfactorily and as soon as possible. It is important to add that recently the NIB made a very significant statement in this regard. I think we are getting very much closer to an agreement about how this issue is to be dealt with.
I want to respond briefly to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that somehow we treat this issue independent of a revision to the Indian Act. I
Indian Affairs
do not think that makes any sense at all. It would only exacerbate the feelings of the Indian people. It would appear to them that all the issues of basic importance to them are being put to one side while we preoccupy ourselves, admittedly with an important issue, one which we have agonized about a lot, and appear in this way to be insensitive to some areas of concern. Therefore I say it should be dealt with, but in the context of a range of amendments to the Indian Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When will that be?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am coming to that. I knew you would never ask, so I put it in the speech.
I do not wish to conclude this statement without further reference to Indian rights as perceived by the Indian people. If one single issue can be said to have delayed or sidetracked proceedings in the NIB-cabinet committee and eventually led to the NIB's unilateral decision to withdraw from the committee, it was the broad and complex issue of Indian rights. Nor should we minimize that much work has to be done on these key questions to get them worked out in ways that would enable the federal government and provincial governments to give practical expression to the objectives which the Indian people are seeking in asserting such rights.
I believe that this work is continuing in a variety of ways and at different levels of contact with Indian groups. I have in mind in particular the tripartite arrangements that now exist in several provinces, involving senior representatives of the federal and provincial governments concerned and the leaders of provincial Indian associations. One way or another they are focusing on rights, issues and, particularly, on hunting and fishing rights, which I regard as crucial to the whole effort to reach a mutually satisfactory relationship between the Indian people and our wider society. I have asked my officials to give high priority to these admittedly difficult questions in interdepartmental consultations at the federal level, in claims negotiations, and in the tripartite working arrangements I just mentioned.
Hunting and fishing rights, and to some extent trapping and gathering rights as well, to my mind are central to the thinking of most Indians about their future identity in Canadian society. For people in the remote areas, it is a matter of lifestyle and even subsistence. For many other Indians it is a key element in continuing their culture. Without for a moment underestimating the complexities or the long, hard work that will be needed to bring about mutually satisfactory results, I am personally persuaded that we should include in our proposals for Indian Act revision, even in the first phase, some provision for safeguarding hunting and fishing rights which the Indian people maintain tenaciously are essential to their future well-being as Indians in this country.
What I have attempted to do is convey to the House that some substantial work has been done. Some areas for amendment have been identified. I hope I have conveyed to the House some sense of the direction we are moving in, the areas we would like to see amended in the first phase.
80045-41 Vz

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
Coming again to the question of the motion before the House, my contention is that the Indian Act has been the subject of discussion between the Indian leadership and the government for a period of years. Areas for amendment have been identified, discussions have been going on continuously, and research has been undertaken.
Given this, and the regrettable breakdown in the structure that was in place, what do we do? Do we refer it back to square one, i.e. support this particular motion, throw it back to a parliamentary committee made up of Senators and members of the House of Commons and ask them to tell us what to do? Alternatively, do we say that work has been done and it is now up to people like myself who have responsibility to come forward with some proposals, and not just throw the Indian Act out and ask them to tell us what to do, but to build on the work we have done and to come forward with some proposals for discussion? Frankly, that is the way to go.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You would be called by the committee.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would be prepared to refer the proposals at some point to a parliamentary committee, and we can discuss this, instead of saying, "Listen to me as the Minister of Indian Affairs. I have no idea what to do about the Indian Act. Will you please tell me, and will you go out and consult with the Indians?"


An hon. Member:: Now you are being honest.


James Hugh Faulkner: I never should have said that. Instead of that, we should pull together the work that has been done, give it some form and then put it forward in formal proposals. I believe that is the direction in which we should go and that is the direction I propose to go. I hope to have some proposals for consideration by the fall.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member seeking to ask a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with the consent of the minister. Does the minister agree to accept a question from the hon. member?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tabled his constitutional white paper or proposals I asked him whether the government was going to put Indian rights or aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution and make sure they were guaranteed by the Constitution. Many of my friends in the Indian Brotherhood, such as Chief Noel Star Blanket, and many Saskatchewan Indian chiefs asked me about it.
The Prime Minister said to me:
Mr. Speaker, we will make quite sure in the bill we want to present, and in any further action, that any rights enjoyed by the Indian and native people, the Inuit, will not be taken from them but, on the contrary, will be protected.

He was talking about the bill he is going to present to amend the Constitution. Can the minister elaborate a bit on what the Prime Minister said? Obviously the Prime Minister was speaking in general terms since he was responding to questions from many of us on all aspects of the Constitution.
Since he said that, many of my Indian friends have asked me what that means and what process is going to take place. Are the Indian people going to be consulted by the government? The Prime Minister referred to a parliamentary committee studying the Constitution and consulting the Indian people, which is fine. Can the minister elaborate on what the government has in mind about enshrining those aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In case the minister should take more than half a minute, and in view of the fact that his time is about to expire, perhaps the House would consent to what is being suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not think I can add very much to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said. What I attempted to indicate this afternoon is that the question of treaty rights is of fundamental concern to the Indian people whether that concern is addressed by way of provisions in the Constitution or by way of an amended Indian Act. I have not, really, thought that through, though if I can be candid with the House I would personnally look upon the Indian Act as the better instrument. When the Prime Minister says the process in which we are engaged is one of protecting and ensuring rights rather than detracting from them, I am in accord with that completely. I am open to advice as to the instrument we should use in achieving this objective. I am not discounting the use of the Constitution; I am just not sure how it could be done, so I do not think I can give further clarification other than confirm his commitment to deal with this important consideration.
The other thing to bear in mind in terms of this constitutional paper-and I am rather pleased with this-has to do with the renewal principles: the second item identified, after the first item which deals with the rights of individual citizens, is the traditional rights of Indian people. The importance of this cannot be lost on the House, even on some of its more jaded members. We have identified this as being a priority area and we shall attempt to address it in a way which will win the support and co-operation of the Indian people.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the minister accept a further question? The minister mentioned that this was referred to in the principles. Why was there no reference to it in the concluding chapter?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am not sure I follow the question, unless the hon. member is arguing that the concluding chapter should be a reaffirmation of the chapter on principles. The important fact is that it was cited among a number of principles for the
June 15, 1978

renewal of our constitutional arrangements in our federal system, identifying it as an important principle in the renewal process. That is something I am pleased about as Minister of Indian Affairs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I do not think the minister understood my question. Since reference was made to these rights in the chapter dealing with principle, why was not a similar reference made in the concluding chapter which listed the government's proposals respecting changes it intended to seek in constitutional arrangements?


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not wish to prolong this exchange but I still find difficulty following the question, unless what the hon. lady is saying is that in the concluding chapter we should have identified precisely how we propose to treat each one of the principles. I do not think the concluding chapter attempts to do that.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my first reaction to the minister's remarks is of course, one of disappointment. The idea of establishing a joint House of Commons and Senate committee to study a variety of aspects relating to the hon. gentleman's portfolio is one which originated in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs. It was advanced to the committee by the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. More important, it was one which was supported by the Liberal members of the committee.
Therefore we are disappointed that the minister should have chosen to advise and instruct the members of his party not to support what we consider to be a very important and fundamental exercise, especially in view of the debate which is going on today, a debate which is taking place in every corner of our country, by every level of government, by every segment of our society, and by all fair-minded and thinking people. I am talking, of course, about discussions on constitutional and institutional reforms to which all parties in this House are committed and which will affect all Canadians for all time to come. Of course, they will have very profound effects upon the native community as well.
The discussions include the protection of minority rights. As we read through the paper which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tabled, we see that he views these rights of individuals and minority groups as being of fundamental concern to him. Again, Mr. Speaker, our native people are a highly visible minority group in our society, one which needs the trust, support, and help of us all. What about the rights of the Indians and Inuit? What about the contribution they made to the evolution and history of this country?
The debate today is timely because over the last ten years, since the introduction of the white paper in 1969, we have gained a much better understanding of Indian rights and the concerns and aspirations of the Indian community. A number of commissions and inquiries has been established and a number of authorities have given the government advice. One of those was the Indian Claims Commissioner who was appointed in 1969, Mr. Barber. There was Mr. Justice Berg-
Indian Affairs
er's study of the potential impact of massive industrial development in the Mackenzie Valley basin. Then there was the Lysyk inquiry in the Yukon, and the James Bay settlement, as well as the negotiations which have taken place in the Yukon with respect to the settlement-the extinguishment, as some people call it-of Indian claims in that region.
It was on the suggestion of the native groups which appeared before the committee that my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent introduced the motion we are debating today. I would reiterate that it was with the support of the Liberal members of that committee, and I am deeply disappointed that the minister should have taken his usual partisan stance by saying that his is the best proposal and that his alternative is the one that will be accepted by those he named, the National Indian Brotherhood. If they were so pleased with the way the government has reacted to their proposals in the past, they would still be on the joint NIB cabinet committee. They are not. The fact is that no concessions have been made by the government. All the things which were discussed were conditional on something-whether it was self-determination with respect to Indian education or whether it was an assumption of greater responsibility by bands and chiefs. There were conditions attached. The minister attached conditions to all the concessions which were being discussed.
There have been a number of previous inquiries of this kind, but I am saying that another one would be timely now because we are much better equipped. Native people have developed much better leadership over the last 25 years, and it would have to be the intention of the committee to include that leadership in a dialogue which might be carried out.
There were two previous inquiries of this kind. One was initiated in 1946. It sat through three sessions of parliament. When one reads through some of the transcripts, one can see that inquiry was brought about mainly because a number of native Indians had distinguished themselves during the Second World War and were returning home to find that their brothers in their home country were still being discriminated against, but in a manner much more offensive and oppressive than what they had seen abroad where they had been liberating people from oppressive authorities. The government consented to the appointment of an inquiry which was much like the one we are suggesting today. That inquiry sat through three sessions of parliament. It proposed some amendments to the Indian Act, which eventually became law in about 1950.
There was another special joint committee in 1961. That committee gave much thought to Indian self-government, but because of a change in government in 1963, no legislation resulted from those discussions.
I would like to refer to the basic concept of aboriginal rights and title, which is very important today because some aspects of special rights and privileges-the citizen plus status which our Indian and Inuit people have a right to demand-need to be enshrined in the Constitution. The Indian Act itself has not

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
been an effective enough tool to deal with this fundamental problem.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), has said, in order to identify and delineate the concept of aboriginal rights, one needs to go back over the history and evolution of the Indian Act. One needs to go back as far as the royal proclamation of 1763, which laid down the basic colonial policy which this government has followed. The policy was one of assimilation.
The policy was, as soon as possible and as quickly as feasible, to have Indians become Christians, and to enter into a period of transition which would take them from their traditional lifestyle, which was one of hunting, fishing, trapping and living with nature generally, to one of agriculture.
Even before that, in the early 1600s, white settlers in the maritimes and in the St. Lawrence Valley dealt with Indians in a different way than they did after the proclamation. They dealt with them as trading partners. They dealt with them in the fur trade, which was then the lifeblood of the economy of the North American continent.
In early history there was a different colonial policy, which was adhered to by the other partner, the other founding race. The maritime region was under French control. The King of France looked upon the native people as partners, not subjects. As a matter of fact, when in 1713 Acadia was ceded to the British Crown, it is contended by historians today that the King of France had no right to cede to the British Crown a sovereignty which he did not possess, namely, sovereignty over the native people in that area.
However, after 1763 the pattern was set. The proclamation formed the basis for the treaties which followed, but the treaties and the proclamation were never intended to be interpreted in the way they were. I wish to quote a short paragraph from a treaty which has been dealt with by courts, with regard to the question of aboriginal rights. Decisions have been made on this question. This treaty says:
And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to our interests and the security of our colony that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected and who live under our protection should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us are reserved to them or any of them as their hunting grounds-
The treaties which followed the proclamation were looked upon by Indian people as treaties of friendship and peace. They were not looked upon by the Indian people who signed them as a surrender of their traditional rights or as a sell-out of their land, which is more to a native person and his culture than it is to a white man. Our native friends tell us that the land is their soul and that the animals which live on the land are their spirits. One does not cede his soul, and one does not sell his spirit. The native people of this country have never done that.
Let me quote from an order in council setting up the treaty commission which studied and effected Treaty No. 8 in western Canada, as follows:

-that the Commissioner of the North West Mounted Police had pointed out the desirability of steps being taken for the making of a treaty with the Indians occupying the proposed line of route from Edmonton to Pelly River-
I am not going to go into the delineation of that area.
-Indians, were inclined to be turbulent and were liable to give trouble to isolated parties of miners or traders who might be regarded by the Indians as interfering with what they considered their vested rights-
So, Indians were turbulent, and there was a need for a peace treaty. That was what treaty No. 8, as with all other treaties, was all about.
This document states further, and I quote:
As it is in the interest of the Province of British Columbia, as well as in that of the Dominion, that the country to be treated for-
It does not say "ceded", but "treated for."
-should be thrown open to development and the lives and property of those who may enter therein safeguarded by the making of provision which will remove all hostile feeling from the minds of the Indians and lead them to peacefully acquiesce in the changing conditions-
From that we see that the treaty was intended to be a document of peace and friendship, but the final sentence of the quotation I just read says that the treaty was to be considered a tool for assimilating native people to our way of life. I repeat:
-and lead them to peacefully acquiesce in the changing conditions-
Indians were very skeptical about the men who came from afar to make these treaties. I quote from the commissioners' report on Treaty No. 8. It reads:
There was expressed at every point the fear that the making of the treaty would be followed by the curtailment of the hunting and fishing privileges... impressed with the notion that the treaty would lead to taxation and enforced military service. They seemed desirous of securing educational advantages for their children, but stipulated that in the matter of schools there should be no interference with their religious beliefs.
It is stated further:
Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed. The provision in the treaty under which ammunition and twine is to be furnished went far in the direction of quieting the fears of the Indians, for they admitted that it would be unreasonable to furnish the means of hunting and fishing if laws were to be enacted which would make hunting and fishing so restricted as to render it impossible to make a livelihood by such pursuits.
How naive the native people were in those days!
The report continues:
But over and above the provision, we had to solemnly assure them that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interests of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur-bearing animals would be made, and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.
We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life, that it did not open the way to the imposition of any tax, and that there was no fear of enforced military service.
The natives had reason to be suspicious because Treaty No. 11 was almost a carbon copy of the treaties which were made in the south. Indians were to be converted to Christianity and to the pursuit of agriculture. It was for that reason that each Indian person was granted a tract of land of 160 acres per person, or 640 acres per family. One does not carry on
June 15, 1978

effective and life sustaining hunting and trapping on 640 acres. The intention was to convert natives to pursuing the same kind of life as the white society which had encroached upon them. The terms of the treaty demanded a peaceful acquiescence to the changing conditions. The process of assimilation did not work and Indians were very reluctant to agree to it. They were reluctant to be placed on reserves and to have that imposed on them.
This is an interesting document which I recommend to all my colleagues. It is one that accompanies this treaty, but it is not dissimilar from all the documents that have accompanied other treaties. It states here:
Indeed, the Indians were generally adverse to being placed on reserves. It would have been impossible to have made a treaty if we had not assured them that there was no intention of confining them to reserves. We had to very clearly explain to them that the provision for reserves and allotment of land were made for their protection, and to secure to them in perpetuity a fair portion of the land ceded, in the event of settlement advancing.
I do not know what was worse, confinement on the reserve or the granting of freedoms later on, such as the freedom to vote, which was granted to the natives in 1968, the freedom to buy alcohol in government stores, and the freedom to conform to the white man's way of life which ended in what some people call a slow process of annihilation and other people, who use a harsher term, call genocide.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret but I must inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, just before I speak on the motion I would like to refer to something that was said by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) at the beginning of his speech, if I understood him correctly. If I heard right, he said that the motion proposed today by the Conservative party was born in the standing committee where it received the support of all members. If that is what the hon. member said-and I am now having it checked out very carefully-then, to the best of my knowledge, he is not correct. What the committee agreed to do, if it completed its work on the estimates, was to have the annual report of the department referred to it so it could do more work in a general way as the steering committee decided. If the hon. member said what I thought he said, I plan to raise this at the first opportunity on a poinnt of order.
Now I wish to speak to the motion put forward today by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). There is no doubt, as the minister himself said in his remarks, that this motion is well motivated and sincere. What the motion seeks to do is to establish yet another parliamentary committee to inquire into the problems facing the Indian people in Canada. It proposes to do so under the umbrella of the Indian Act in its present form, with all its imperfections and shortcomings, and all hon. members here know that there are many, many of those. The act in its present form is certainly unacceptable. Then it proposes that the committee would discuss the need for revisions of the Indian Act, and probably in time a report would issue from that committee on what the changes in the
Indian Affairs
act should be and how the act can be made more relevant in the view of the committee, more relevant to the modern day in which the Indian people in Canada are now living.
I respectfully submit that the hon. member, in attempting to have this motion approved by the House, is really turning back the clock. It is actually not a progressive step at all but a retrograde step. When I say that, it is not in any way to disparage the good intentions of my hon. friend opposite for I know him in his work in the committee to have a genuine concern and interest in the Indian people in Canada. He is truly one of the progressive members of his very conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: A red Tory.


B. Keith Penner: Nor have I lost faith in the good work which can be done by parliamentary committees, given the right situation and acting at the appropriate time. Certainly, for example, it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to examine regularly and carefully the work of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see that it is doing its job, as we expect it to, and that the public moneys which are used for programs to assist Indian people are put to the best use for the greatest benefit of Indian people.
Besides the examination of estimates and the clause by clause study of legislation, I believe also that parliamentary committees should be doing more investigative work. There should be frequent inquiries into national problems by committees of the House. But I argue that in this case, with respect to this proposal that a special joint committee be set up, the timing of the proposal of the hon. member is all wrong. It is much too late in the day for undertaking the establishment of the task force which is suggested by my hon. friend. In fact, to be blunt, it is something akin to a slap in the face to the Indian leaders in this country because it says in effect that all of the good, hard, productive, difficult work that they have done is of no account, that nothing has happened, and that a parliamentary joint committee should get down to work and do something because the Indian leaders have not done anything up to this point. I reject that suggestion and I say it is unfair, untrue, and a slap in the face to the Indian leaders of Canada.
The process of actual consultation with the Indian people and the task of reaching agreement on a revision of the Indian Act is already well under way, and the minister has gone into some detail to tell us about that. It has gone beyond the stage where a travelling joint committee could serve a very useful purpose.
While I do not wish to appear mean, nevertheless the motion today gives the impression that the Conservative party has just discovered that there is an Indian community in Canada. In this motion they say to the members of parliament that something must be done about Indian people and about the

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
outmoded Indian Act which has not been substantially revised for a long time. In fact, it has not been revised since 1951.
Hon. members opposite should know that a lot has happened already. In 1973 a proposed revision of the entire act emerged from a study done by an Indian group in Alberta. That study was funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At the national level, a joint committee of the National Indian Brotherhood and the federal cabinet was established to deal with major policy issues arising as a result of the relationship between Indian people and the government. This committee had its first meeting in April, 1975, and there were subsequent meetings until April of this year when the NIB withdrew. Within that period of time a great deal of good, substantive work was done. The Brotherhood and Indian associations across the country remain determined to find a way to accomplish early and meaningful revisions of the Indian Act. Highly competent people are working within the National Indian Brotherhood. They are engaged in this difficult exercise, working along with the government through meetings to bring about revisions which will make this act relevant and make it do what Indian people expect.
The Government of Canada is more than prepared to meet, discuss, and find agreement for amendments. It may be done in phases so that the meetings, discussions, and agreements will have to take place again in the future. In the midst of all this solid, substantive, and valuable work, the Conservative party comes forward and indicates that we should strike a special joint committee, and send it out into the highways and byways of Canada. They speak about the need for a new Indian Act. It is similar to setting out to rediscover the wheel.
There have been special joint committees in the past. Hon. members opposite mentioned some of these. As well there have been ministerial inquiries. But the Indian people of Canada know that not much of value has come forth from all of this. There is a proposal in this motion to do again what was done before. We know there was little real progress in this difficult area until capable, dedicated Indian leaders applied themselves to this difficult task. Then we started to make progress. When the Indian Act is revised finally, it will be much more a tribute to those people than it will be to any of us in this place, or even in fact to the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: I do not wish to be thought of as one who belittles in any way the roles of parliamentary committees, be they special, joint, or standing. There is much strength in our committee system. Most of the time it serves the people of Canada well. Of course there will be a time for a committee of this House to become deeply involved with revisions to the Indian Act. It may be after the bill, containing the revisions, has been given second reading in the House. Perhaps it will be earlier, as was suggested by the minister.
It may be necessary for the minister to take a federal position. That position will be dealt with by cabinet and then referred to the standing committee. I believe a great deal of good work could be done if that took place. There is no doubt

about the fact that there is a role for the committee, but the role of a special, joint or standing committee is not to paddle about the edges of the problem. It seems to me this is just what the motion is suggesting. The committee has to jump into the deep water where all the action is right now. When that time comes, I hope Conservative members of the committee will know how to swim.
I really wonder why the Indian people of Canada would want such a special joint committee poking about in their problems and concerns. Why should they place any particular trust or confidence in the work of such a committee as the one proposed in the Conservative motion? If they did not have trust and confidence in its work, there would be very good, historical reasons for that. We would be able to understand if that were the case. If Indian leaders and their people said to us, "Thanks, but we really do not need your inquiry or your special joint committee", we could understand this reaction.
I should like to refer to the year 1969, since it was brought up by hon. members opposite. On June 25, 1969, the government tabled its statement on Indian policy in the House of Commons. This document is referred to now as the Indian White Paper. That is a rather curious description, but one which carries with it a very useful message. Of course, at the time the statement was not perfectly understood.
A speech of the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, which was given in Saskatchewan, was reprinted in Hansard dated December 1, 1969. The speech was entitled: "The Government Policy on Indians-What is the Debate About?" The minister went to some pains in that speech to explain what the statement was not, and then he went on to explain quite clearly what it was. It was a statement to be discussed. It indicated that the provinces should extend their services to Indians, and that the federal government should transfer funds to help the provinces do this. It is not my intention to go over all the proposals contained in that statement, but I should like to return to June 25, 1969, to see what was said in the House with reference to the work of a previous special joint committee. It was said that that committee had considerable input into the formulation of the 1969 statement.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), on June 25, 1969, in his address to the House, is reported at page 10583 of Hansard as saying the following:
I thank the minister for the statement he has made. There was a reminiscent tone to it. I recall during the last years of administration under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that a joint committee studied this issue. The wording of the report of that committee dealt with the winds of change which were blowing through the ranks of the Indian people of Canada. Many of the thoughts which the minister expressed in his statement were good thoughts, repeating the thoughts in the report of the committee.
We welcome the statement by the minister. It amounts to an acceptance of many proposals made by the Indian people through the years, and made by those who have worked on their behalf, in this party and elsewhere.
Following that, the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the then hon. member for Skeena, Mr. Howard, said the following:
June 15, 1978

As I say, we listened with interest to what the minister said, because in a sense what he was saying was exactly the same thing as many Indian leaders and people have been saying for quite a number of years, and in a sense what he said was a reiteration of what many of us in this House have been saying for the last five or ten years.
The hon. member for Peace River and I had the opportunity in 1959, 1960 and 1961 of participating in the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs, to which the hon. member for Peace River alluded, and the report of which committee contained the same ideas and concepts that the minister has now outlined. Even though it has taken some period of time to get a cabinet minister to agree with those concepts, it is still welcomed.
Now we have a special joint committee proposed to look at the Indian Act. The Indian people of Canada say that parliamentary committees do not listen very well. The hon. member said that what he heard from the Indian people was contained in the policy paper of 1969. When the Indian people saw the policy paper of 1969, they in fact told us quite clearly that that is not what they said at all, and that is not what they wanted. So what faith, what confidence, can they have in setting up another special joint committee to look into the provisions of the Indian Act? All members know that the statement of 1969 has been categorically rejected by the Indian people of Canada.
As I said, many of the proposals that flowed from the work of that committee are contained in that 1969 document. If we agree to the motion by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent today, I would have personal cause to be nervous about it. And I think that the Indian leaders of Canada would be more than nervous; they might be very hesitant about the results of the work of such a committee. In any event, before the committee ever gets its gear together there will either be a bill or a set of proposals to examine, and we will be very busy right here. There will be no time to flit from place to place within Canada, as the motion says, "sending for persons, papers and records and examining witnesses".
I must say that as parliamentarians we so often decry bureaucracy, but whenever we want to give the appearance of doing something we put forward a purely bureaucratic approach, and that 1 think is what we have in this motion today. -"Form another committee, take a look at the problem, listen to what people have to say and see if you can come up with something that is useful and valuable as a solution". This, from what I have heard today, is the answer of the Conservative party of Canada to an immensely complex and difficult issue.
The almost unanimous rejection by Indian leaders of the 1969 policy statements served as a major rallying force for Canada's Indian people. It has taught them and the government some valuable lessons. The government's reaction has been to drop the 1969 policy proposals. Chief Heber Maitland of Kitimat in northern British Columbia told a district manager's conference last year that the 1969 paper taught Indian people that they could no longer tolerate being treated like children of the government. It taught Indian leaders that they could and they should speak out in the best interests of their people, and it also taught the government to listen to Indian people.
Indian Affairs
It is the role of Indian leaders to inform the government about the needs of their people, and as a responsible government it is our role to listen and to take appropriate action. With respect to the revision of the Indian Act, I submit that that is precisely the process that is going on. Over the last several years it has been the policy of the government to involve Indian people in finding their own solutions to problems as they themselves perceive them. The Indian people are encouraged to define their own needs and to propose their own solutions. Indian involvement begins at the district level and then it extends to the national level.
As the minister suggested-and I agree entirely with him- the key to success in developing, implementing and maintaining a good working relationship between the department of Indian Affairs, on behalf of the federal government, and the Indian people is the effectiveness of local control and local government in Indian communities. Under the Indian Act the band council constitutes the authority to regulate life on the reserves. They make decisions that affect land and people within their boundaries, much the same way as do municipalities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into an extensive debate with the parliamentary secretary, but he did make one or two remarks that I would like to comment upon. He took issue with the remark of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) regarding the setting up of the committee. I do not believe that the parliamentary secretary was in attendance at the committee meeting where this issue was raised. At that meeting there were representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood, and as a result of some of the comments that were made by some of the witnesses, the member for Prince George-Peace River put out this suggestion. It is interesting to note that the member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), a member that sits on the government side, spoke very much in favour of setting up such a committee.
The parliamentary secretary also said that it appeared as though we on this side have just suddenly learned about the Indian people. I would suggest to him that it is because of this party back in 1973 that aboriginal rights were finally recognized by the government. The Indian people have a great deal of faith in our committee system. They come down quite often with their problems, and relate them to us. Unfortunately, the minister does not pay too much attention to what takes place in committee, but the ministers change so often that perhaps the minister is never in his portfolio long enough to really get a handle on the problems of the native people.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate this afternoon which calls for the setting up of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee to consider and report on the provisions of the Indian Act. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) made some excellent remarks in giving an overview of and historical background to the act.
6460

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
I came to Ottawa in 1972, and in the six years since that time I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. During that time as a member of the committee and as a member of our caucus committee we have probably met with every native organization across Canada as well as many representatives of individual bands. During those meetings these people have expressed their concern about many problems such as health, housing, culture, economic development and survival as a people. They have expressed their concern about the Indian Act, which is basically the only protection they have. The representatives have indicated time and time again in the committee that they would like to see the Indian Act revised and updated, but they want an input into the act because it affects them so vitally.
The Indian people want to play a part in the preparation of a new act, but ultimately the responsibility of final consideration for the act and its passage rests with parliament. This is why our party feels that the setting up of such a committee as recommended in our motion today is so urgent. It would be a committee, as the motion states, that would travel throughout Canada to visit various communities where members are able to see at first hand and understand the problems of native people. I suggest that there are very few members in this House today who have any real appreciation of the problems that exist in the native communities.
A short time ago we had representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood before the standing committee as witnesses. I was impressed by the remarks of one witness in particular, Mike Martin, chief of Eel Ground Reserve in New Brunswick. I should like to quote a portion of his evidence in issue No. 3 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Indians Affairs and Northern Development for Thursday, May 4, 1978, at page 3:13, where he said:
We should have better recreation programs on our reserves to fight drugs and vandalism on the reserves.
As I stated a little while ago, people have been killed on reserves, dying because of other people shooting at another person. In fact, not too long ago, I lost my 21-year old son; he came home drunk one morning at five o'clock, he went down to his room, put a cartridge shell into a gun, stuffed it under his chin and blew his head right out. That is my experience about what has taken place on reserves in vandalism and drugs. I lost my son, not too long ago, on account ot that. When I say this is what is taking place, it is taking place. If some of you people could take time-I know you have quite a lot of travelling funds in your pocket, free travelling funds in your pocket-to go up to the reserves, spend more time and see exactly what is taking place on the reserves, you would know what is taking place. You would know how the people are suffering on the reserves-housing-anything else that has been mentioned here. Even the people of the Department of Indian Affairs, who are running the programs do not come up to see us and see what is taking place. All they say is, "We know what is taking place on your reserve."
I suggest the situation is critical, Mr. Speaker. I lay the blame on this government which over the years has adopted an attitude of paternalism and a program of assimilation. The government has failed to listen to the voice of the Indian people and to the Indian leaders who express the collective views of their people.

If I had time I should like to read a letter from Chief David Ahenakew to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a copy of which came across my desk this morning. He is concerned about the situation in Saskatchewan and issues a warning about the possible consequences. I know Chief Ahenakew, who is doing and has done an excellent job in Saskatchewan. The letter that he sent to the Prime Minister, of which I think many members have a copy, is a warning, a warning that must be heeded.
I recall talking to Chief Ahenakew a couple of years ago when he said, in effect: "We do not want any handouts, we do not want your welfare; welfare is destroying our people. What we want is opportunity, encouragement, the responsibility to make decisions on our own." He indicated that mistakes would be made, but then the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made a great many mistakes. He looked to the future, a future when native people would be self-reliant and able through their own endeavours to take care of themselves. They are not looking for handouts. How can they become self-reliant, Mr. Speaker? It can only be done through adequate education, adequate training and economic development.
I should like to spend a few minutes on the subject of economic development. A few years ago the government set up an Indian economic development fund. The concept was based on the white paper of 1969 and was established in 1970. It was funded with some $50 million to be used over a period of five years and basically was to fund small, viable businesses to a maximum of $50,000. It was also to act as a lever for funds from other agencies such as DREE.
The facts of what happened are well documented in the committee hearings of 1977 and in the opposition day debate of June 22 of that year. The Indian economic development fund has not been a success, Mr. Speaker. A study carried out in 1976 by the firm of Woods, Gordon & Co. indicated in part:
It is our opinion that, in dealing with individuals and small enterprises, the fund has had some measure of success. However, in large complex projects, the fund's performance in relation to its original mandate has been a dismal failure.
The fund was intended to be used on projects to a maximum of $50,000. I suggest that through the ambitions of members of the department it was expanded to include such large enterprises, to mention only one, as The Pas shopping centre. This is a project which started at some $6 million and, with an over-run, ended up in excess of $8.3 million. The over-run was primarily due to the requirements of the Department of Public Works with respect to the structure of the building.
I could cite many other glaring examples which are well documented. Evidence given in committee will indicate that from the inception of the program until we held our committee meetings in 1977 the total number of projects was 2,577, yet they only created 4,722 jobs-less than two jobs per project.
It is interesting to note that with respect to larger projects of half a million dollars or more the fund invested some $45 million, or between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the total funds available, yet that $45 million created only 58 jobs. At
June 15, 1978

the committee hearings we learned that every one of the projects costing over $500,000 was in financial difficulty.
This government has failed miserably in attempting to create economic self-sufficiency for native people in Canada. It has also, unfortunately, created doubts in the minds of many of the ability of the native people to handle their own economic development. The evidence will show, however, that in most instances the smaller projects were successful, particularly those under $100,000. Had officials of the department kept within their mandate and funded smaller projects, the program would have been generally successful.
The Indian Act has a bearing on the economic future of the Indian people. Despite what the parliamentary secretary has to say, I visualize this committee as being similar to the Special Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which travelled extensively, gained first-hand knowledge about our penitentiary system and tabled an excellent report. This proposed committee could do the same. It could see at first hand some of the projects funded by the Indian economic development fund. It could see the housing conditions. It could examine health, listen to presentations and receive suggestions and recommendations from the band level.
I appreciate that there is not much general agreement among the native community with respect to changes in the act, but studies have been carried out and are carried out through funding of the NIB by the government and I believe the problem areas within the act have at least been identified.
As the hon. member for Lambton-Kent pointed out earlier, we are presently in a debate and a dialogue on national unity. We concern ourselves about bilingualism and multiculturalism and yet we are overlooking the indigenous people of our country, the people who were here long before the white man. I suggest that a committee such as we have proposed in this motion would receive wide media coverage in its travels. It would perhaps make Canadians aware of a matter which at the present time they know little about.
Such a committee would also make members of parliament sensitive to the problems that exist. It would enable them to consider constructively and intelligently a new act, an act that hopefully will be one out of which new policies may evolve, for example, policies for local government based on input from the people who are concerned so that without bureaucratic interference they will be able to build their own future as you and I, Mr. Speaker, have been able to do.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. In closing I would simply like to say that I urge the government to give serious consideration to what we feel is an excellent and constructive motion, one which could do a very fine job in making decisions on a new Indian Act.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, with your consent I would raise a very brief point of order with respect to what was said by the hon. member for Prince-George Peace River and followed up later by his colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I am
Indian Affairs
sure that neither hon. member wants to mislead the House, but they have left the impression that the motion we are dealing with today emanated from a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I can prove quite conclusively that no such recommendation ever emanated from the committee. If I may take one moment of the House's time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I was just about to inform the hon. member that I do not consider this to be a point of order. His point is argumentative and a question for debate. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and also by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and now the hon. member for Thunder Bay wants to refer to it. I do not feel that I should recognize any more speakers on this point. This is a question for debate and it is argumentative. Therefore, I do not consider the hon. member has a point of order.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, with only a moment or two left and not wishing to have my speech interrupted, with the consent of the House may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate this evening on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), not with the intention of criticizing the hon. member because my association with him in the past four years as a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is such that I hold him in high esteem. Rather, I want him to know, and I want the House to know, that my concern is with the mechanics of the motion.
My riding of Coast Chilcotin has within its borders more than 30 Indian reservations; some are close to towns and cities while others are to be found in very remote locations. The hon. member proposes that the parliamentary committee to be established should go to all places in Canada to sit down and hold discussions. This may work out well in those areas which are close to cities and towns but I would be most disturbed to think that we might decide to take 15 members of this House and an equal number from the other place and pour them into these various remote areas. It may work well enough in the cities but I could name places in my riding in which we could
80045-42(4

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
face some quite remarkable scenes and Heaven knows what actions.
I mention, for example, Oweekeno, where a band is situated right up at the top of Rivers Inlet. I wonder how the hon. member would propose to bring a group of pin-striped clad characters from Ottawa into such an area. The only way to get in there is by a small float plane, probably with a maximum capacity of three or four. We would spend all day bringing people into places like Oweekeno.
Another place which comes to mind is Nemeihia Valley in the heart of the Chilcotins. I am sure the hon. member knows of the places I am talking about because he does his homework and knows British Columbia as well as I do. I want also to mention Nazko. These are areas which rarely see many white people. Indeed, they may see the odd trapper or prospector, occasionally a rancher or member of parliament going in there to do his best.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: As a consequence, I cannot picture this group of individuals coming from Ottawa to go into, for instance, Nazko and Nemeihia Valley to sit down and say to the chief and council: "Okay, we are here for five hours; you have ten minutes in which to have your say and then bring on all the rest." These people have not grown up with that kind of life. They would not understand the kind of parliamentary committee system under which we operate here. We are caught up in this cocoon where we jump from one place to another to attend the various committees on which we serve. We are allowed ten minutes to ask questions. How could you expect to operate such a system in these remote areas where the people are not accustomed to speaking in front of large groups like ours, particularly when they are not even used to speaking to white people?
I believe that the NIB, nationally and provincially, have managed to get through to their people. The various groups with which 1 deal all the time are men and women who are as close as it is possible to get to the native people. Are we going to abandon their efforts and say: "No, I'm sorry, you have done a good job but we want to find out a bit more on our own"? How can we sit down with a group of people who are totally unaccustomed to our ways and give them five minutes to speak to us? They won't say a word. They will just sit there and look at us. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent knows, having gone into these areas, that you have to go in and sit down and personally talk to the chief and council. You get more out of that kind of action than you ever will by bringing in a committee. I understand what the hon. member wants to do and I admire him for it, but the mechanics he proposes to employ would just put a stop to it all. That is what disturbs me so much.
Now, we have talked about the remote areas. I am very fortunate in my riding to have a number of very advanced Indian reservations. I don't mind naming them-I think they should be named. They are an honour to their people, an honour to all the people of Canada. For instance, there is the

Sliammon band, on the outskirts of Powell River, my own hometown. They have done a tremendous job in the last few years and are well ahead, thanks, perhaps, to the industries which surround them. In Sechelt, just to the south on the sunshine coast, there is a wonderful group who have done an excellent job-it is close to the city. I could move on and name, for example, the Squamish band which the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) represents. A portion of the band is to be found in my riding. These are areas which would understand the system and could sit down with a parliamentary committee. They are very experienced in politics and would win the battle over us any day-something which I am sure the hon. member for Lambton-Kent already knows.
But let us not forget that the great majority of the Indian people in Canada do not live close to cities. That is the point which disturbs me so much. As well-intentioned as the proposal may be, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that such a committee could do the job that the National Indian Brotherhood or all the provincial bodies can do. I would far rather see an opportunity afforded us to keep on with the business we are doing today, meeting with Mr. Starblanket, meeting with Mr. Manuel and those who have been before them. This is the route we have taken and I believe it is the route we should stay with. Otherwise we must have some idea how we can explain to, say, a chief up in Kingcome Inlet: "I am sorry, Chief. You wanted to make a presentation to the B.C. Indian Chiefs but Ottawa says that won't work. We have a new committee coming out here. We are going to bring you some senators and members of parliament. You will be given five minutes to tell them your story"-


An hon. Member:: How about 15?


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Well, 15 is not enough. These people have suffered for a hundred years from the presence of the white man, and now you propose to give them 15 minutes to explain their cause. I am sure the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) really did not mean that. We have to give them the time they need. They do not talk in a hurry as we have learned to do because our time is limited. We are talking with native people who are accustomed to a very slow and easy way. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent knows that, and so does the hon. member for Moose Jaw. They know what happens when you go among the native people. One does not hurry things, you just sit down. It may take a whole hour just to get an introduction but this is their way of life.
As I say, I respect what the hon. member wants to do but the mechanics just will not permit it to happen as he suggests. 1 just foresee our running into terrible confusion where, instead of getting the information we need and desire, we will get nothing. Some of these Indian people are quite timid. They just sit back and refuse to say a word. I would far rather see us carry on as we have been doing, listening to Mr. Starblanket and the other Indian representatives.
I heard what the minister had to say this afternoon. We do have a committee which is studying the question. We under-
June 15, 1978

stand one another. We are working on something we all believe in. 1 have great respect for the hon. member who proposed this motion, as I have for all members of the committee. I honestly believe the Indians realize we are trying to do something. But we have the Indian Act. It is a horrible act. It has been in effect for over one hundred years and it is about time we changed it. But let us do it in the way we can do it best, by bringing in representatives of the native people and letting them tell us what they would like to see done. They should not be limited to ten minutes. Witnesses have come a long way. They should be given hours, if necessary, in which to talk to us.
What have we done to our native people in the course of a hundred years? We have pushed them down and never given them a chance. They cannot tell their story in half an hour. These people have not been brought up in a TV culture. They are talking about trying to get back where they belong.
Although I understand what the hon. member for Lambton-Kent is getting at, I feel that the mechanics involved with his proposal would not fit into the program. Frankly, what I am seeking is greater association and confrontation-and I think that is the right word to use-with our native people. As an individual member of parliament I am prepared to continue doing what I have been doing in the four years since my election here. I have been sitting down with these people, spending my time with them and bringing their problems to the minister. I have had excellent results, as I am sure have other hon. members. We are moving in the right direction, but let us not abandon completely the native representatives who come here time and time again. Different speakers this afternoon have been saying that we are going to be throwing them out and telling Mr. Starblanket and other representatives to get lost because we do not need them. That is not the way to proceed. I respect what the hon. member is trying to do, but I feel that if we throw native leaders out, we will get into a very serious situation. We must not tell them to get lost. We must stay with them.
When we talk about Indian rights and land claims, we must stay with the people themselves but we must get information from them. How can we as a group of 30 or more-it does not say in the motion how many there might be; there could be 100 of us for all I know; I do not know what the Senate representation might be-get across to people in remote areas? That bothers me. I do not think we will. That is why I would be much happier if the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, the hon. member for Moose Jaw and myself could bring people here to Ottawa and give them more time. I am sure those hon. members would agree with me. We are ten minutes ourselves into Heaven knows what.
Sometimes I wonder if we really know where we are going, because we have ourselves tied into a cocoon of committees. The people of Canada want to speak, and I am referring to both Indian and white. However, they are not being given that
Indian Affairs
opportunity. The rules are not just made by the government. We have a system here.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Hear, hear!


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: I notice that the hon. member is applauding. I am glad because I think he understands that we must get down to the basics and understand that we are dealing with native people who are not accustomed to the jet set lifestyle we have here, where everything is done by the clock, we are hit with gavels all over the place and where there are bells ringing. We in this place are the crazy ones! We are letting ourselves be tied into things where everything is done in five minute intervals, or more or less, depending upon what we are dealing with.
Let us sit down and analyse this thing properly. I think the minister was quite right when he said that we are negotiating. We are negotiating well. There have been great accomplishments in the past few years. I am glad to know this, and I am sure all hon. members are; but one thing which will really cause us problems and which I do not think will be settled by having this special committee is that hunting and fishing limits will be involved. Those are crucial issues out in British Columbia. The northern gas pipeline will be involved. I know that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent knows this because we have both been members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We know what the B.C. chiefs are saying. As a member of that committee I have a responsibility for trying to get a message to them. There are many things in the Indian Act, but a committee of white men cannot deal with them effectively.
In this House this evening is one of our hon. colleagues who knows what this is all about. I do not know whether he will be speaking tonight. 1 refer to the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand). He knows, and I feel very honoured to be associated and working with my colleague. I only hope that he gets an opportunity to speak tonight and to tell the story as he has heard it from his people. We are looking into a mirror, but has anybody ever wondered what is being reflected? I do not think we are getting the real story, and that is why I reject what the hon. member for Lambton-Kent is proposing. I think he has an excellent idea, but its time will come later.
I think the body to deal with these matters should be the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I hope native people will be given permission to present themselves without any interference from Ottawa because they have been charging Ottawa with interfering all through the years.
I was born on the west coast. I have lived all my life among native people as well as with my own white people. I know the feeling and the stories of the people. I do not want to leave the impression that I am trying to destroy what the hon. member is proposing, but I feel that the mechanics of his motion will not permit what he is asking. I think we should stay with the system we have had. I think we should try to develop that system further. I do want to see the National Indian Brotherhood carry on with what it is doing. I would like to see it spend

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
more time with us, and I feel that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the committee to deal with native questions. However, let there be equal participation. If we do not have that, later it will be said that the whites took over and "did it to us again". I do not think there is a member in this House who would want to have that thrown at him. I understand that there could be hon. members here who represent constituencies which have no native groups, but there are close to three dozen bands within my riding. I must think of those people as I make my decision here tonight.
I feel that I cannot go along with the motion presented by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent because I feel I would be letting down my native friends within my riding who want to get their story across. They do not feel they can get it across by coming to a city or by having a group come to speak for them. That is not their way of life, and I do not think we should impose our way upon them at this crucial moment when we are going to make revisions to the Indian Act. It is about time we made those revisions.
I am not going to take any more time. I think I have put my message across, and I hope my hon. friends understand what I have been saying.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) I can say that never in my short tenure in this House have I seen three government members scratch so hard to speak against a motion. They are scratching from the very bottom. I think they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. If any of the hon. members opposite who have spoken today were to come across a mukluk, I do not think they would know whether to eat it or wear it. That is about how much knowledge they have of Indian people.
Since arriving here in Ottawa four short years ago I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I represent about 35 Indian reserves. There are more treaty Indians in my riding than in the riding of many other members in this House, and I think I speak with a little bit of authority. I have spent some 32 years living and working with Indian people. Hon. members opposite talk about our great standing committee to which everybody can come. Witnesses appear, we hear them and so forth, but this government is not prepared to meet the Indians on their own ground. The government always wants Indian people to come here to Ottawa. The government wants to control Indian people by remote control.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) spoke about going to reserves in pin-stripe suits. I expect that that is the way he approaches the Indian people. He does not really have an honest feeling about how to deal with the Indian people and with Indian problems.
Time and time again I have seen witnesses appear before the parliamentary committee where they get 20 minutes or half an hour to present their briefs. What action does the standing
[Mr. Pearsall.)
committee ever take on those briefs? Not one darn bit of action. The brief is presented and that is it; everybody goes away smiling and shaking hands, and the brief gathers dust like so many studies done by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over the years. The Indian people are studied to death.
I think we would get a tremendous support from the Indian people across Canada for a standing committee which would go out and meet the Indian people on their own terms and on their own ground, instead of them having to come down to Ottawa and meet the fellows in the pin-stripe suits. That is how much regard these fellows have for the Indian people.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in speaking in favour of the motion, that the Indian people at the community level, at the band level in remote locations, and so on, are the first people of Canada, and we must remember that. But this government is treating them as if they were the last people in Canada. To date the federal government has consistently imposed on the Indian people its policies and programs with little regard for the needs and concerns of the Indians. Policies which originate here in Ottawa dribble through numerous bureaucratic hands before reaching the Indian communities. Of course, when those policies take that route they are bound to fail. The reasons are numerous and obvious to us down here in Ottawa. Unfortunately, they are probably not as obvious to people in the remote locations.
Let me just recount what has taken place in the department in my short tenure of four years here. Today the minister gave us the impression that all is well, everything is going fine, that there is continuity in the work of the department. Let me tell you how much continuity there is in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, just one of the departments with which the Indian people must deal. In the past four years there have been so many changes in the structure and organization of the department that it is very doubtful that there is any continuity in policy for more than two months at a time. We have witnessed in the past four years the appointment of three different ministers in charge of Indian affairs. We still do not have a minister who is quite dry behind the ears in so far as that department is concerned. He has been here for a few months and already he is the expert who knows how to solve all the problems. I wish him well. We have had two different deputy ministers and we have had a change of assistant deputy ministers, all in four short years. And yet the department expects the Indian people to have continuity and control at the band level, to know what is going on and to run their affairs properly.
Let me tell hon. members what happened in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in four years because of the change in administration here in Ottawa. There has been a reorganization of the department, which means that nothing works for the next six months. There has been realignment in the department, which means that nothing works for another six months because everybody is shuffling papers around and moving people from desk to desk. In the meantime, people back in the reserves are not receiving the attention they
June 15, 1978

deserve. Then lo and behold, in comes a new ADM. What is he going to do? He comes up with a program called "Fine Tuning". Again that program changes everything around. Now the latest program is called "Fusion".
Let me tell the House that all that change in the past few years has meant to us here in Ottawa and to the Indian people mass confusion, not fusion. That is exactly what it has meant. One wonders how workable all these activities have made the department. One can be quite sure that all these goings on have only frustrated the Indian people back in the areas where the programs and the moneys have finally dribbled down. As I have mentioned before, these activities frustrated the Indian people who are trying to develop their communities within the confines of a confused and confusing organization, and this is being perpetuated right down through the system.
Indian affairs policies cannot possibly reflect the broad range of cultural, economic and geographical differences of the Indian communities across this country. That is why we must have a committee travelling across the country and getting the feeling of the grass roots people. There is a place and a job for the National Indian Brotherhood and there is a place and a job for the various provincial organizations, such as the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and the FSI. There are pressure groups and they have their job to do. But there is also a job for the parliamentary committee to hear recommendations of people other than those I just mentioned, such as the NIB and the MIB. They do a good job but they have so much work to do that sometimes they cannot even get to some of the locations that a special standing committee could reach. Decisions cannot be made without due consultation with the Indian people.
The thinking of the department here is that it could develop a program here in Ottawa and send it out to the communities, but only the department can administer the program. This year officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have said in Ottawa in the committee that they have reduced their spending by 3 per cent. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means to the Indian reserves back at the community level where the band council is trying to administer a program and develop band government? It means a reduction of 17 per cent at the band level by the time it dribbles all the way down to them. Their head office is not suffering. It is the band, the people whom the department is supposed to serve, who are suffering. They are the ones who will lose 17 per cent and who will have to lay off 50 per cent of the people to carry out the program. If the program is not carried out properly, department officials say to them: "Apparently you cannot handle this so we will have to step in and send some of our people in to run the program. You people just stand aside. We know how to do it because we have all the experts who know how to handle Indian people and how to do this work".
Recognition by the federal government of the crucial need for Indian input in the determination of programs was not given until the mid-1960s. The formation of regional Indian advisory councils occurred in the late 1960s. The objective of
Indian Affairs
the government was to provide the Indian people with a consulting role with regard to policy and in the area of amendments to the Indian Act. That the government never seriously offered the Indian people more than token gestures of involvement was fully demonstrated in their 1969 policy white paper on Indians. The government's idea of the role of Indians regarding policy was simply that they would administer on the local level policies designed by the department. In fact, the white paper made an absolute mockery of the consultation process that had supposedly occurred.
What the bands want and are after today at the band level is band government. They want to be able to control what goes on in their communities. They are sick and tired of someone arriving in their communities in the morning and leaving at night-the 24-hour experts, I call them. They arrive, lay out some particular program and leave, and that is probably the last the band sees of them. Of course, the individual who arrives from the department does not leave any funds to administer the particular program. He feels the Indian people at the band level should be doing this for nothing because a lot of them are receiving welfare. He feels they should just do the administration work for nothing. The department fails to recognize that when it brings someone in from the regional office the money required is coming from a program, and that money should be going to the Indian people. The government had obviously not been listening to the Indian people because they have been saying this for quite some time, and this is something we do not hear at this level. We just do not get this information.
I sometimes feel that the ideas presented by the Indian people never really get past the regional level, if they ever get that far, for the simple reason that there are too many people in the department who are protecting their own jobs and do not want too much autonomy for some of these bands. Of course, that could be argued, but that is exactly what I have found during the 32 years I have been working with and for the Indian people in northern Manitoba.
When this 1969 white paper came down the Indian people were angry. They certainly felt, and understandably so, betrayed by a government which had made a great pretence of consulting with the Indians. The problems of today can be related to the fact that the Indian people do not trust this government. That is why they are leery of even discussing some things with the government. Trust is something that has to be developed, and it cannot be developed overnight. Trust is something that is developed through years and years of working with these people.
The Indian associations insisted that resources be made available to enable band councils to determine local needs and to run their respective communities. The Indian associations have consistently maintained that only a grass roots approach will work for the Indian people. This requires a decentralization of the top heavy Indian Affairs structure, and a true partnership between the Department of Indian Affairs and the

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
band councils. A far more flexible approach to policy formation is also necessary.
However, not until 1974 were band councils given serious recognition. The band council was finally viewed as a distinct political body, legally elected with a number of important functions. The band could raise and spend funds, could hire band staff, contract with other levels of government and administer a variety of programs. However, the programs were and are still predominantly those designed by the Department of Indian Affairs. Although the government's intentions seemed laudable on paper, the Indian people were still rather concerned, and they are now, about any real input they had in the development of their communities. This is a very strong feeling.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and an increasingly wide array of other federal agencies still dominate the situation at the band level. They make plans and the numerous agents fly in and out of the reserve, foisting their plans on communities in a largely uncoordinated fashion. The band councils have numerous local concerns to deal with, and it is unrealistic to expect that any and all band councils can deal with all these agents and plans in a reasonably coherent manner. A major goal of the Indian people remains that of realizing a community development plan which ultimately results in autonomous, self-sufficient communities.
I would like now to deal briefly with education in particular communities. In many of the communities we know that education has been in the limelight for several years, simply because of the approach this government has taken toward education of the Indian people. Under the terms of the Indian Act, and as stated in various treaties, the federal government has legal responsibility for Indian education.
Traditionally the government's concept of education for the Indian people has been dangerously narrow in scope, and consequently most ineffectual. The government's attempt to assimilate Indians through education has had numerous disastrous effects, not the least of which has been high drop-out rates and general disdain for a system which is alien and rejects their own cultural values.
For more than a hundred years Indian education has been directed and controlled by churches and/or the federal government. Generations of Indian people will recall being shipped out long distances as children to attend a variety of residential schools, mission schools, boarding schools and industrial schools. The sense of helplessness and loneliness experienced by children cut off from their families and communities remains a blight on our history. Every attempt was made to negate their cultural identity and the values with which they had been raised. Their language rights were eroded by teachers who discouraged the children from speaking their own mother tongue. They were subjected to literature that depicted their culture and values in a distorted and often negative fashion. The fact that Indian people have made valuable contributions to history was a fact simply overlooked by their educators. The lack of well qualified teachers and the often

dismal and inadequate facilities only compounded the problem.
Well aware of the failures, the federal government decided in the late 1940s to take a more active interest in the education of Indian children. The major objective of that interest, however, was to bring Indian children into the mainstream of the dominant society. The policy was that of enforced assimilation, with a resultant loss of all Indian cultural identity. Once again parental and community wishes were entirely overlooked. This system which has denied the Indian people any control over the lives of their children has, of course, resulted in a massive failure.
Once again the federal government was faced with the failure of its educational policies. In the late 1960s the department decided that some participation by Indian people in the education of their children was required. The notion that their children needed to be integrated into the mainstream was still dominating the department's policies and was, in fact, even further reinforced. The trend was now to integrate children into the provincial school systems. Federal-provincial contracts were formulated without consulting the parents or the Indian people generally. Indian participation was evidently no more than a token gesture. It was the Indian people themselves that initiated the most important developments in education, beginning in the late 1960s.
I see that my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker, but I have one letter here from Oxford House and I would like to refer to one small part of it. This explains why we should have a committee able to travel to these reserves. This letter concerns a school that closed down because the roads were in such terrible condition that the school bus could no longer use them. The letter is signed by Chief Jack Grieves of Oxford House and four of his councillors. Today that school is still not open and the children are not attending because of the policies of this federal Indian affairs department.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking for a few moments on the motion of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). I do not suggest that I support the motion, but I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on it and to make one or two comments about the speech of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith).
For him to portray himself as the only one who represents a large number of Indian bands or status Indians is an utter falsehood. We have many members on this side of the House who represent large numbers of Indian bands. My own constituency alone has 4,000 status Indians and about 12 Indian bands. For the hon. member to make the suggestion that he or certain members on his side of the House are the only people to have an opportunity to visit band councils and to meet with the native people is certainly unjustified.
I want to pay special tribute to the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), who

has had an opportunity to meet on one of the Indian reserves in Algoma riding, the Mississauga reserve, with chiefs from several bands to discuss special problems that affect bands throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area, because he certainly did an excellent job. Contrary to what the hon. member for Churchill said, he was able to effect many changes that were raised at the meeting.
The hon. member for Churchill talks about mass confusion in the Department of Indian Affairs. I cannot think of anything that would prejudice the consultations and negotiations which are going on now between the National Indian Brotherhood and the department with regard to amendments to the Indian Act than to send out a committee across the country before these negotiations and consultations are completed. The hon. member for Churchill portrays practically every employee of the Department of Indian Affairs as a blackhearted wretch. He did not actually use those words, but he as much as said that every individual in the department does not have the best interests of the Indian bands at heart. That is a false concept because, surely, we have many dedicated public servants who are doing an excellent job working with band councils and Indian groups to improve the situation on the Indian reserves. It certainly does not take very long for the chiefs and councillors and band council members to tell you which ones are which.
The motion before the House is to set up a special committee to consider and report on the Indian Act and what revisions or amendments should be made in that regard. In 1968-69 there was very extensive consultation across the country which involved the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). It was a very valuable exercise, but the important thing now is for the department and the minister to have consultations with the National Indian Brotherhood and other groups across the country and to bring before parliament the proposed amendments resulting from those consultations. If you were to send a committee out across the country at this stage, it would only negate those consultations and confuse the issue rather than result in constructive amendments to the act.
I would like now to put the problem in its proper perspective. A few years ago an incident occurred in my constituency where many young people aged 18, 19 and 20 years suddenly found that they could vote in the federal election at the time the provincial and federal law for voting age was changed from 21 to 18. I had presented a private member's bill to lower the voting age for status Indians in the elections of band councils and chiefs. The bill was on the order paper for a couple of years. I believe that practically everybody in the country, including most members of the National Indian Brotherhood, band councillors and certainly young people who are deprived of voting at age 18, 19 or 20 at the present time, would like to see that amendment become law.
The National Indian Brotherhood has made it very clear- and I have received feedback to this effect-that they do not want to open the act up on a piecemeal basis, making changes here and there with only one or two changes actually being
Indian Affairs
effected. This, in effect, is what we would be doing if we were to pass an amendment like that of the private member's bill. The National Indian Brotherhood wants to negotiate with the department and the minister amendments to the entire act.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lambton-Kent portrayed the Indian bands and Indian reserves by laying out all their difficulties, the social and economic problems with which they are faced. Well, we are working to improve the situation, and if hon. members will look back just eight or ten years, the period of time that 1 have been a member in this House, they will see some dramatic and impressive changes that have occurred, at least in my constituency. Perhaps the most impressive in that regard is the kind of leadership which has developed to make this progress, to provide for social amenities on the Indian reserves. It seems to me that this leadership has sprung up because in the old days it was simply a case of the band council acting as an advisory group to the Indian agent who ran the whole show.
Today, however, we have Indian bands operating many programs such as housing, education, economic development, direct employment, nursing homes, parks and recreational facilities. There has been a tremendous step forward in this area over the past eight or ten years, and the band councils have proven their ability to operate extensive and complicated programs that are often much more complicated, at least in my area, than those operated by a municipal council of comparable size. We would be remiss if we did not point out that kind of progress.
The area to be most concerned about in the future is economic development, especially for the remote reserves where it is difficult for band members to find employment. This has to be a chief concern of the department, the minister and all of us, because if people do not have job opportunities the system breaks down.
I want to congratulate the Indian bands on the facilities they are providing for their band council members. A few weeks ago I had an opportunity to attend the official opening of a recreational and cultural facility at the Sagamok reserve. There was also a new band administrative centre with firehall and police station, an excellent facility. Other bands throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area have provided equivalent facilities as well.
Another reserve I would like to mention is the one adjacent to Sault Ste. Marie, where the Batchewana band have built an excellent recreational complex, administrative centre and industrial park where many small light service industries are locating. This not only provides a tax base for that band but provides jobs. There is much progress being made, but we have a considerable way to go.
As for the economic development aspect, when we get around to making amendments to the Indian Act I think it is very important that we provide power for band councils to be able to lease property on the reserve. I understand from what the minister has said that it is the plan that band councils be

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
given the power, substantially, to lease land without having a surrender vote, although if they actually sold land they would need to have a surrender vote. That is one of the important issues that was raised with the parliamentary secretary at the reserve meeting held in Mississauga last November.
Another thing that we want to see established is postsecondary education. In northeastern Ontario we have been watching a battle to ensure that funding is provided for post-secondary education this fall. There is some concern that when we amend the Indian Act, whatever regulation or statute is established will ensure that post-secondary education receives the same consideration that public and elementary school education receives now. The uncertainty there is about this is a great hardship to the people involved and it is undesirable at a time of high unemployment. I think it is important that the matter be clarified, as the minister has indicated it will be in the near future.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us to establish a special committee to roam the country at a time when consultations are taking place is premature. I do not think the motion should pass. The minister has indicated that he hopes to bring in amendments to the act, perhaps next year, and to get substantial agreement with the National Indian brotherhood later this year. That is the procedure to follow. The bill would come before parliament after agreement has been reached with the national association and various representatives of native groups could appear before the committee. That is the positive, constructive and least confusing way to proceed on this most important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister's contribution to this debate earlier in the day, there is no doubt in my mind that the reference of the Indian Act to a special parliamentary committee as proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) is even more of a necessity than I believed.
It is obvious from the minister's remarks that if this act is to be amended with the full participation of the Indian community, they must be provided with a forum where they can make their views known, where all aspects can be dealt with, not in camera but under the full scrutiny of public opinion. It is to be hoped that this would force the minister, his advisers and members of the government to give the revision the priority it should have and which they have denied it to date.
This afternoon the minister scoffed at the idea of a committee such as this and derided its potential value. He did not think the Indian Act needed further study. He said that no other matter has been studied so much, unless it be the constitution. I would say to the minister, as he probably knows, that after a year and a half of urgings and motions from this side of the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has finally agreed to set up a special parliamentary committee to deal with constitutional matters. I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) will see

the wisdom of that move by the Prime Minister, belated though it is, and that he will reverse his position on the motion before us.
Sir, the minister said that he would rather build on the work that had been done prior to the breakdown of the NIB-cabinet joint committee. He went on to outline what had actually been achieved but then treated us to a review of the various matters which had been dealt with, the various attempts that had been made, which in his own words had foundered.
In lieu of a special parliamentary committee working on this necessary revision, the minister plans to soldier on by himself, and his closing remarks were: "I would hope to have some proposals by the fall". Pious hopes by the minister are no substitute for action and involvement-no longer good enough for the native people who have had to bear the inconsistencies and bureaucratic strictures of the Indian Act for far too long. They must be provided with a new forum, a special forum in which to make their views known, and a special parliamentary committee could perform that function.
I want to deal particularly with the discriminatory clauses in the Indian Act, clauses which relate to band membership and particularly as they apply to Indian women. The minister mentioned these clauses. He said in response to a question from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that he would tell him and the House how this matter-these discriminatory clauses-would be dealt with, but then he never did.
I should like to refer the minister and the House to a special publication put out in April of this year by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women entitled "Indian Women and the Law in Canada: Citizens Minus". The preface reads as follows:
When native women in Canada realized that there was no documentation of the discrimination against us we requested the assistance of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. We asked them to work with us jointly in our efforts to prepare this documentation.
The result was the booklet I have referred to. Later in this publication there appears the following passage:
For one hundred and nine years Indian women in Canada have been subject to a law which discriminates against them on the grounds of race, sex and marital status.
For the past nine years various attempts have beem made to revise the Indian Act in order to rid the act of its discriminatory clauses. To date, none of this has met with success. As my colleague the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has already outlined, there was the federal government white paper in 1969 which was received with outrage and hostility by the Indian community.
Several years later, in 1974, a committee of the National Indian Brotherhood under the chairmanship of Harold Cardinal, then president of the Alberta Indian Association, prepared a draft revised act which recommended that discrimination be removed from the act and that Indian women not lose status on marriage.
In 1975, a joint committee of the government and the NIB was set up to revise the Indian Act and the whole issue of
June 15, 1978

Indian women and band membership became a political football in their negotiations. So ineffective was the work of that committee that the NIB withdrew from it this spring, claiming that it was a charade and that they had not received one major decision from the government in the entire time they had been working on it. Its attempts, as the minister said, "had foundered".
I have always believed-indeed, I have spoken about this before in the House-that Indians themselves should have the primary input into any redraft of the Indian Act. That is why I put so much hope into the work of that joint committee and why I regret its collapse. Now some other vehicle must be found which will enable us to remove, once and for all, the very real discrimination that exists against Indian women.
I have met with many groups of Indian women on this subject and others, but particularly on this subject. I have been greatly encouraged and amazed by the solidarity of both status and non-status women in the way in which they are working together to resolve their problems as women. I have met individual Indians who are deeply affected by the injustice of the Indian Act. I think of women like Mary Two-Axe Early of the Caughnawaga reserve who told me, sadly but indeed angrily, that it is easier for the dogs to be buried on the reserve than it is for her, a full-blooded Indian who has been stripped of her status. So while committees are formed, talk and collapse, the Indian women are forced to sit in frustration.
The Advisory Council on the Status of Women in the report I have mentioned said this at page 91 about the now defunct joint committee:
The NIB in the present joint government-Indian negotiations to revise the Indian Act, has refused to allow status or non-status native women's organizations to be represented in these negotiations. Curiously the federal government does not see anything at all amiss with the fact that the NIB can unilaterally make such a decision. As "Indians" meant only males to the governments in the past, so it is today.
And, as that report further points out:
This denial of the human rights of Indian women on the part of both the government and the NIB has been compounded by the fact that this same government has carefully excluded any possible recourse in law by removing the Indian Act from the reach of the new Human Rights Act which came into force on March 1, 1978. Indian women have nowhere to turn and are denied the basic human rights enjoyed by other Canadians.
After nine years of talk about changing the law, Indian women are still suffering from its discriminatory clauses. The best known of these is section 12(1 )(b). 1 am sure as many members realize that infamous clause states that, upon marriage to a white man, an Indian woman must leave the reservation, may not own property on the reserve, must give up any property she does own, cannot inherit any property, cannot take part in band business, cannot have her children recognized as Indian, is prevented from returning to live with her family even if she is poverty-stricken, ill, widowed or divorced, and finally loses the right to burial on the reserve.
Canadians, native and non-native alike, can and have been concerned about this one section of the law which most people
Indian Affairs
in the country consider discriminatory. But what about all the other sections that have not generated a hue and cry, the ones that we have not raised a fuss about, probably because many of us are unaware that they exist? That whole section of the Indian Act which deals with definition and registration of Indians, sections 5 to 17, needs close scrutiny to see just how much injustice exists for both men and women.
For example, the 1951 revision introduced a new system of registration on band lists. I will not go into the problems this created when many people were left off the lists because of inadequate and faulty registration procedures. But suffice to say that persons, men and women, who were legally entitled to be included were left off. That particular effort split families and caused major disruptions in Indian communities.
The sections regarding band lists are in themselves discriminatory. Section 10 states:
Where the name of a male person is included in, omitted from, added to or deleted from a band list or general list, the names of his wife and his minor children shall also be included, omitted, added or deleted, as the case may be.
Does this section not have just as much built-in discrimination as section 12(l)(b)?
And what about section 12(b), which states:
The addition to a band list of the name of an illegitimate child may be protested at any time within 12 months after the addition, and if upon the protest it is decided that the father of the child was not an Indian, the child is not entitled to be registered.
Should we not be just as concerned about the rights of an illegitime child whose paternal antecedents it may be difficult to prove? These are but two examples of further discrimination within these clauses. If we were to examine the act clause by clause, many questions indeed similar to these would be raised.
The punitive and discriminatory clauses against Indian women and children might be more acceptable, or at least they might seem less unjust, if they were, in fact, a result of tribal custom or tradition, if it were a law that the Indians themselves had imposed. But it is not such a law. Rather it is a white man's law, imposed at white man's convenience, in order to encourage and speed up the process of assimilation of the Indian with the white man.
The Indian Act, as originally handed down in the late eighteen hundreds and subsequently amended, is based upon a patrilineal descent model. In this regard, the act may be seen as an extension of white Canadian colonial policy, for traditionally not all native peoples were organized along these lines. Iroquoian and many northwest coastal groups, for examples, emphasized matrilineal descent, and women in these societies maintained focal economic and political roles. By legislating these roles to males, the Indian Act represented, and continues to represent, imposition and interference by the federal government.
The process of assimilation of the Indians was seen by the settlers as a good thing. It was to Christianize and civilize them. Furthermore, the Indian women made good wives since they knew much more than the white men, such as how to survive the harsh conditions of the new country.

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
But that process of assimilation that was beneficial to the white settlers has not been beneficial to Indian communities. The traditional and essentially unchanged emphasis on family relationships in Indian communities must not be underestimated. Traditionally it is the Indian women who transmit Indian cultural values and language from one generation to the next. The enfranchisement of Indian women, the loss of their status, represents a great loss to the Indian community.
When this act was drawn up and even when it was amended, assimilation was the name of the game. Between its lines it is easy to sense the attitude of its framers, namely that in the long run it would be best for Indians to merge quietly into the rest of Canadian society. For example, section 15 of the present act provides a kind of lump sum payment to Indians who give up their legal status as such. That is not quite a bribe to deny their Indian identity, but it is certainly very close to one.
Many Indians in the past who opted for enfranchisement have done so without realizing the full consequences of their act. They did not realize that along with the lump sum payment went virtual banishment from the reserve and its amenities. It has become more and more obvious in recent years, as Indian groups have become more and more vocal about their rights and their heritage, that assimilation in white society and blind acceptance of white society's values is the last thing that the Indian wants.
It is time for the Indian Act to undergo total revision so that it can incorporate the desires and demands of the Indian community as to the kind of status they have in relation to the rest of Canadian society, and it must be spelled out clearly so all those who live under its mandate will be aware of all the consequences and implications of the various sections.
In this regard, it is indeed interesting to note what the advisory council's report has to say about the way in which the Indian Act is perceived by many Indians. It says and I quote: Indian Rights for Indian Women is at present considering options for a definition of membership which would replace the present discriminatory sections of the Indian Act. Their work is complicated by the fact that neither Indian women nor Indian men have much knowledge of the contents of the Indian Act, if indeed they have heard of it at all. Even if .they possess a copy of it, it is phrased in tortuous English which is very difficult to understand even if one's first language is English.
From 345 questionnaires administered by six native women researchers it was found that 49 per cent of both men and women had never heard of the Indian Act. Of the 51 per cent who had, less than half had ever read the act. Sixty-one per cent of the native people interviewed had a relative or close friend who had lost his or her Indian status and 86 per cent of these were through marriage, Only 16 per cent agreed with the present method of according status only through the male.
Considering how the Indian Act affects so many aspects of these people's lives, it is incredible that they should be allowed to remain in ignorance of its provisions. Can one picture the banking community being as ignorant of the Bank Act or as ignored in its drafting?
It is important that the needs and desires of the Indians themselves be taken into consideration in the review and 
redrafting of the Indian Act. That is what our proposed committee would do-solicit the views of the Indian community, including the women. This committee would deal with all aspects of the Indian Act, but especially those clauses which so blatantly discriminate against women. It would listen to the demands of the Indian women's organizations. So far these demands have been ignored. As the advisory council report points out:
To be born poor, an Indian and a female is to be a member of the most disadvantaged minority in Canada today, a citizen minus. It is to be victimized and utterly powerless, and to be, by government decree, without legal recourse of any kind.
That such a situation should exist in Canada today is appalling. We Canadians are often smug about such matters. We are prone to look down our noses at other countries where discimination is practised and to pretend that we are so tolerant. However, we can take no pride in our supposed tolerance so long as the blatant discrimination that is in the Indian Act remains on our statute books.
In removing those discriminatory sections of the act, and in seeking real input from the Indian community in the review and overhaul of the entire act, the committee that we are proposing would enhance our credibility as a nation concerned with human rights. If the committee did its work well, it might even begin to erode some of the distrust that the Indian community has felt toward the white man and his government for so long.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the motion and comment on some of the viewpoints expressed by members opposite as well as to set out one or two ideas which I hold personally about revision of the Indian Act.
I feel strongly that to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) would not be in the best interest of the parliamentary process or of the Indian people themselves. When speaking earlier this day, the minister said it was his view that it would be much more constructive and productive to set out some concrete proposals so that when they were referred to the committee, it could take positive action. That is the correct course and I, personally, very much endorse it.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) went to some length to take credit for having gotten the government to adopt the procedure whereby they established a committee to study the constitution. I draw to her attention that it is the procedure which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is following in the constitutional question where some very specific proposals are being put forward for consideration.
If the process put forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent had been followed in the constitution, the whole process would not go very far. It would not be very effective and would not serve this House very well in addressing a badly needed subject. I just make the comment that I think the parallel is here.
June 15, 1978

The minister said earlier today that a number of areas have been identified with the Indian leadership where there is agreement in terms of revising the act, and that these can move forward. Indeed, the minister said it is hoped that by next year these can be put together in some form. Whether that form will be a bill, white paper, a series of proposals or whatever, at that point it would be referred to the committee. The committee would then have something useful to work with.
I would like to argue-and I am glad that my friend, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall), who spoke earlier shares this view-that rather than have a special parliamentary committee consisting of members of this House and the other place, the proper committee would be the standing committee.
In discussing this with the Indian leadership, particularly the president of the National Indian Brotherhood, today, he drew to our attention that a good deal is required in the educational process before we can effectively deal with some of these matters, he has a very good point.
With regard to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, those who have been members of that committee for four years or longer and regularly attend and participate are a good deal more effective than members who join it in the short term. They have had the opportunity to listen to many different points of view. In their duties, they have met many of the Indian leadership people, band chiefs and councils and have travelled to many of the reserves. There is a good deal of expertise in the standing committee. It would be better to refer the matter there than to establish a new committee.
It is good that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has put this motion before us for debate. It has given members of all parties the opportunity to put forward their points of view on the revision on the Indian Act. In so doing, I thought a number of his colleagues would have had some positive and creative suggestions to offer in terms of revising the act rather than rehashing some of the old issues that may or may not be related to revising that act.
I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by members opposite in order to clear up the point about the fact that the minister was not following what was agreed to in the standing committee. I refer the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) to the proceedings of the standing committee for Thursday, May 4. While discussing the establishment of a committee, the chairman concluded the discussion by saying, and I quote:
I think we would have to have an order of the House, No. 1, referring the Annual Report; No. 2, authorizing us to engage additional staff; No. 3, allowing us to travel. But these are matters which would have to be discussed by the steering committee and I would suggest that we hold a meeting shortly for that purpose. Is that agreed?
The committee agreed to that. Out of the steering committee came agreement that if the estimates were terminated as has been scheduled, it would ask for a reference to the
Indian Affairs
standing committee of the annual report. If the time for consideration of the estimates was to be extended, it would not so ask. Therefore, no request to the House was made for a reference and that committee was never formulated.
Members opposite made a number of points regarding discrimination against Indian women. I do not want to in any way misquote the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, but I think he made the comment that this question was addressed mainly or specifically to discrimination in the act against Indian women. It is certainly the intention of the minister when contemplating revision of the act to consider the whole question of the rights of Indian men, women and children, matrimonial contracts, property laws and a number of related issues.
The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands spoke at some length on this question. I think she gave the impression that everyone in the Indian community was excited about the possibility that this process would be completed very quickly and that it would be simple. The issue is a good deal more complex than the hon. lady suggests and there is not unanimous agreement among the reserves with respect to it. One of the Indian leaders with whom I had a conversation earlier- she is in the gallery this evening-made the point that there is considerable opposition to it. The government would proceed very slowly and carefully on this question and consider it in the broadest context, rather than within the somewhat narrow limits which were set out during the debate.
The present act contains an almost unbelievable number of anachronisms which must date back a long way. Perhaps I might be allowed to put two or three examples on the record. Under section 32, for example, an Indian may not sell agricultural produce from a reserve in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta without permission. The section reads:
A transaction of any kind whereby a band or any member thereof purports to sell, barter, exchange, give or otherwise dispose of cattle or other animals, grain or hay whether wild or cultivated or root crops or plants or other products from a reserve in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta to a person other than a member of that band is void unless the superintendent approves the transaction in writing.
Under section 120 an Indian child who does not attend school regularly become a juvenile delinquent. The section states:
An Indian child who is expelled or suspended from school or who refuses or fails to attend school regularly shall be deemed to be juvenile delinquent within the meaning of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
There are many provisions of this type which need to be changed in order to bring the legislation more in keeping with the times and with the increased maturity of the Indian people.
I am somewhat concerned that so many of the contributions made in the debate today should have referred back to the white paper. Their intention seemed to be to make the point that revisions to the act would probably be a rehash of the white paper. Surely, from the minister's statement, it is apparent that the intention is completely the opposite. The intention is to give more authority to the band councils and to the elected people on the reserves so that they themselves can

June 15, 1978
Indian Affairs
make the decisions which affect their day to day operations, their cultural identity and the preservation of their culture.
It seems to me the thrust of the amendments will be in the opposite direction to that suggested by a number of speakers. It is a disservice to the process in which we are about to engage to rehash all the negative aspects of the white paper rather than look positively on the situation the government is creating through a new Indian Act.
I think it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw who quoted from a conversation with Chief Ahenakew a couple of years ago during which the chief said, in effect: "We don't want any handouts, we don't want any welfare because welfare is destroying our people; what we want is opportunity, encouragement, responsibility to make decisions on our own; we look to the future when native people would be self-reliant and able through their own endeavours to take care of themselves."
The hon. member then went on to discuss the shortcomings of the endeavours of the government to assist the Indian economy. Everyone is concerned about the low average income of the Indian people. I am sure all hon. members will support the efforts being made to improve that situation. The Indian economic development fund has certainly had its problems, but we should in fairness acknowledge that within the white business community there are substantial numbers of failures; not every project financed by the private sector is a success.
While there have been difficulties and some failures, there have also been a number of outstanding successes not only from a financial point of view but also from the point of view of increased confidence and experienced leadership developed as a result of this program. So I really think this has been one of the more positive of the department's undertakings. This is not to say that changes are not needed in the way the fund is administered or even in the concept of the fund. It seems to me it is important that members should think this issue through at the present time because there is a strong relationship between the future development of this project and the revisions to the act which are now being considered.
The minister, along with other members, commented on the Indian socio-economic development strategy report issued last December by the National Indian Brotherhood. This was really the product of extensive consultation within the Indian community across the country and it seems a number of revisions to the act would be required to meet its objectives. For one thing, there is certainly a need to clarify the status of legal contracts, whether, in fact, corporations would have full legal status, what is the legal position of corporations, whether they would have the right to sue Indian people involved in economic development where moneys are owing, and what rights Indian people enjoy before the courts. There is a direct relationship between all these questions and the revisions which, perhaps, should be made to the act to enable certain changes to be accomplished.
It seems to me one of the most welcome changes to the Indian Act is the one the minister mentioned today which would give the bands more authority to deal with land. I do not mean by that severances or surrender or outright sale, but
[Mr. Milne.)
certainly there might be opportunity for bands entering into economic development projects to set aside for a time parcels of land which could be used for equity purposes and, hopefully, draw in a much higher rate of private financing than has been available previously. In the private sector, once land is assembled, it is used as a basis for equity against borrowing. It is extremely difficult for Indians to do this under present procedures. If there were provision for negotiated agreements with the bands, the more mature bands would certainly be able to make decisions with regard to the type of economic development they wished to undertake. However, they will certainly need more control over the use of land than they have at the present time if land is to be considered an asset and key in terms of promoting better economic development.
What we are proposing in relation to legal status of bands and transfer of powers and responsibilities is something which extends beyond the notion of developing band government for Indian people. It is something which promises to reach to the heart of the social and economic development of the Indian people. Mr. Ahenakew has made a plea for Indian people to be provided the opportunity, encouragement and responsibility to make their own decisions, thereby becoming self-reliant and able through their own endeavours to take care of themselves. It is our job to make that possible. I am sure all hon. members in this House are dedicated to doing that in terms of leadership within the Indian community.
1 want to join other hon. members who have spoken in this debate in paying tribute to the leadership given to Canada through this government by the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand). He is the only Indian in the cabinet and, I believe, in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes which are left to me there is little opportunity to discuss two other matters which are very vital parts of the Indian Act. Perhaps I should say they should be vital parts of the Indian Act or at least of Indian policy. The matters to which I am referring deal with housing and health.
I heard the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Milne) and of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner). I heard them criticize the speeches which have been made today by hon. members of the official opposition, and I can only say that I am very disappointed. Because I have taken the time to listen to and to read the speech by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), and I feel that his speech was on a very high and constructive level. The criticism he made was of a constructive nature. There was nothing in his speech which hit below the belt, a habit we see very frequently opposite.
It is my opinion-and it is shared by others-that the hon. member for Thunder Bay, who I suppose has periodically served on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and
June 15, 1978

Northern Development and who has been parliamentary secretary to the minister, is probably still of the opinion that a potlatch is something to secure the lid of his Tupperware.
I was surprised at the remarks of the parliamentary secretary this evening. He said that he thinks perhaps some changes could be made here and that perhaps some changes could be made there. That is a clear indication of the thinking of this government. It is patchwork thinking in Indian affairs whether it deals with economic programs, social programs, health or housing. It is patchwork, make-work and ineffective.


The Acting Speaker (Mfr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m.
At 10.11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 16, 1978