1980-12-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of yesterday's disastrous fire in the city of Moose Jaw which caused millions of dollars of property damage and resulted in the loss of the jobs of several hundred persons, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
Thai the minister in charge of manpower and the minister in charge of DREE take immediate steps to have representatives of their departments meet with officials of the city and of the province to consider what steps may be taken to assist the city and the businesses affected by the fire.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Canadian scientists have revealed today that dioxin TCDD, one of the deadliest manmade chemicals in the world, has been found throughout Lake Ontario and in other lakes in Ontario from which millions of Canadians derive their drinking water and obtain fish. Dioxin is known to promote cancer and cause severe birth defects among humans. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this House call upon the Minister of the Environment to make without delay a statement on motions in the House of Commons detailing what the government intends to do to deal with the crisis, since the minister's statement to the media today said little more than that he is having the matter investigated.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, considering that Poland is an autonomous state which is currently undergoing severe internal tension, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House strongly urges all other states in the region to refrain completely from military or other provocative actions which could be seen as intimidation by the people of Poland and which could break peaceful relations beyond the borders of Poland itself.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I hope will receive the unanimous consent of the House. Whereas insulin was discovered by two distinguished and dedicated Canadians, Sir Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best, whereas this discovery and ongoing research into the treatment of diabetes have relieved suffering and saved the lives of millions of people around the world, and whereas the Worldwide Diabetic Information Service, which has its head-

December 2, 1980
quarters in Canada, is celebrating in 1981 the diamond jubilee year of the discovery of insulin, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House express its gratitude to the Worldwide Diabetic Information Service for its outstanding contributions to humanity.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the statement on the weekend by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) to workers affected by proposed reductions in CN express service to the effect that they should appeal before the Canadian Transport Commission against the plan on the grounds that a needed service was being withdrawn, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the Minister of Transport instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to hear such an appeal at the earliest opportunity and that he further instruct Canadian National to reinstate any service already withdrawn and suspend any further cutbacks until the Canadian Transport Commission renders a decision.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which I feel is of urgent importance, and I hope that members of the House will share my concern. Many Canadian families have expressed concern for the children who have been rendered orphans as a result of the earthquake in Italy, and many families have indicated a willingness to provide shelter and care for those children. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in addition to programs already in place, move immediately to provide the opportunity for Canadian families to assume legal guardianship for children orphaned by the disastrous earthquake in Italy and that a representative of the federal government, in co-operation with any
provincial jurisdiction that wishes to become involved, and with the Italian government, begin the process of offering these children an opportunity here in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Over the weekend it was reported that the leader of the NDP had stated in Vancouver that the leader of the Conservative party was against repatriation of our constitution. Given the fact that on October 22, 1980, the leader of our party introduced a motion calling for the immediate repatriation of the BNA Act so that all other constitutional changes be made in Canada by Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House condemn the leader of the NDP for deliberately misleading those present at the B.C. labour convention and the Canadian public, and condemn him and his party for failing to vote for repatriation.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent, pressing and, I hope, compassionate necessity. In light of the statement last Wednesday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration that he had instructed our embassy in Rome to process immediately applications for immigrant status from people in the Italian provinces affected by the recent disastrous earthquake, and that his department is working with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the RCMP to waive requirements for the normal medical and security checks which can later be conducted in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That, in addition to any special arrangements made in Italy, special reception centres be immediately established in Canada along the lines of those provided for the Vietnamese refugees last year where medical and administrative require-
December 2, 1980

merits can be conducted as thoroughly and as quickly as possible, so that these victims of disaster may start their new lives in Canada as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister indicate to the House whether he has noted that corporate bond interest rates are now over 14 per cent compared to less than 12 per cent a year ago, that conventional mortgages are now nearly 16 per cent compared to about 13 per cent a year ago; and if he has noticed these rather sensational increases, would he indicate whether he feels this is the way to reinvigorate our industry and, in particular, help small businessmen in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I have noted since the Bank of Canada adopted a floating rate system shortly after the government changed that for most of the period, or at least a substantial part of that period, interest rates were considerably below what they were when the Conservative government was in office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am sure the Minister of Finance is as interested as I in the comments of my hon. friend. We are watching the situation carefully.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who appears to feel that it is government policy to raise interest rates with, presumably, the intention of lowering them. As we have gone twice through the sequence of rising interest rates in the country, and since in a televised interview on February 10 the minister said he would resign from a government which could not reduce interest rates, would he indicate why he is hesitating to resign? He is in a government where rising interest rates have occurred twice, yet we see him still holding his post.


An hon. Member:: He has no credibility.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, interest rates in fact came down after the government changed, and I think that is a very positive development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With respect to the other part of the hon. member's question, he should bear in mind that the budget presented by the Minister of Finance contains an extension of the life of the Small Business Development Bond. I hope he will continue to support this initiative, which is very important to small business in dealing with the interest rate situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister noticed, as was published yesterday, that in the month of November auto, truck and steel output was down rather dramatically, in some cases as much as 20 per cent, compared to the previous year, urban completions were down approximately 20 per cent, and newsprint production was down? All of these things have occurred since the minister became Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would he indicate to the House what has gone wrong? Why have they occurred since he became minister? In addition, of course, the dollar is down to the 83-cent range now compared to over 87 cents; or in case he missed that, is he simply agreeing with his predecessor, Mr. Horner, that even 83 cents is a long way from zero?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my immediate predecessor was Senator de Cotret. I know what happened when Canadians examined the work of the government of which he was a part, so I intend to follow a more constructive course of action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Also I have noticed that real output in manufacturing increased sharply in September of this year. This increase, compared with the previous period, is the second consecutive increase since July. 1 think it confirms that real output in manufacturing has bottomed out, and 1 think that is a very important and positive development. I have also noticed the record positive balance on trade, which certainly is a very great improvement over the situation when my hon. friend's government was in office.


DECREASE IN VALUE OF DOLLAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has now been minister for nine months. He has done nothing but jawbone; he has not delivered one thing in his nine months in office.


Mr. Trudeau:: Order, order.


John Carnell Crosbie: We now have a Canadian dollar below 84 cents American. A year ago, on October 30, the minister told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the following:

December 2. 1980
Oral Questions
I don't think that allowing the dollar to have some downward adjustment would do as much harm to our economy as our present high level of interest rates.
The Bank of Canada rate then was 14 per cent; today it is 13.95 per cent or five one-hundredths lower; it has been up to 16.2 per cent under the minister's administration. Would the minister tell the House if it is the government's policy to carry out the minister's words, to have some more downward adjustment on the dollar, or does he consider that it would do more harm than the present high interest rates and that, therefore, interest rates should go higher? What is his choice now that he is in a position of responsibility and not just jawboning to the public?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member has overlooked a number of constructive achievements since the government changed. For example, he has overlooked the $3 billion industrial offset program connected with the new fighter aircraft contract, something which created some 6,000 jobs directly and some 20,000 to 24.000 jobs indirectly over the life of the contract. He has overlooked the implementation of the electronics development program. One of the grants from that program is creating 1,000 jobs in a company based in the Ottawa area. He has overlooked the special remission program with respect to the front-end loader industry, something that will create 1,200 jobs.
I could go on and give further examples, but I think the hon. member should concentrate on these positive achievements and not simply try to raise questions, as he has, that do not deal in a constructive way with the efforts we are making to strengthen the Canadian economy and provide more jobs for Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the "Terror of FIRA". 1 would like the minister to answer my question. Last fall he said that allowing the dollar to have some downward adjustment would not do as much harm to our economy as the present high level of interest rates. The level of interest rates right now is as high as, or higher than, when he made the statement last fall, but our international reserves are at their lowest level since February of 1970, down $210 million in November, is the minister's policy now, or are his instructions to his colleague, the silent Minister of Finance, that the dollar should be allowed further downward adjustment, or is his advice that the economy would suffer less damage if interest rates go up? What is it to be? What is his advice now that he is in a position to decide-the "Terror of FIRA"?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member was really serious, especially about being worried about the silence of the Minister of Finance, he would ask him that question since it is he who speaks for the government in this important area of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TAR SANDS PROJECTS INQUIRY RESPECTING PLANS TO BENEFIT NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns native matters and energy development.
I think the minister is aware that there are many native people in the midst of the development of the tar sands. I have before me a letter from Mr. Eric Shirt, who is the treasurer of the Indian Association of Alberta. The letter is to Premier Lough-eed and is dated June 25, 1980. The premier never responded to that letter. I will not go into the letter in great detail, but it is a litany of the fact that the native people in Alberta have not benefited from the economic boom there.
My question to the minister is this: What plans, if any, does the Government of Canada have with respect to dealing with the tar sands projects and with the government of Alberta over the tar sands projects to ensure that native people benefit from the great boom which will come about when those projects eventually get under way?


Mr. Malone:: A bill of rights to kill affirmative action.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity yesterday to read the letter to which the hon. member has referred. It is a very sad letter indeed. It tells much about the fate of the Indians living on Alberta reservations at the present time.


Mr. Clark:: Tell us about James Bay.


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition asks me to talk about James Bay. I remind him that the James Bay Indians have had a first-rate settlement with the Government of Canada and the government of Quebec, and they arc happy with it.


Charles Joseph Clark: They were abandoned by their government. Mr. Chretien ran away from his responsibilities.


Marc Lalonde: I regret that the Premier of Alberta does not appear to have answered that letter. I have raised this issue with my colleague in meetings we had during the course of the summer. I have had meetings with the Indian groups concerned also in the last few months. I expect to see them again this week to discuss this issue further while their representatives are in Ottawa.
It is difficult to know what exact arrangements will be possible. 1 have raised this matter with Imperial Oil, which is the main promoter of Cold Lake, and they have indicated they are willing to consider participation by the Indians in the project. Obviously it would require the full co-operation of the two governments in order to achieve this particular purpose.
I would remind my hon. friend that under the project put forward by Nova and Petro-Canada, Petro-Canada has indicated quite clearly that it is willing to set aside shares for
December 2, 1980

Indians to participate in such a project, and we are fully behind this action.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, when one reads the letter with regard to what Mr. Shirt has said about Indian mortality being four times higher than the provincial average, native people in alcohol treatment institutions and the lack of economic development on the reserves, one begins to understand what the native people are talking about when they speak of aboriginal rights and what they mean to their future.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works visited the tar sands this summer and made a report to this House. I am surprised that the minister is not familiar with that report, which recommended in items five and six that the federal government "maximize native involvement in the tar sands and . . . the formation of a body involving native, government, corporate and labour interests". The committee further recommended that there be adequate native participation in the development of these resources.
The minister mentioned Petro-Canada and Nova, but there are other projects-the Alsands project, the Cold Lake project, the Imperial Oil project and so on. Will the minister tell this House whether or not he is in agreement with the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works?


Marc Lalonde: I would be quite willing to try to set up such a committee, but obviously, once more, if the government of Alberta would not wish to co-operate, we would run into very serious difficulties and put in jeopardy the efficacy of such a committee. I am quite willing to look at the recommendations to which my hon. friend has referred. I hope that we will have the support of all other parties concerned in order to set up such a committee.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, a final supplementary. It is not good enough, in our view, to lay the blame on the provincial government or for the provincial government to lay the blame on the federal government. The minister gave $40 million to Imperial Oil, for which I called him the "$40 million Marc". Is the minister prepared to consider giving some money to the native people in the area of the tar sands with the same speed which he gave money to Imperial Oil, so that these people can prepare for future involvement in the tar sands projects?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the money which has been advanced to Imperial Oil was in order to keep the project alive. If the project is not kept alive, the Indians would have nothing in which to participate even if they wished to. It is very important to put it into perspective and to realize that the first condition to any Indian participation is that the project proceed. And before that can happen, as my hon. friend knows, we need the co-operation of the government of Alberta. It is not a question of attributing blame; it is a question of making sure that all parties con-
Oral Questions
cerned will take the necessary steps to ensure that the project proceeds.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is responsible for the western development fund. Considering the deplorable economic and social conditions which prevail among Canadian Indians in the west, including Alberta, and the fact that those Alberta Indians do not benefit at all from the Alberta heritage fund, would the minister indicate whether any of the $4 billion in the western development fund which was announced in the budget will be allocated to assist Indian economic development in the west?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the development of that western initiative is being considered at the present time by cabinet. Once a series of options have been developed, we intend to have discussions with provincial government officials and different interest groups in western Canada. Economic development for native people in western Canada is being examined and, considering the tremendous wealth being generated from our resources, 1 personally think it would make good sense to recycle much of that revenue to help those people in western Canada who need help the most, namely, the native people.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. More than a month ago 1 asked the minister if he would give serious consideration to introducing productivity incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to increases in industrial productivity, as a means of correcting the very serious drop in productivity which has taken place in Canada this year, a drop from an average increase of 4 per cent to a decrease of 3 per cent. The minister said he would give this matter serious consideration. Would he now advise the House of the result of that consideration, and can we expect him to announce a program of industrial incentives to be introduced in the very near future?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are continuing our work on this. As I said when I answered my hon. friend a few weeks ago, this matter is worthy of serious consideration. When we are

December 2, 1980
Ora! Questions
ready to announce any decisions, my hon. friend will be among the first to know about them.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, 1 am very glad to hear the minister is moving on this matter, but would he give serious consideration to moving quite a bit faster? Although he is making some move, I must advise him that the efficiency and effectiveness of his department is today still far below what it was in the golden era.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that the Glenn Miller era?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether my hon. friend is referring to the era when the member for Ottawa-Carleton was the minister. Certainly the concept which the hon. member has mentioned is worthy of serious study, and that is what we are doing.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Whenever we remind the government of the gross inadequacies of research spending these days, we are told by his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, about the Mitels, the Canadairs, the jets and all the other things being developed by government research spending, and I think that makes the case for us. The only problem is that enough is not being done in this field. Many times the minister has alluded to soon to be unveiled plans for research spending and for industrial growth in this country to build on the unique Canadian resource base. Would the minister stand in his place and tell us specifically what programs he has in mind now? We saw nothing about that in the budget. 1 would like to know exactly on what he will be spending research money. What specific projects will this entail, and what specific products will be generated?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I hope to be in a position to make specific announcements in these areas before too many weeks pass. 1 hope my hon. friend has checked his desire for greater spending with the new industry critic. I do not want to have any further intraparty conflicts on this score, because I am happy to have his support for the kinds of initiatives he is talking about.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, the only difference is that we do not consider that to be spending; that is investing in legitimate job creation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Gordon Gilchrist: And that is quite different from spending on unemployment insurance. In the light of the badly sagging
economy, I would think the minister would be more attentive to that-


An hon. Member:: Question.


James Gordon Gilchrist: -and that after 14 years of government, he would have an industrial plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Listen and you will get the question.


James Gordon Gilchrist: What is the minister's long-range strategy on which business can build and plan its long-range strategies for job creation and wealth generation in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: it must be their stimulative deficit.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we will be making specific program announcements in the coming weeks. Our basic approach is to strengthen innovation in the country, to strengthen our export capacity and to build up our own domestic manufacturing base. I hope, too, to have the support of my hon. friend in a serious way for our initiatives as we bring them forward.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the transaction between the minister for economic development in Nova Scotia, Mr. Roland Thornhill, and a number of chartered banks, about which, I believe, the minister is aware. I have given the minister notice of this question.
An RCMP investigation was completed in September of this year. Can the minister tell us whether the Inspector General of Banks has seen the RCMP report? If so, has the Inspector General made a report to the minister as to the contents of it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's question, I would advise him that earlier in the year I had an inquiry by letter from an interested citizen in Nova Scotia asking whether there had been any investigation into, or concern expressed regarding, transactions between the bank and the particular minister in the province of Nova Scotia. The Inspector General of Banks advised me that an investigation did take place respecting any impropriety which might have been committed in connection with the provisions of the Bank Act. In pursuit of his investigations, he had sought interviews with officials in the relevant banks and had concluded that, in so far as the Bank Act was concerned, he could not find any impropriety. He made no comment with respect to any other law or convention which may or may not have been affected by this particular investigation.
December 2, 1980


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister would agree there is a very serious difference between conducting interviews and the kind of investigation carried out by the RCMP, or the kind of investigation which is called for under the terms of the supervision section both of the old Bank Act and the new Bank Act. I would point out to the minister that under the terms of the new Bank Act, which came into force yesterday, he has the power to order the Inspector General to carry out an investigation, and the Inspector General has all the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. With respect to these transactions, which, in our view, are extremely serious indeed, would the minister agree to order the Inspector General to carry out such an investigation under the terms of the Inquiries Act, and not simply be satisfied with a series of interviews with a number of people who may or may not have been involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Inspector General of Banks himself described his activities as an investigation. Following the conclusion of his investigation, he decided that there had been no impropriety. I have since discussed the matter with the Inspector General of Banks, and since events in the spring he has had no further reason to launch an investigation. The hon. member has indicated that there may have been a police investigation, but I am sure he would be the first to agree that that is not a matter into which the Inspector General of Banks should intrude himself.

[Translation}


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of a report published yesterday by Michel Gratton of the newspaper Le Droit can the minister confirm that there has been an increase in passenger traffic at the Malton, Edmonton and Calgary airports? Can he also tell us what steps he intends to take to improve conditions at Mirabel, the largest airport in Canada, and make it profitable?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I imagine the hon. member refers to higher landing fees for small planes at the four main airports in Canada. If not, 1 would ask him to repeat his question-because 1 did not understand it very well.


Robert Gourd: Madam Speaker, 1 did refer the minister to the increase of passenger traffic mentioned in the report written by Michel Gratton of Le Droit.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that announcement was made in the budget laid down by the Minister of Finance. The
Oral Questions
announcement made yesterday was only an extension of that decision.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, Canadian scientists have today confirmed that dioxin TCDD has been found throughout Lake Ontario and other lakes in Canada from which Canadians derive their drinking water and obtain their fish. Dioxin is one of the deadliest man-made chemicals in the world. It is known to promote cancer and to cause severe birth defects in humans.
Will the Minister of the Environment assure the House that the Government of Canada will take immediate steps, either alone or in concert with the provinces, to have banned all industrial or consumer products containing dioxin? Will the minister also take steps to ensure that the deposit of dioxin in drinking water is outlawed? In addition, will he ensure that the disposal of any industrial waste containing dioxin will be outlawed, as has been done or is being done in the United States? Will he show leadership along the lines of the leadership taken in the United States but not taken in Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Madam Speaker, 1 can confirm that this morning I did release the scientific findings to which the hon. gentleman has referred. Those findings make it clear that there are traces, although very small quantities, of dioxin in the Great Lakes.
The two sources for the provision of those dioxins are both in the United States. As a result, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs is addressing a note to the United States which is in the final drafting stages and should be sent within the next 48 hours, outlining to the United States the information which we have, drawing it to their attention and asking for a thorough investigation, as well as requesting that they take urgent steps to remedy this situation.
My department is also in touch with other departments of the Canadian government. We are proceeding with our studies to try to isolate more clearly the significance of these findings. We are continuing our own work to try and establish clearly the source points and the consequences of these facts. I have also instructed my department to be in touch with the International Joint Commission so that the information we have is brought to their attention in order that they may issue their advice to both governments of the United States and Canada as to what action should be taken.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is adressed to the Minister of the Environment and is in connec-
5240

December 2, 1980
Oral Questions
tion with the investigations and examinations the minister is seeking or is sponsoring through his department. Is the minister aware that last month the journal Science, one of the most reputable scientific publications in the world, documented that the chemical dioxin, the cancer-causing product that we are talking about, is discharged into the environment from the combustion process of coal-fired power plants. Thermal power plants are one of the sources of dioxin, among others.
In view of those findings, will the minister assure the people of Canada that the government will not proceed with its plans to promote the conversion of electrical plants, in the Atlantic provinces in particular, from oil to high sulphur content coal until Canadian scientists have documented beyond reasonable doubt that those conversions will not increase dioxin discharge in the Atlantic provinces and elsewhere in Canada? Will he assure us that the Government of Canada will not proceed with its off-oil program as outlined in the minister's colleague's budget without a scientific determination that those conversions will not increase dioxin discharge in Canada which cause cancer and can cause very serious birth defects in humans, in addition to other problems?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, of course 1 am well aware of the hazards arid dangers of that extremely toxic poison, dioxin.
I was not aware of the article to which the hon. member referred. 1 thank him for drawing my attention to it; 1 will look at it. As has repeatedly been made clear to members of the House, the desirable proposals brought forward in the budget, and supported by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, for moving to conversion to coal in the Atlantic provinces will proceed only in conformity with the highest standards of environmental protection.


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the ongoing tragic events in Italy. I am aware, of course, of the supplies which have been sent from Canadian Forces Base Lahr to Italy. However, the need now seems to be for greater co-ordination and co-operation in the actual earthquake area itself. In that regard, will the minister consider proposing to Canada's partners in NATO that they put together and make available an emergency NATO force which would help out with the logistics, distribution of supplies, reconstruction and other needs in the earthquake area? In the event that this initiative meets with success, will its availability be made known to the overtaxed government of Italy, itself a strong NATO member?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intention of the hon. member. I would like to sound out the government of Italy on the acceptability of and necessity for such an offer.
They know that we have offered whatever will be useful to them. 1 think we should go back to them and put it in this larger context to see if such an initiative might be helpful.


SUGGESTED ADOPTION OF ORPHANED CHILDREN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thank the minister for that response. I will pose my supplementary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure he knows that many Canadians, both those directly affected by the earthquake tragedy and those who are not, have expressed a great deal of concern about the plight of children orphaned as a result of the earthquake. In connection with the proposals the minister has put forward to provide resettlement places in Canada for those who have been left homeless by the earthquake, has he been in touch with his provincial counterparts to see whether methods can be worked out for the adoption of children who have been orphaned as a result of the earthquake tragedy? If he has not already done that, will he proceed to do so immediately?


Lloyd Axworthy: In the first instance, Madam Speaker, we thought that the best we could do was to respond to immediate requirements and ensure that those in Canada who have relatives in the affected areas would be able to have their relatives come to Canada, and that we provide the proper communications system so that they could make contact.
On the question of orphans from the earthquake area, we have had discussions with Italian-Canadian organizations here on that matter. My colleagues the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been talking to the Italian government as well. Therefore, we have that particular question under serious consideration. As soon as those conversations are concluded, we think this is something that it is possible to do. However, we would like to work with the Italian government before we make a final decision.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, it is with reference to the future of Canfarm. Recently the minister made a unilateral decision in which he discontinued the bridge financing of that corporation. This is the latest example of a broken commitment and broken promise. What is the status of that issue today?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has the right to say what he thinks is a broken promise. However, we made an agreement with Canfarm that they should have 12,000 members. At the present time they have 5,000. If anybody has broken a com-
December 2, 1980

mitment to Peter Hannam, an outstanding young man who is the leader of that organization, it is farm organizations and the provinces which refused to participate in any fashion or form to help go along with improving the membership in Canfarm. Not one provincial minister has come forward to say that he thinks it is a good organization. We discussed this in July at the provincial ministers' meeting, and also in Brandon.
We have fulfilled our obligation to them with regard to funds. We have given the limit of the funds up until the present time. We will be meeting with the board of directors later this afternoon to discuss further whether there is any way imaginable it can be kept alive. We have over $4 million in that organization at the present time. It appears we could put a further $4 million into it, but we do not know if it is going to be a success. There must be more participation by the farmers and provincial ministers of agriculture in that organization. It is a good organization. Peter Hannam has given it tremendous leadership, but he does not have the support that he needs, especially from farm organizations and provincial ministers of agriculture.


John Wise: The minister uses his old flam of blaming everyone except himself. Since the moneys required to wind down Canfarm are more than what is required for its survival-$1.5 million versus $1.2 million-would the minister reconsider his decision and, at the very least, make the final payment of some $300,000, which was really the final commitment that we made a year ago, and our commitment that we have fulfilled, of $1.2 million?


Eugene Whelan: All the member was doing while 1 was away on a short sabbatical was fulfilling the commitments I made to Canfarm. That is all he was doing. We have given them the $300,000. Let him come up to date and make sure he knows what he is talking about before he asks questions or makes accusations.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker. my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is, I see, helping the Brazilian coffee industry and the Niagara tobacco industry at the back of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the minister will be aware that the Indian people of Canada feel that they have a special relationship with the Queen of Canada which goes back a great many years. Does the minister feel that the duties of the Queen of Canada to, and the relationship the Queen has with, Indian groups, particularly the treaty groups, continue to exist?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, it is clear to the Indian people, as it is clear to many other Canadians, that the Queen of Canada has a great deal of symbolic value and is an institution that they and the rest of us want to maintain.


David Kilgour: I ask the same question, Madam Speaker. The newspapers reported yesterday that the Governor General has indicated that the people who have come on the constitution express must negotiate with the Government of Canada only, that they may have no dealings, as I understand it, with the Queen of Canada living in Britain. Is that the position of the Government of Canada? If so, does that mean that the head of state in Canada is now the Governor General rather than the Queen of Canada?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a member of Parliament for Canada. Surely he is aware of the role of the Governor General and of the Queen of Canada. To be so patronizing as to assume that the Indian people do not seems to me to be rather insulting.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The minister knows that there has been at Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick a very serious history of hostage takings, the tragic death of a prison guard, the suicide of a prisoner, escapes of convicted murderers and allegations of brutality and lawlessness before and after the recent hostage taking. The Canadian public has a right to know the full circumstances surrounding these recent incidents. In view of the fact that on October 14 of this year the Solicitor General promised the House that "I would be prepared, when the facts have been collected by the special inquiry, to make them public in the next few days as soon as I have them"-and that was almost two months ago-when are we finally going to have a full public report, as promised by the minister, on the very serious recent events at Dorchester Penitentiary?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, subsequent to my making that statement, the coroner of the province of New Brunswick indicated that a public inquest would be held. That inquest by this independent official of the New Brunswick government was indeed held. A full statement of facts was made and adduced before the coroner's inquest. I am very glad to tell the House that those public findings by that objective inquiry correspond exactly with the findings that were made by the special inquiry which was held by the inspector general of the correctional service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, that answer is completely unacceptable. The minister knows very well-

December 2, 1980
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -that the coroner's inquest had the mandate of looking into the causes of death of the prison guard, not of looking into any allegations of brutality, of shootings or any of the other allegations which have been made about Dorchester.
My supplementary question to the Solicitor General is this. The minister knows that the correctional investigator heard very serious allegations made by a number of prisoners of beatings, indiscriminate use of gas, destruction of personal property. Will the minister confirm that a number of these allegations have indeed been substantiated? Will the minister tell the House, in view of the fact that the rule of law does not stop at the prison gate, what disciplinary action or other legal proceedings have been taken against the guards involved in these very serious offences?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would want to see the exact allegations that the hon. member is referring to. A number of allegations were made by inmates at Dorchester which I am satisfied were false, because 1 have seen reports about them. Some kinds of allegations can never be established one way or the other; others are being looked at now by the inspector general. I have not had a report from him on some of them. 1 will have the report within the next few days. If any of them can be substantiated, appropriate action will be taken.


PETRO-CANADA INQUIRY RESPECTING EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICIAL BY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and has to do with the participation of the senior vice-president for finance of Petro-Canada in the preparation of the budget. I wonder if the minister can amplify his answers of yesterday and tell the House of Commons whether Mr. Joel Bell, the official of the Crown corporation which benefited by the budget, during the period that he was with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, was drawing salary or any benefits from Petro-Canada, including the prospect of future re-employment by Petro-Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have made some inquiries following the question yesterday of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Bell was not involved in the preparation of the budget. He was on loan from Petro-Canada to work on the acquisition program of the Government of Canada, and that is part of the energy program. He was on loan as a consultant from Petro-Canada. He continued to receive his salary from Petro-Canada and he worked for my department, in the preparation of the energy program, on the acquisition program of the Government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Which is part of the budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have admitted here is that the energy program which was presented as a major part of the budget of Canada was prepared by an official of Petro-Canada, which was the principal beneficiary of that budget, at a time when that official of Petro-Canada was being paid by the Petro-Canada company, which was benefited by the budget he helped prepare. That is a clear conflict of interest-


Mr. Nielsen:: Gross.


Charles Joseph Clark: -far more serious than the Walter Gordon transgressions of some 15 to 16 years ago. Since the minister knows that Petro-Canada is involved in several joint ventures with private companies operating in Canada and outside Canada, can he tell the House of Commons whether any of those companies knew that the senior vice-president for finance of their partner Petro-Canada was involved in the preparation of the energy portions of the budget prior to or during the participation by that official of Petro-Canada in the preparation of the budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that, contrary to the situation when his party was in office, when the office of the minister of energy, the presidency of the party and several other positions were occupied by former employees of Imperial Oil, we consider that Petro-Canada belongs to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We consider that Petro-Canada, as always- and it has been stated quite clearly-is an instrument of policy of the Government of Canada. As far as the role of Mr. Bell is concerned, he was there as a consultant to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the preparation of the acquisition section of the energy program. The program itself was developed by officials of the department and approved by cabinet. The Minister of Finance developed his own budget with the Department of Finance and with his own colleagues. That is the whole story, and I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition has it all upside down once more.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I take it now that the position of the government is that the energy program was not a part of the budget. If the energy program was not a part of the budget, why was it presented as part of the budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated that Mr. Bell was a consultant to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the preparation of the national energy program, which was made public at the same time as the budget and which my hon. friend has had an opportunity to read.
December 2, 1980


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday last the minister was questioned with respect to the non-recognition of veterinarians as official guarantors for passport applications. Subsequent to that, I and many other members of Parliament inquired of the minister and made representations urging support for the proposition that veterinarians, because of their unique position in the agricultural community and in the rural areas of the country, because of their constant contact with individuals in remote sections of the country and because of their particular position of trust and respect, be officially recognized as official guarantors for passport applications.
Has the minister reconsidered his position, and is he prepared to announce today that veterinarians will indeed be recognized as official guarantors for passport applications?


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is yes.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I said last Friday. The list of guarantors for passports is not intended and does not function as a recognition of various professions or businesses, but as a result of the representations made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Timiskaming, and other hon. members, I have come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to add veterinarians to the list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: How is that for crow tasting?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You look embarrassed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1 am glad to see so many veterinarians in the House!


An hon. Member:: They are donkeys on the other side.


Mark R. MacGuigan: As I was saying-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not think veterinarians would cause such excitement.


Mark R. MacGuigan: As I was saying, the purpose of this is to serve the rural people of Canada, not to extend recognition to a profession which is already well recognized.
However, I will just add that because passport applications have recently been reprinted, it will be some time before the written recognition of veterinarians will appear on those forms.
The Constitution THE CONSTITUTION


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR REPORT
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order which is also very urgent because it is related to an issue which is very well known by all my colleagues in this place. It is related to the deadline for the joint committee's dealing with the constitution matter.
I would have liked the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to be in the House, but I understand he has an engagement. I learned that just a few minutes ago. In any case, I see that the deputy House leader of the Conservative party and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) are both here, and 1 have given notice of my intention to rise on a point of order. I did not specify what I would say, but I am at ease when I speak in the absence of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton because I think he will be in agreement with all I will say. If not, we will find out later, but I have no doubt in my mind.
May I say-and I offer as a witness the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who attended our last meeting-that we received a final proposal from the opposition parties, and it was agreed amongst us that if we were to agree to that final proposal 1 would be free to move a motion from the floor of the House and receive unanimous consent, without debate, for the motion.
The matter is very simple. The offer is related only to a date, and it is without condition. The last proposal-and I will not get into the details of the negotiations or explain them here because 1 want to be brief-from the opposition parties was that the committee report at the latest on February 6, 1981. That was the firm and final proposal made. The agreement is that if we were to agree to that, we were to come here. If we were to disagree, we could make our case public.
1 am glad to report that we agreed to that firm proposal, and therefore there must be unanimous consent for the following motion, which is very simple:
That the order of reference creating the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada be amended by deleting the words "December 9, 1980" and substituting therefor the words "February 6, 1981"; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof and to invite them to join with this House in the aforementioned action.
I move that motion, seconded by the right hon. member for Yellowhead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with respect to the point of order raised by the government House leader, 1 had an opportunity to discuss very briefly and very sketchily with the opposition House leader the discussions which took place among the House leaders on this question. It was not my intimation from the opposition House leader that there was a firm, be-all, and end-all agreement with respect to the date of February 6, beyond which we would not go. My understand-

December 2. 1980
The Constitution
ing, through the opposition House leader, was that the agreement would be at least to February 6 because of the avalanche-


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


Mr. Chretien:: Yes or no.


Erik Nielsen: -of oral applications and written briefs. I believe the number of oral applications amounts to some 350 and the written applications amount to a like amount, for a total of some 700 or 800 applications to be dealt with. 1 know that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) went into that meeting with the thought uppermost in his mind which was stated by our leader yesterday when leaving caucus. He said, and I quote from a transcript, which was sent to the government House leader and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of that exchange between our leader and members of the media:
I understand the question of exact dates is under discussion among House leaders and it will continue that way. but there was a unanimous view on the part of my colleagues in the House of Commons that we w'ant the people of Canada to be heard on the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: While we gladly accept the motion which is before us now waiting to be read to the House, we must file the caveat that should this backlog of Canadians who want to be heard on their constitution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cousineau:: Blackmail.


Mr. Siddon:: You don't want to hear Canadians?


Erik Nielsen: -remain a serious backlog when February 6 rolls around-in other words, if there are still hundreds of responsible organizations and individuals who want to be heard-we are simply reserving the right to raise the matter again with an appeal to the government to be reasonable so that these Canadians can be heard on their constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to say that we welcome the statement that the government House leader has made on this point of order. 1 should like to add that although we have had our difficulties, which always happens where there arc negotiations, we have done very well at negotiating in the last little while. We even managed yesterday to hold our meeting in a place where the members of the press could not find us-


An hon. Member:: Stanley's office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -arid I do not think they know yet where we held that meeting.
As for the proposal that the government House leader has made, and as for his statement, they correspond to my understanding, namely, that if the government was prepared to agree to the date of February 6, the minister would be free to stand in the House and announce it, but that if the government did not agree to the date of February 6, we would be informed as House leaders and the negotiations would be off.
My understanding at yesterday's meeting was that, so far as the opposition was concerned, we would not consider any earlier date, such as January 30 or January 23, but that we would consider February 6. It was also made clear that there were, in both parties on the opposition side, members who wanted a longer period, but that we would agree to the date of February 6 without debate. 1 congratulate the government on agreeing to this sensible proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Is there unanimous consent to presenting this motion without debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wish to rise on a brief point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I have notice from the minister that he wishes to reply to an hon. member. Is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) rising on a point of order which should be heard before we hear the minister? If so, I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my point of order is one that flows directly from the procedure to which the House has just agreed. 1 simply want to express my regret that we were not able to receive from the government House leader an indication of the contents of the proposal which he was going to make at three o'clock. 1 think it would have facilitated arrangements in the House and an understanding of what exactly was going to be proposed if it had been brought forward as a proposal rather than as a surprise.
December 2, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is a very simple reason for this. This is the result of the lengthy consultations I have had with others, other than the House leader, which ended only around 20 minutes before three o'clock this afternoon. I was therefore unable to elaborate on this point and to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition the details of what we agreed on, namely, that the date of February 6 was the final date, that there would be no other requests for future extensions and that this was a gesture of exceptional generosity which the opposition appreciated. This is why we agreed to the final date of February 6. However, in spite of what my hon. colleague , the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said, I want to make it very clear that there is no question in the agreement that there might be other requests to grant a further extension to the committee. As we understand the agreement we have reached, the date of February 6 is final and there will be no further extension granted to the committee. It will report on the sixth at the latest, even though, in principle, if the committee so wishes its proceedings could be completed earlier. However, in our opinion there are limits to what is reasonable and we believe that a time-frame of three months in committee is sufficient, because if we indeed go on until February 6-and 1 believe that the Conservative House leader as well as my colleagues of the New Democratic Party understand this-the committee will have considered the constitutional proposals for three months even though we had previously provided a much shorter period. I believe that the hon. member for Yukon, who was not present at this meeting, must have gotten carried away when he said, "We can assure you that we shall ask for an extension in late January or early February". Such was not the spirit of these negotiations; we have discussed at length and in good faith in the last two weeks, and I must say that the government has been extremely generous in the concessions it has made without setting any conditions, without requesting a deadline for the third phase and without even having agreed on the form of this third phase, as my hon. colleague will certainly recognize if he is sincere. 1 believe that he should not now state in advance that his party will try to create obstacles and have another filibuster in committee, because this was certainly not the spirit of the discussions we had with the House leaders, and it is certainly not the spirit that will animate the discussions in the days and weeks to come when this very important constitutional issue is debated in committee and subsequently in the House of Commons.
I therefore want to make it very clear that the agreement is firm and that while the extension we are granting may not seem as generous as some would want it, as in any negotiation and any agreement, some give and others receive. In view of the circumstances, I believe that the extension is generous. I want to make it very clear that this is an ultimate deadline and that it corresponds exactly to what was agreed among the
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
House leaders and what was the subject of the resolution of this House which has now been passed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the discourtesy to which 1 made reference was the reluctance-1 will use that word-of the government House leader to communicate to the deputy House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the contents of the proposal which was to be laid before the House when, during the question period and after the hour specified by the government House leader, the opposition deputy House leader crossed the floor, spoke to the government House leader and asked him for the contents of that proposal. It would have helped the House, I think, had that information been conveyed at that time.
The only point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that the record of the House shows very clearly that we are pleased that the date of February 6, which we had originally proposed, has been accepted, but we accepted it with the caveat that if the people of Canada, represented by responsible individuals or responsible groups in large numbers, still have not been adequately heard by that time, we will not be party to closing off the right of the people of Canada to be heard on their constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The last words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) were that they would not be party to the closing off on February 6. If that is their position, then they should not have voted for the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 want to make it quite clear, Madam Speaker, that this date is the result of unanimous agreement of all parties of the House.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It says "no later than February 6". If the committee feels its work is finished earlier and there is a consensus in the committee to finish earlier, 1 suppose that would be permissible under the motion agreed to in every part of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: After having heard the caveat of the hon. member for Yukon, I point out that the caveat was quite clear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to withdraw his consent to that motion and put in a condition, we are prepared to permit him to withdraw his consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The caveat stands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It should be obvious, Madam Speaker, that it would be possible to have hundreds of briefs coming in forever, and to have a new agreement in February to postpone the date.

December 2, 1980
5246_____________________________________
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Some hon. Members:: What is the rush?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite are already saying, "What is the rush?" 1 remind the House that there was opposition from that side to the date of December 9-


Mr. Andre:: To any date.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and we had to use unilateral closure to get agreement on that date.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Today there is no closure; there is voluntary consent to that date by all parties in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With a caveat.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It should be on the record that we have not forced this date on the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. As 1 understand it from both the NDP House leader and our House leader, it was a date which they suggested and to which we agreed. Therefore, let it be on the record that there is no closure imposed. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to have second thoughts and say that this is a date he only agrees to on condition, that he does not want the further date-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: We said it before you voted.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -then let him withdraw the consent, let us debate it again, or let us just say that no agreement is possible. That is our view, and I appeal to the New Democratic Party to state right now in the House that that is equally its view-


Some hon. Members:: Don't worry about them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that it is a negotiated date which has been agreed to freely by the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This kind of howling from the Tory party does not suit the House at a time when we are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -today agreeing to the-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -very date they suggested. 1 repeat that we do not see this as an imposition of a date upon them. We see them as freely accepting this date, and if they do not freely accept it, the time to say it is now, not next February.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear, if there is any doubt at all, where we stand on this issue. We, along with the official opposition, felt very strongly about the extension of time. The government knows that through private negotiations involving the House leaders of all parties.
To understate it considerably, we have not been in agreement with the way the government has handled all proceedings of the committee, but 1 think an agreement was entered into in good faith by all House leaders to provide Canadians reasonably good access to present their views. When we in this party enter an agreement, we intend to keep it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the country knows full well the degree to which the NDP intends to keep the agreements into which it enters with the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This matter need not detain the House any longer. Two things are clear. First, the House has voted on a reporting date of February 6, offered without condition by the government House leader, to quote his language, and second, the caveat expressed on behalf of my party by myself and the deputy House leader of the official opposition that if the people of Canada have not been adequately heard by February 6, we will put pressure upon the government to extend the date just as we put pressure upon the government to extend the date of December 9 when they tried, in our view, to muzzle the rights of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. CROUSE-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. LeBLANC DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, yesterday after I left the House the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) raised a question of privilege. 1 wish to reply to the question of privilege by saying at the outset that 1 sincerely regret any misunderstanding of my remarks in the House yesterday which could have suggested to the hon. member any reference to conflict of interest.
The hon. member and myself have had this type of exchange before.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would those members who want to have conversations with their colleagues please do so in the lobby so that the House can hear the hon. minister.


Roméo LeBlanc: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know the hon. member represents many large fishing vessel crews, and he
December 2, 1980

very properly defends their interest. I was trying to point out that there are other points of view, and of course 1 apologize if I have offended the hon. member.
mr. Mcknight-letter written by mr. de corneille


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, several weeks ago I gave notice of the question of privilege which 1 should like to bring to the attention of the House. It arises out of the propriety of the use of members' facilities and the privileges which go with the use of those facilities, that reflect on all members of the House, by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).
I have stood twice to raise this matter, and the hon. member was not in the House. I see that he is not present at this time, but I will proceed because I think I have waited long enough. My question of privilege arises out of a letter dated October 28, 1980, bearing the crest of the House of Commons, which the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence circulated on behalf of an organization called the "National Committee for Human Rights Charter". On this piece of House of Commons stationery he was soliciting the membership, and for members for this organization.
The hon. member is the national chairman of this committee, and the return address for this petition is in care of the national chairman, Box 547, Ottawa, Ontario, KIP 5P6. He solicited memberships for an organization and used the crest of the House of Commons, which is something we all value, which is something that is very special in Canada, and which I hope is something under the protection of the Chair. The letter was circulated to clergymen across Canada.
I should like to read one reaction to this communication and how it reflects upon all members of the House of Commons. The letter is dated at Unity, Saskatchewan, and it reads as follows:
Roland de Corneille, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,
Your letter dated October 28, enclosing a petition for a charter of rights and freedom has made me very angry.
Firstly, in your letter you say, "That human rights should not be a partisan political issue." That may be so, but the fact is that the proposed charter of rights as a part of our constitution is a partisan political issue today. Seven of ten provincial premiers strongly oppose the entrenchment of this particular charter of rights. The charter listed on your petition has a remarkable similarity to the charter proposed by the Prime Minister. From my reading, there are many knowledgeable legal and political commentators who have serious reservations about this particular form of a charter of rights.
I cannot decide which makes me more angry; your assumption of my naivety that 1 would accept this petition as a simple humanitarian statement, or that you are seeking my support and the support of my congregation on a religious basis for a petition that will certainly be used for partisan political purposes.
My second objection is to your use of your free mailing privileges as a member of Parliament to send out this document. I would suspect that you would be legally correct, though morally suspect to use those privileges to send out political materials. If, however, the "National Committee for a Human Rights Charter" does exist, I can see no justification for you using your free mailing privileges for an organization's mailings.
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
I would find your whole letter disgusting if it were from an ordinary politician. The fact that you are a minister of the gospel and sign your letter as "Rev." I find to be an abomination.
Yours
(Rev.) Harold C. Black
Madam Speaker, the first point I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair is that I, and other members of this House, who happen to be involved in other organizations and who happen to have businesses or are members-


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, we seem to have lost the French interpretation and I would like you to check on this if you would.


Madam Speaker:: I believe that this has been done.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sorry that I cannot assist the hon. member, Madam Speaker.
There are many members in this House who do belong to other organizations. As a matter of fact there are many members of this House who are owners of businesses, or presidents of their own corporations, who would not use the House of Commons stationery with that crest to solicit support for something which is not in the ordinary line of work of a member of Parliament. The reaction caused by this petition, I feel, reflects on all members of the House of Commons. It brings us all under suspicion. I would like to point out that several independent organizations have asked many members of Parliament for their support as members of Parliament to assist in those organizations. Members have given of themselves freely, but they have done so as ordinary members of society and not as members of Parliament.
Madam Speaker, to my knowledge this letter has been sent to at least seven clergymen in my constituency and, no doubt, has been sent to several more clergymen in Canada. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this matter be referred to the House of Commons Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to reply to the hon. member and his expressed concerns. First of all, I would like to indicate that, from the point of view of my background and the concerns I have had in the past, I have not suddenly developed a unique concern now but have always had a concern about the matter of human rights and freedoms.
As a matter of fact, I was engaged in a petition campaign in 1971 regarding the International Human Rights Covenants of the United Nations. That campaign was undertaken under the sponsorship of a large number of Canadian organizations including the League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith. At that time, Madam Speaker, that petition campaign involved tens of thousands of Canadians who wished to express

December 2, 1980
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
their support for Canadian ratification and signature of the International Eluman Rights Covenants of the United Nations. There were many provincial premiers who did not quite agree with that at the time, but Canadians across the country indicated they wanted their federal and provincial governments to sign and ratify the International Human Rights Covenants. That petition campaign took place from October until approximately December 10, 1971. It continued on for quite some time thereafter.
The reason I mention this particular campaign is that it resulted in the acceptance, ultimately, by all of the provinces, of that desire to have Canada sign an international human rights covenant. Canada did so in 1976. Of course, this was a desire to bring all Canadians into the international mainstream of human rights.
The same thing occurs here in this desire to have a charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in a Canadian Constitution. This petition campaign involves many people from various walks of life, not only politicians but clergymen, businessmen and so on, in a national committee which is called A National Committee for a Human Rights Charter. They approached me and asked me to serve on that committee. In fact they asked me to act as chairman of that committee because of my past experience in petition campaigns, namely, the campaign in 1971.
The 1971 campaign had some influence in giving Canada that opportunity to share in the international spirit as a signatory of the International Human Rights Covenants. This enabled Canada to go on and sign the Helsinki Agreement. Without having taken the step of signing the International Human Rights Covenants we could not have gone on to sign the Helsinki Agreement. Each step in the human rights battle is an upward one in attempting to build a foundation of understanding throughout the world of the sacred nature of human rights.
With respect to this particular matter, a group came to me and asked me to join in a campaign to ensure that Canada would entrench a charter of human rights and freedoms. I would like to point out that if you look back over the records of time you will see that Tommy Douglas advocated the entrenchment of a charter of human rights and freedoms in our constitution, as did the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, and as does our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It has been advocated by countless members of all parties everywhere, including many provincial premiers who have advocated the entrenchment of a charter of rights and freedoms, for instance, Premier Davis of Ontario.
This particular petition does not mention whether it should be entrenched in England or here, now or then. It simply calls for people to say that they would like to see a charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in our constitution. It makes no reference to time or place.
I believe that most people would agree that this is not an unusual thing to ask as a member of Parliament, as one who is serving his country, and one who presumably represents the whole of Canada, not only his own constituency, who is able to
speak to people everywhere he wishes to in Canada about the sacred nature of the entrenchment of human rights throughout the world. When other countries come to us in Helsinki and say, "How come you and your country are not fulfilling your promises about human rights? How come you do not have it in the constitution?" then we can say that we have it and we are taking our full responsibility throughout the world. This is a goal toward which we should all work, members from all parties in this House.
The point is that I hope it is a solemn desire of us all that this be what Canada will eventually do. 1 am in no way ashamed to be part of such a program under such a committee. 1 hope the House will encourage me to continue to do so.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am tempted to say that our Standing Orders are silent on matters such as the one which has been raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). I would like to say also that a member may write to Canadians outside his constituency to promote whatever he feels are the objectives he is pursuing. In doing so 1 assume he may use the government's stationery. However, I will reserve judgment on this question since I am not clear whether the hon. member was recruiting in favour of some association through the letter he has written. 1 wish to examine the matter further before 1 rule on it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
\ English]

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped-Mr. Smith.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.}

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report of the commission to review salaries and allowances of members of Parliament and senators.
December 2, 1980

[English)


PETITION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present to the House 3,722 unsolicited signatures of people from across Canada who have brought to my attention their opposition to the forced implementation of metric. This brings the total to 22,983 unsolicited signatures which have been presented to this House of Commons in less than 12 months, all of which are asking members to give due consideration to the introduction of the metric system on a voluntary basis as opposed to forced implementation, particularly in the retail food sector.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East) moved: that the second report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped presented this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 83, 1,489, 1,539, 1,577 and 1,677.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of losses suffered by taxpayers for all aspects of the operation of Mirabel airport since it was opened until the date the answer to this question is prepared?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The total deficit for all aspects of the operation of Mirabel airport since it opened, November 29, 1975, to March 31, 1980, was $192.6 million. This is the excess of operating and maintenance expenses (including interest and depreciation) over revenues. The deficit before providing for interest and depreciation was $10.2 million. For the period April 1, 1980, through September 30, 1980, Mirabel will break even, before providing for depreciation expense of $9 million.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and addresses of all lawyers or legal firms in Metro Toronto who were hired by the government (a) since April 14, 1980 (b) between July 8, 1974. and May 22, 1979, and, in each case, what amount was received where the fee involved was more than $1,000?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The following lawyers were appointed agents of the Minister of Justice of Canada: (a) None.
Baillie, John C.	Toronto	$	6,005.26Blake, Cassells & Co.	$	63,840.82Chenoweth, Frederick W.	$	1,548.00Cooper, Austin M.	$	3,350.00Decory, Peter	$	20,623.13Dunne, Thomas J.	$	1,014.04Fasken & Calvin	$	26,269.64Finlay, Bryan Gold, Allan D.	$	N/A 13,789.79Fleather, D. R.	$	114,684.33Honsbergcr, John D.	$	10,237.49James, Joseph C.M.	$	7,793.50Kilgour, World & Co.	$	3,600.00Laidlaw, D. K.	$	10,014.47Lang, Michener & Co.	$	8,124.34Laskin, John L.	$	16,648.16Laskin, James	$	1,045.50McCarthy & McCarthy	$	27,427.93MacDonald, B. C.	$	142,880.63MacDonnell, FI. W.	$	26,625.26McMillan & Binch	$	7,671.43MacKinnon, B. J.	$	10,507.61McTaggart, Potts & Co.	$	119,862.19Marocco, Frank	$	21.823.39Murray, R. G.	$	22,884.16Osier, Floskin, Flarcourt	$	3,319.52Pape, Paul	$	5,645.15Peck, Robert D.	$	45,478.04Robinette, J. J.	$	52,843.20Robins, Sydney L.	$	4,961.23Royce, Michael Schneider, Floward	$	N/A 20.563.48Sexton, Edgar	$	188,701.13Sopinka, John	$	14,036.92Thomas, Stanley J. Turner, P. D.	$	N/A 4,112.27Warner & Gemmill	$	1,386.69Weir & Foulds	$	101,102.44


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total budget for the government's EnerSave for the home insulation program?
2.	What is the cost per home of the evaluation of insulation needs and are the evaluations done by on site inspection or by questionnaire ?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. The current (1980-81) budget allocation for the Ener$ave advisory service is $1.2 million.
2. The evaluation of home insulation is carried out by questionnaire at a total cost of about $5 per home (including

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
program administration costs). The average potential fuel saving identified by the audit is currently equivalent to about 11 barrels of oil per year per home.


Mr. Howie: Has the site selection been made for the new Potash-Natural Products Terminal at or near Courtenay Bay in Saint John Harbour, New Brunswick and, if so, what is the site and what was the cost of the acquisition?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: a site south of the Board Street wharf in Courtenay Bay has been selected for the development of a single or multi-user bulk handling facility for the export of potash. This property is already under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board and therefore no acquisition costs are involved.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many widows have received a pension since the passage of Bill C-40 of the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament?
2.	How many widows are estimated to be eligible for pension in (a) 1982 (b) 1983 (c) 1984 (d) 1985 (e) 1986 (f) 1987 as a result of the passage of the bill?


Mr. John Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Eighty-five-as at October 31, 1980.
2. (a)	800
(b)	2,000
(c)	1,800
(d)	4,100
(e)	3,400
(f)	12,500
[English]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That this House condemns the continued failure of the government to promote Indian self-reliance and the continued failure to protect the culture, language and health of Canada's Indian peoples.
He said: Madam Speaker, after spending a number of years in this House and serving on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have watched the activities of various ministers of Indian Affairs and noted the accomplishments which each of them have attained over the years. I have served on the standing committee for some eight years now. As I have observed the statistics and watched the performance of the department over the years, I find that instead of the plight of the native people of this country improving, it is getting worse. Various ministers have tried to deal with the problems of the department in various ways.
I have waited for almost one year before moving this motion, because it would have been unfair to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to have moved it earlier, since he had just taken over the portfolio, to see if the minister would in some way change the policies which past ministers of the Liberal government followed, bring forward some new ways to deal with the plight of the native people, and move them closer to self-reliance. There have been no such policies in this past year. The minister has followed the same policies which have been followed for years. This is why I felt it was necessary to move this motion at this time.
I and my colleagues have lost confidence in the ability of the Liberal government and of the minister in that portfolio to deal effectively with the Indian problems in this country. I would like to illustrate that by putting forth some statistics compiled by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In 1964, approximately 36 per cent of the Indian population was supported by social assistance, compared to 3.5 per cent of the national population. In 1974, 55 per cent of the total Indian population on reserves was receiving social assistance or welfare payments. In Ontario it was an estimated 70 per cent. By comparison, only 6 per cent of the national population received welfare or social assistance. In the fiscal year 1978-79 the portion of the native population receiving welfare rose to 70 per cent.
At the same time the government has spent $359 million over five years on economic development. It is spending $250 million a year on education. The department has a budget of over $700 million per year to deal with this problem, but it is falling further and further behind in its attempts.
Out of a deep sense of conviction, I and my colleagues feel that it is time the government developed the kinds of policies which will stop these increasing statistics. I will add to these statistics with regard to health and welfare later in my speech.
I know that some of my colleagues who will be speaking later in the debate will be dealing with such topics as economic development, housing, and unemployment, and that they will be putting on the record statistics which will show that the government is falling behind in those areas as well. I do not have the time to deal with all those areas in my speech. I merely hope to give an overview of why I believe the House should support this motion.
December 2, 1980

I would like to quote from a brief which was put before the standing committee on July 8, 1980, by the National Indian Brotherhood:
The failure of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to serve our interest has, perhaps, been inevitable, given its origins, its other obligations and the need of any bureaucracy to perpetuate itself. Were there no right inherent in our peoplehood to create our own Indian government, the department's continued mismanagement of our affairs would surely create such a right out of pure self-defence. The government often says we should negotiate from need rather than from right. We need to remove that impediment to the free exercise of our rights.
1 think that says a lot about the way the National Indian Brotherhood represents all native groups in this country. I think it tells us what they feel about the department which was created to assist native people become self-reliant, in other words, dependent only upon themselves. As we now deal with the constitution of this nation, surely the job of that department is to wind itself up.
What has happened as a result of this department becoming smug and complacent in its dealings with native people? This department has not come up with any new ideas or initiatives to deal with the problems that members of Parliament see. 1 ask what has happened? After all these years, infant mortality is still four times higher than the national average. It is significant to note that since 1970, even though pre-natal and post-natal care for the Inuit and the Indians is as good as it is for the rest of the population, this figure of infant mortality, being four times higher than the national average, has not changed.
Violent deaths among natives are three times higher than the national average. Suicides are six times higher than the national average. In my opinion, that means many native people feel there is no hope left. They must feel there is nothing for them in the future of this country. As a result, there is more violence and more use of alcohol among the natives than there is among the rest of the population in Canada. Only 20 per cent of Indian children stay in school to grade 12. If a person does not have a high school education today, his chances of bettering himself or getting a proper job are much less. This is particularly true when you belong to a minority group.
The largest reserve in Alberta is in the city of Edmonton. 1 use the words "largest reserve" advisedly. There are more native people in the city of Edmonton than on any reserve in the province. I ask hon. members if they know how many native students graduated from grade 12 last year in Edmonton? The answer is that only two such students graduated from high school last year.
Unemployment among Indians is the worst in the nation. Some 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the Indian population is constantly unemployed, and many times this figure rises to 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the population. Many programs are aimed at the native people, for instance, the LEAP program, the CMTP, the DMITP, Outreach, the Summer Youth Employment program, FLIP, and so forth. Just recently $10 million was put forward for native programs. But none of these
Indian Affairs
programs meets the problem. The problem has to be met from within. Economic development has to take place on the reserves by native people themselves, for their interests, otherwise nothing will succeed. This fact has been proven over and over again over the years.
Indian life expectancy is ten years less than that for non-Indians. I find that statistic appalling. We have spent $240 million a year on welfare. What has it done? It has only increased the dependency and reinforced dependency by natives on government. It has not in any way encouraged self-reliance among the native people. Nearly half of the Indian homes in Canada do not have running water or sewers, yet the department is spending some $40 million a year on housing. Again, this money is not meeting the problem. $40 million will cover only sewer and water in many reserves in one province of this country.
I can use the example of a reserve in northern Alberta. The people realized they were not getting adequate housing through these programs, so the reserve decided to build homes themselves. People on the reserve asked the province to assist them by providing power saws and the gasoline to run them, and for one expert to show them how to build log houses. All this was done and with tremendous success. New homes are being put up in this northern reserve. These sorts of ideas could be used. Why is the department not doing anything?
What do the young native people think who grow up on reserves and who live adjacent to projects with $80,000 and $90,000 homes? What do these young native people think when they have no running water and have to walk out to the outhouse behind with the half moon, when just across the fence there are Canadians living in beautiful homes? I certainly wonder what they must think about the future and what life has to offer them as they grow older. These statistics we are talking about today represent a social disintegration and a cultural decay in this country.
Economically native people are worse off and they are becoming more dependent on government. More than half of the Indian population have grown dependent on social assi-tance and welfare over the years. Only one-third were dependent on assistance twenty years ago. However, there have been some successes.
There have been some advances in the area of economic development. We have spent a lot of money and we have had many excellent people working in that area. But there have been many failures as well. 1 shall mention only a few because there is no point in mentioning more. I was a member of a committee which studied examples which recurred over and over. The Auditor General of Canada, after seeing these examples, felt compelled to make a report and chastised the department for being unable to care for the money it had under its control. The examples I will use are mostly in my own province because I am more familiar with them.
The department spent $6.1 million out of a total of $9.1 million in a company called Alberta. Aspen. The Indian people got only 20 per cent of that company. The Indians spent over 70 per cent of the money and yet they only got 20 per cent of

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
the company. As a result, the Indians had no control over the management of the company, and the company failed.
In a company called Ehatlesaht Co-Op Enterprise Association located on Vancouver Island, $4.5 million was spent. Some DREE money was added to that. This was a logging operation. As I stated in the committee, a lot of this money was spent deciding whether these logs could be used for export. Trips were taken by great numbers of people to Japan, Hawaii, Fiji and so forth, to find out whether there was a market. The company failed.
The Apanakii motel failed. Millions of dollars were spent in the Arcan timber enterprise. The end result was a couple of sheds. There are many other examples, all documented in reports of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in years gone by.
We have used these types of programs over and over again through the years. In most instances the only ones which have been successful are those which have come from the native people themselves where they have had control of the money.
When I look for successes and the reasons for them, I do not have to go far outside my own riding. The native people in my riding have been fortunate to have some revenue from oil. As soon as they were able to get their hands on that revenue, they no longer needed government assistance. They were capable of building their own enterprises and homes. They were capable of setting up trust funds for their children for necessary education. They were capable of managing their own band successfully without government help. That ought to be the goal we should strive to attain. The government should use that as an example of how programs can be successful.
This minister has a feeling for the problem and he is attempting to do things about it. He has travelled the nation to see what can be done. In his generosity, he offers native people various amounts of money to establish their projects, but when the natives go to follow that up, in some instances, the department says it does not have the money, or that all the money has been committed.
I do not know how the minister could make that kind of recommendation. I can give an example of a $5 million promise made to an impoverished Alberta band in October, which was not followed through. The necessary communication between the minister and his officials is not taking place.
Part of the reason is that many of the deputies and assistant deputies in his department have never come up through the organization, worked on the reserves and understood the problems. They are excellent at creating bureaucracies and looking after the efficiences of money. They come from that kind of background, and therefore should be able to do this. But there is a communications gap between the minister and his officials in this area and many native communities are suffering because of that.
Another area is the export tax. This has bothered me for years because we have stated that we should not tax native
people. It is in the Indian Act that they will not be taxed, yet the ownership of their resources is denied in allowing that export tax to take place. As many as 19 bands in western Canada have made a commitment of this money into the future and now find 30 per cent of it is lost.
Members of the oil producing bands have never had the export tax returned to them. The provinces had it returned, but never the Indian people. That money could have been used to eliminate some of the statistics I put on the record earlier.
Why has the Department of Indian Affairs not put forward some recommendation on what salaries should be paid for band managers? Native people come to me to show statistics where certain band managers are paid $70,000 or $90,000 for a year's work when, in most instances, all that other bands can afford to pay is between $10,000 and $20,000. Surely there should be some recommendation coming out so that we do not see these kinds of facts reported in the paper and the problems which result in other reserves because of that.
There are many other problems in the department 1 could mention. There are so many inefficiencies that I cannot even go into them. However, the problem which bothers me most is that we set aside tax dollars for the Department of Indian Affairs and only 30 cents of each dollar actually reaches the native people on reserves. There must be a better way of running the department to ensure that the money actually gets to those who need it.
When we have an energy problem in this country, such as we have just gone through, the premiers, our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the government, and all the best minds we can gather together become involved in attempting to solve it. They may not always solve it according to the way certain individuals in this House would like, but at least there is the commitment to solve the problem. Has that ever been done in the Department of Indian Affairs? Not to my knowledge, because we have not seen any extraordinary ideas in the past ten or 20 years to solve the problem. Why is it not done here? It is done in other countries. Land claims are still not settled, and we are falling behind in the statistics on health and housing, yet that has not been done.
Today I was talking to a native person. I asked how we could assist them to become more self-reliant. The department now pays the budget to reserves not once, twice or four times a year, but five times a year. I presume the department feels if it gives out all the money at the beginning of the year, it will no longer have control. They could not make the fatherly handout. That is the problem, but how do we solve it?
The person I was speaking with suggested that there be a native person in the districts that are set up, something like a parliament. That person would be responsible to the native bands in that district as well as to the department, would bring forward all the problems and be responsible for the management of money which goes into the district. If just that one suggestion were instituted, I bet it would do away with one-third of those in the Department of Indian Affairs.
December 2, 1980

When members of Parliament have a problem in their constituencies, the government knows about it very quickly. However, that is not the case with the Department of Indian Affairs. Those who have native people in their constituencies constantly receive people at their offices there, and in Ottawa.
We now have the constitutional express, and many native people here in Ottawa talking about the problems and the inability of solving those problems under the umbrella we have set up and the methods we have continued to follow for many years. We have lost confidence because we have not come up with new ideas. 1 said we, but I should say the minister and this government, because when the Progressive Conservatives were the government we were moving rapidly toward self-reliance. However, that was a very short period and we did not have an opportunity to put those ideas forward.
According to the motion as presented, culture and language are areas in which we have fallen back. Unlike other ethnic minorities in this country, native people have nowhere else in the world to go to renew their language and culture. They only have Canada. For thousands of years they have been here and, therefore, their traditions, culture and language must be looked after in a special way.
This is why the native people are calling for entrenchment of certain rights in the constitution. They are concerned that if those rights are not entrenched in the constitution before we patriate it, they will never be in there. This is the reason they have come to Ottawa twice in the last year to discuss this problem. Even though they have been promised they would be involved in every aspect which affects them directly, they have not been involved. There have been a few cordial meetings where they have been listened to, but nothing has happened.
The minister is saying, "Trust me. 1 will look after you once the constitution is patriated". We will see if there are any amendments accepted by the government resulting from the constitution committee which is now in place. We will see whether the proclamation will be in the schedule and whether these rights, language, culture and traditions will be maintained, because, as I said, there is nowhere else in the world they can go to renew them.
We spend $250 million a year on education for 300,000 people. Despite the millions that are spent each year, there are less native people graduating from high schools. As I mentioned before, there were only two in Edmonton, and 20 per cent in the rest of Canada. When looking for a job and attempting to assist their band, it is very difficult because more and more native people do not have adequate education. They do not carry on their education in universities and colleges. In most instances the amount of money available for them to live in the cities where they must go to attend college is inadequate.
There are hardly any teachers graduating who will teach the native people. The greatest success has been in those colleges set up by the native people. Maskwachees College in Hobbema, Alberta, is now graduating teachers with the help of the University of Calgary. They are finally graduating teachers to
Indian Affairs
help native children attain some scholastic abilities, and not in the traditional ways that have been used in the past.
We all know of the alcohol problem and the number of native people in our jails across the nation. As far as alcohol is concerned, many people have had a drinking problem for years. The problem of attempting to dry these people out is the same as with any other person. It does not work in the established institutions. Where it is working is in the detoxification centres set up by the native people. Put yourself in their position.
1 will use an example in my constituency. After being an alcoholic for ten years and finally receiving some help at a detoxification centre on a reserve, a person comes out of that institution. He has a grade seven education. Having been out of service for about ten years, who will hire that person? He has very little education and no real abilities, as well as a past record. We have to put in place the ability for that person to further his education and get the kinds of training and trades which are essential. As it is now, when he leaves the institution there is nothing to do but go back to drinking. He does not have the ability to take pride in himself and the people around him.
This is the case of over half the people in jails in Alberta. It is not quite that high in other parts of Canada. There is no counselling for these native people. If there is, it is only in limited areas. When they leave the institution, what is there for them?


Mr. Yurko:: Hopelessness.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: In many cases, as my colleague says, it is hopelessness. We have to develop those programs. For years 1 have been watching to see whether those programs would be developed. I do not see them being developed. In some cases native people, in desperation, if they have their own funds, have developed this because they realize the problems. However, in most cases they do not have their own funds. They are dependent on the department to dole out funds.
As I conclude, I want to put on record a quote from the B.C. Indian Chiefs which I believe sums up the problem:
As Indian nations, we have battled for many years on many fronts to retain our special status, dignity and pride. As Indian people we fought and will continue to fight for our right to exist as sovereign nations gathering strength from each battle.
When we lose we become more determined and find other ways to continue the battle. We have fought governments, corporations, courts, small people, big people, and those who ever stood to threaten our lands and our rights. We've withstood racism, poverty, disease, ignorance, assimilation, social chaotic disorder and political suppression by paternalistic governments. We have survived. But now, our Indian nations across Canada are in "a state of emergency". Our future as Indian people has been put on the line.
That is why we have a conference here in Ottawa this week. Many feel it is a state of emergency. There has to be hope in order for people to have dignity and work their problems out themselves, not under some paternalistic hand. It has to come from within themselves. If they are not granted the tools to do

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
that, such as the constitution, the ability to use their own money and make their own mistakes, that hope dwindles. When we look at the constitution before us, it is dwindling rapidly.
1 do not know whether this is a good example, but two years ago I travelled to the Middle East. 1 visited Palestinian refugee camps. I could see that the people there had no hope. They could not get outside the camps. There were hundreds of thousands of them living on a few quarters of land. They had to exist on ten kilograms of flour, ten kilograms of peanuts and two quarts of olive oil a month per family, plus whatever else they could scrounge, and that was not very much. The United Nations helped with a program to feed some of the children so that when they dropped below a certain weight they could somehow keep them alive.
We ask why they resort to some extremes at times. We are appalled at those extremes. But 1 will tell you why they do these things. It is because there is no hope. Well, there is still hope for native people in Canada. We have to prove as a government that that hope is there and that we can establish the new policies which will give them that hope. In that way they can go on to become a great community within our confederation or their confederation and ours. We will not do that if we continue with the present policies, and that is why I have moved this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attentiveness to the remarks of the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger). May 1 say that when the official opposition moves a motion of this kind identifying the failure of the government to promote Indian self-reliance and the continued failure to protect culture, language, and the health of Canada's Indian people, I do not think that too much attention has been paid to an awareness of the record and, indeed, an appreciation of the problem.
1 do not have to remind the hon. member that his party formed the government for seven or eight months. I suppose 1 have been minister for a month more than my predecessor in the Conservative government. I listened with some interest to the condemnation in the sense that the hon. member directed it toward government. He indicated that the previous government had moved toward establishing innovative policies respecting self-reliance. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would enlighten me, sometime during the course of the day, on precisely what those policies toward self-reliance were. I can assure him right now that if he would articulate them, I would be more than happy to endorse them.
One thing I do know that the hon. member perhaps failed to note because of his busy schedule, is that there was an agreement in principle arrived at with the Committee for Original Peoples, the Inuit in the Western Arctic under the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, Mr. Faulkner. I regret talking in the absence of my immediate predecessor. He may have some comments on this. That was a
breakthrough in the sense of agreement in principle with respect to a comprehensive land claim reached with the Inuit people of the Western Arctic which would afford them a land base and economic guarantees for their future well-being. Because it was a comprehensive type of claim settlement, they would have a very high degree of self-government and/or self-reliance. It is something they negotiated and won through the process of negotiation, something which would give them a good economic and social base.
As I understand it, it was the feeling of my predecessor that that agreement in principle should be set aside, or suspended, without any further effort being expended bringing it to a final agreement. I might indicate that one of the first things 1 did upon becoming the minister was to visit the Western Arctic and the Committee of the Original People, and I indicated that we intended to honour that agreement in principle. I do not view the record of my immediate predecessors with quite the same sense of disapproval and I point out that one example.
The reason I will not point out any more is simply that I find it rather unique, with reference to this department, that when I go before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and meet the hon. member, and many others, I sense that there is, because of the intensity of feeling with respect to the condition of the Indian peoples and the urgency with respect to the development of the north, probably less partisanship there than in any other standing committee before which I have had the experience of appearing. In addition to that, various members of the House of Commons in whose ridings there are Indian people are deeply concerned, when they deal with the minister of the day, about working out problems. That tends to undermine excessive partisanship to a very great degree.
I want to indicate a sense of appreciation for the help not only of government members but also of members of both opposition parties, given to me in a spirit of non-partisanship. Along that line, I approached the hon. member and indicated that because so many Indian people are in Ottawa this week, because many chiefs have indicated they wish to see me and because 1 have a very heavy schedule, particularly over the course of the next few days, I would appreciate his understanding if 1 cannot be here for the entire day. I spoke to members of the New Democratic Party also, and I appreciate their understanding on that score. If 1 am away, my parliamentary secretary will certainly be here to note the remarks which are made, and I certainly will study them in some detail tomorrow.
There is a certain lack of awareness of the record. I will endeavour to be somewhat more positive later on in my remarks, but there are certain things which have not been accomplished over the years on behalf of the Indian people, despite funding which has been allocated for the Indian people's benefit.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin referred to the Indian conditions document. That document was released by my department in June of 1980, and noted that the social, eco-
December 2, 1980

nomic and other conditions of the Indian people improved in the last two decades. They still, of course, remain well below the conditions enjoyed by other Canadians. That document removes all doubt about that fact. Life expectancy, a reflection of health standards, is still ten years less among Indians than it is among the national population. University enrolment has increased, however-this is on the positive side-from 57 in 1963 to 2,700 in 1979. That was the good news.
The following is the bad news. Indian participation in the labour force is still less than what would be desirable. It is about two-thirds of the national level. Only about 32 per cent of Indians of working age are employed. Generally speaking, reserve resources have not been developed, due partly to the fact that many Indian reserves do not form economic units, and almost half of them are relatively inaccessible.
During the past ten years the greatest proportion of increases in government expenditures for Indian affairs have been in community services and economic development, but development funding remains at less than 10 per cent of over-all funding in the department. That is a source of frustration to myself and has been to my predecessors and others. It is indicative of the problem with respect to limitation of funds. It is a problem I have as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but it was also a problem faced by my immediate predecessor. Many programs involve heavy funding commitments.
1 would like to deal with one matter to which my hon. friend referred. He said that only 30 cents of each dollar reaches Indians. I would like to have that figure examined in more detail by the committee because, quite frankly, I question its accuracy. The figures I have, and those which I think have been put before the committee, indicate that the administrative costs of the department are not more than 12 per cent of the entire budget. Certainly the 30 cents comes into question when one looks at that figure, and also when one recognizes that 35 per cent of the entire budget of the department is administered by the bands themselves. Perhaps when the hon. member refers to that figure he is talking about those bands which have taken over administration. They are taking over 35 per cent. There are bands which have not, but moneys expended on their behalf is not counted as part of the 30 cents. This casts a very different light on a figure of that kind, but the hon. member quotes it without further analysis.
I will carry on with some positive aspects. I think they should be emphasized simply because, when I talk with many Indian people, they express some unhappiness about the constant conduct of some of us in the House of Commons who continually refer to the gloomy aspects of their conditions. One said that he is a little tired of being considered the "poor little Indian" all the time. I can understand how they feel in that regard, so there might be some merit in talking about some of the positive things which have happened.
For instance, one could look at the participation of natives at all levels of government and, more particularly, at the active involvement in Indian political associations which have developed over many years. However, setting that aside and talking
Indian Affairs
just about their representation at all levels of government, I refer to Senator Guy Williams, a native from British Columbia; Senator Willie Adams, an Inuit from the Northwest Territories; and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), an Inuit from the Northwest Territories who is a member of the New Democratic Party. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) will speak after I do. He is a native member.
Frank Calder is a native MLA in the B.C. legislature. Not now active but defeated are the Hon. Leonard Marchand, a native from British Columbia, and Wally Firth who was a Dene member of Parliament from the Northwest Territories. Many others ran but were not elected. They ran and conducted good campaigns with the determination to serve here one day. Some of us have been defeated. I certainly was. Bill Shead is native Liberal from Manitoba. Don Moses is a native who ran for the Liberals for a seat in the House of Commons. He is from British Columbia. George Erasmus is a member of the New Democratic Party who ran in the Northwest Territories. Archie Patrick is a native member of the New Democratic Party from British Columbia. Jim Gladstone, I think, became a senator under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. Tagat Curley is an Inuit Liberal. Andrew Kirkness is a native Liberal from northern Manitoba, and Charles Sark is a native from Prince Edward Island.


Erik Nielsen: And Joe Jack.


John Carr Munro: I missed Joe Jack, and I am sure I missed some others, but this list is indicative of the number who are sitting or who have run.


Erik Nielsen: Erik Nielsen, Whitehorse Indian.


John Carr Munro: Erik Nielsen from Yukon. It is a positive thing that band governments have emerged to take basic responsibility for local administration. That is a very encouraging sign and, as I say, 35 per cent of the entire funds are now under local administration. That trend is going upward and I am sure will continue, ending the problem of self-reliance about which the hon. member in the official opposition complains.
There is general agreement among Indian people and the government that relations between the two are more positive now than they were. There are still complaints. There is a far greater degree of Indian participation in the provision of health, education, community and other services than there was a decade ago. Indian people have greater access to more kinds of employment, both on and off reserves, than they did before.
I might talk about a greater degree of recognition of the government's position. The hon. member says that the government has done nothing to protect the culture, language and health of Canadian Indian people. I might add that one of the reasons for the preparation and release of the "Indian Conditions" report was to create an awareness among those interested in the affairs of Indians-including, presumably, the official opposition-of the real nature of the problem and to

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
promote a widespread recognition of the real and urgent need for true Indian self-reliance to be realized. Judging from the hon. member's comments, the opposition has obviously read and concurs in that report since it endorsed its logical conclusion that greater self-reliance is not only desirable but also essential.
However, some other aspects of the situation have apparently gone undetected by the drafters of this non-confidence motion today. The government is committed not only to promoting Indian self-reliance in all possible ways but also to ensuring that all Canadians and their representatives are mindful that this is a fundamental objective of government policy and of government actions.
The principle of self-reliance is basic to the government's approach to the constitution. In the Indian Act we emphasize self-government and the provision of services. As an example 1 can cite housing, education, economic development and the preservation and enhancement of Indian language and culture.
First, 1 should like to talk about self-reliance in the constitutional context, in the context of constitutional development. Contrary to the position taken in today's motion, what is happening on the constitutional front is not a failure but a testament to the government's commitment to promote Indian self-reliance. Here are some examples. A decade ago, the government began to address seriously the issues of native rights by encouraging Indian participation in the development of a mutual understanding of their nature and extent. Issues underlying concepts of aboriginal and treaty rights are complex. They require extensive consultations, both with Indians and with provinces. These issues include, from the native perspective, the right to self-government, hunting, fishing and trapping rights, education and language rights, a special share in resource revenues, special provisions pertaining to family law, the administration of justice, and so on.
For the record, I want to review some highlights of the government's efforts to encourage native participation in constitutional renewal.
In June of 1978 "A Time for Action"-a basic document of the government of the day-gave priority to the place of native peoples in constitutional renewal. The constitutional amendment in Bill C-60 provided an opportunity for native-government dialogue on the proposed charter of rights. In October and November of 1978, native observers were invited and welcomed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the first ministers' conference.
On January 30, 1979, the Prime Minister invited national native federations to send observers to the second First ministers' conference. On February 5 and 6 of 1979, at the conference, the Prime Minister proposed that the ministers meet with native leaders to explore their constitutional concerns. On February 12 of 1979 the Prime Minister released a list of new constitutional items, including "Canada's Native Peoples and the Constitution."
On April 29, 1980, the Prime Minister gave a speech on the constitution at the National Indian Brotherhood's all chiefs conference, and focused on the need to define aboriginal and treaty rights, native self-government, native representation in political institutions, and federal-provincial responsibilities for the provision of services to native people.
On August 11, 1980, the Prime Minister sent a letter to the national native organizations affirming observer status at the upcoming first ministers' conference on the constitution. On August 26, 1980, the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution met in subcommittee with native leadership, received briefs and discussed their concerns.
From September 8 to 12 of 1980 the first ministers' conference was held at which attention was drawn by a number of premiers and the Prime Minister to native rights issues.
On October 2, 1980, a resolution was proposed for a joint address to Her Majesty that the constitution be returned to Parliament. Section 24 of the charter of rights in that document was to ensure that the proposed resolution in no way detracted from any rights of the Indian people, whether it be statute law or treaty proclamations in the jurisprudence that has developed over the years.
On October 10 and 17 of 1980, the Prime Minister assured the House that constitutional negotiations with native leaders would continue and that any changes directly affecting native peoples would only be made after discussion with them. The Prime Minister stated that meetings with native leaders would continue to take place to consider how best to protect native rights.
One aspect of this chronology has been left to the last because it is so central to the issue of Indian self-reliance raised in motion. Last April, the Prime Minister announced to the National Indian Brotherhood conference that $1.2 million had been approved, $400,000 for each of the three national native organizations, to help them prepare for discussions on the constitution. On November 7, 1980, the Prime Minister, in response to questions from members, made note of this contribution and of subsequent meetings and correspondence. Also on November 7 the Prime Minister said:
The precise definition of those rights in a written constitutional document is something, I repeat, that we have assisted the Indians, native people. Metis and the Inuit to research for themselves. If they come up with some form of amendment which is acceptable to all parties in this House -and, I should say hopefully, to several of the provincial governments-we are prepared to accept amendments on this as on other things. I would merely want to point out to the hon. member that I think the simple claim of aboriginal rights, without anyone knowing exactly what it means, is not a matter which one can convincingly argue should be put in the constitution at this lime. First of all, the courts would be called upon to interpret such a constitutional amendment, and I think everyone would want to know what aboriginal rights are, what is their extent, to whom they apply, and so on.
Hence the justification for the research money which was made available to enable the Indian and native associations to deal with their constitutional position. That money has been utilized, I think. As we noted, the committee on the constitution which is sitting right now will be hearing native organizations throughout this week. It has already heard from the Inuit organizations which made ample use of this type of funding
December 2, 1980

arrangement and which were able, with these resources, to obtain the kind of constitutional expertise which they desired.
The latest development is the Prime Minister's most recent letter to the national native organizations in which the following message was communicated: First, patriation will not reduce the natives' rights in Canada; second, the government s commitment to work with native peoples toward constitution change remains firm; third, the list of natives' priority concerns, including aboriginal and treaty rights, internal selfgovernment, representation in political institutions, and a guarantee of services will be addressed along with other items which would be treated as the first item on the next first ministers' meeting in the second phase after the constitution is brought home; and finally, the pursuit of the objective to entrench native rights in the constitution will likely involve a number of meetings with first ministers, and we as the government are committed to that end.
1 have dealt briefly with the question of the self-reliance of Indians in the constitutional context. 1 should like to deal with it now in reference to the Indian Act and self-reliance in that context. It is clear to us, when we look at the Indian Act, that the relationship between Indians and government must change.
As a result of extensive consultations last summer, in which I was personally involved to a considerable degree, it became clear, first, that there is no consensus among Indian people on this subject, and I am speaking here about the Indian Act and what should be in it to foster greater self-reliance; second, that the National Indian Brotherhood does not, at this time at least, support amendments to the Indian Act. To be a little more objective, I should explain that their preoccupation at present is with the constitution; third, it became apparent to me during these consultations that there are still, however, a significant number of Indian bands who wish to assume greater control of their affairs. Therefore, we are now considering legislation to provide the option for self-government at the band level for those bands that wish it.
The scope of the legislation is still under review and it was subject to the type of consultation which took place during the summer. We indicated then that the legislation would establish band councils as governing bodies in their own right. It would permit them to administer their own financial affairs with accountability to their own people. Also the legislation would give them control of the administration of programs to allow them to pass and enforce bylaws within their own communities, and they would have increased responsibility for the administration of their lands and resources. These are some of the very key elements which would establish self-reliance in the context which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin talked about. They were the key elements in the proposals which 1 took to the Indian people this summer.
I should like to talk about self-reliance, and services to Indians. The first area with which I will deal is that of housing. I do not know if hon. members opposite are aware that last July cabinet approval was given to a submission
Indian Affairs
which I took to my colleagues for an additional $20 million to improve Indian housing on reserves. The amount available for housing in 1980-81 was raised to $93 million. The long-term effect of improvements to Indian housing will be to strengthen Indian communities. They will be involved in decision-making in a much more adequate way, and now there will be much more adequate funding for them to do that.
The second area is education. It is now government policy in education to achieve two objectives: first, increased Indian control of education, and second, more adequate funding in the way they wish it. In this area the department since 1976, with the support of the National Indian Brotherhood, has pursued the goal of greater Indian control of education. Some of the more encouraging aspects on that point would be that most Indian bands have now established education committees; the department is committed to a plan to transfer up to 50 per cent of the teaching staff to Indian-controlled schools; the department, with Indians, is now reviewing current education agreements with the provinces at the request of the Indians. We are doing that with their involvement.
In terms of education achievement, Indian elementary shcool participation is now equal to national levels, there has been a tenfold increase in Indian participation in universities, and now Indians are virtually involved in all kinds of professional training, including nursing and legal. One only has to look at the tremendous number of Indian lawyers who, in a very articulate legal fashion, are advancing the causes of native people.
I should like to talk about economic development, which is a very worth-while preoccupation of members of the committee. A great deal of discussion with Indian people has been held over the last few months, and studies have been undertaken. Both have confirmed that for Indian economic development to be successful, it must be planned and controlled by Indian people themselves and it must go beyond the reserves as the resource base.
Our experience over the past few years has shown that economic development has been extremely successful in sectoral programs and under the auspices of such programs as the Manitoba Indians Agricultural Program, the Saskatchewan Indians Agricultural Program, and the British Columbia Indian Fishermen's Assistance Program. These initiatives have provided models for Indian control and comprehensive management by Indian people of development projects. I think the hon. member for Wetaskiwin would agree that the projects have been notably successful. Efforts have been continuing to increase Indian access to employment opportunities off the reserve. An example is the Indian Oilsands Development Corporation in Alberta which, since 1976, has participated in the Syncrude oil sands project in the province. My department is now working with Indians to ensure Indian participation in other major resource development projects such as the Alaska Highway and Polar Gas Pipeline projects.
There will have to be more exploitation of on-reserve development potential, particularly in the areas of agriculture, timber, recreation and oil-gas where the emphasis must be

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
placed. Moreover, such development cannot take place piecemeal, or by the government. It must be done in a comprehensive way, and we realize that Indian people must play the lead role. Opposition members would surely not have the House believe that Indian people should be dependent on the government in this regard. I am talking about involvement in these megaprojects. We are now consulting with Indian people to seek ways to improve the structure of financial support for Indian economic development ventures. Some meetings will take place with Indian leadership during the course of this week in which not only myself but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will be involved. Our goal is to ensure that the sources of funding available to all Canadians are tapped to their fullest and that Indian economic development takes place within the existing economic structure of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has not spoken on Indian affairs during this whole session, so I think he should be allowed the opportunity to do so now.


John Carr Munro: With that somewhat dubious observation, let me indicate that I appreciate the time to complete my remarks. I will be very brief.
I should like to emphasize the optimism which can be engendered by us all and to negate some of the more negative aspects emphasized so much over the years. I am referring to the land claims activity which is of prime concern to the native people of this country. I would advise the hon. member who put this motion of my appointment of Dennis O'Connor as chief federal negotiator for the Yukon claim. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is well aware of that appointment.


Erik Nielsen: It is a fine appointment.


John Carr Munro: This appointment has received the approbation of the hon. member for the Yukon, the government of the Yukon and the Council of Yukon Indians. I saw him just yesterday and he told me that the negotiations with the Council of Yukon Indians are going reasonably well. Also 1 advise the member of my appointment of Senator David Steuart of Saskatchewan to try to bring to conclusion the agreement in principle, and of course I am referring to the COPE claim. Also in August Robert Mitchell was appointed to deal with the Inuit claim in the eastern Arctic, and Robert Young was appointed to deal with the Nishga Tribal Council land claim. These appointments have received not only the endorsation of the territorial government but of the provinces. The inactivity of some of these land claims has been an impediment to development and a source of irritation not only to the natives but to the non-native population who find that
little can be accomplished as long as these claims remain inactive.
Indeed that has been a very encouraging development. I appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me to point out some of the positive aspects of the fronts that are being moved on now in all these areas, to cope more adequately with the severe problems which historically native people have suffered. They are all primarily designed to provide, as identified in the motion, the Indian people of this country, Canada's first citizens, with the self-reliance that not only they want but we endorse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion since I think it clearly raises a question which is of great concern to us all, to all Canadians and all native people. I wish to say that while native and Indian people make up a very small percentage of the population, their problems are very real ones, in spite of improvements. It is not only the fact that native people face very real problems which is important but also the fact that the continued existence of these problems serves as a symbol to many people. It serves as a symbol of the incapacity of a nation to come to grips adequately with these problems. It symbolizes a government which fails to deal with problems effectively or adequately.
I wish to make some comments about the remarks made by the minister. He made reference to elected native people. I must say that the capacity of native people to become elected to legislatures across this country is important, but it is certainly not sufficient. The central question which faces the Indian and native peoples today is that of participation in the decision-making process as a community, not simply by way of having individuals elected to legislatures across the country.
The minister also made reference to the constitutional process. He detailed the involvement the native people have had so far in that process. I must say that while he was able to elaborate a large number of details, I think the fact of the constitutional express coming to town with a large number of Indian people, who still feel totally locked out of any real involvement in the constitutional process, indicates that the efforts so far to involve Indian people in that constitutional change process have been ineffective. It is not, however, too late. I think the recommendations before the committee could be responded to positively by the government. The government could still come forward with an amendment to the constitutional resolution which would affirm aboriginal and Indian rights rather than simply make a negative statement, as is in the present resolution. That statement says that nothing in the resolution will take away from aboriginal rights.
With regard to the minister's comments about the Indian Act, I must say that unless the general mood that is generated by the way the government is handling the constitutional process is reversed, and an appropriate and constructive mood
December 2, 1980

is struck, when the minister comes to deal with the Indian Act he will have a very difficult time indeed. It is clear one issue is related to the other in terms of the over-all quality of the relationship between the Indian people and the government. It is very important that the constitutional process be dealt with in a constructive manner so that when the minister comes to deal with legislation he has a constructive relationship to rely upon, in terms of working out those amendments with the Indian people.
The minister made reference to improvements and optimism. I think there is certainly a role they can play. That is not the only side of the coin. Clearly, we would not be talking about the conditions of Indian people without those conditions continuing to be serious and calling for a serious response.
The minister referred to Indian involvement in oil projects. My colleague, our energy critic, referred to that in question period today. I have in my hand a letter from the vice-president of the Indian Association in Alberta which is addressed to the premier of that province. It outlines the very serious conditions which Indian people continue to suffer in that province, including, among other things, an increasing mortality rate. In other words, in the province in which there is the greatest economic boom presently in this country, the conditions of Indian people continue to deteriorate. We are talking about very serious, and not always improving, conditions when we talk about the conditions of Indian people. This has obviously been well-documented over the years.
The minister's own report on Indian conditions, while pointing to some improvements, obviously outlines very serious problems which continue to exist. These problems call for serious attention. They are not only dealt with in the minister's report but there was also a report on Indian and Inuit health conditions which outlined, elaborated and sketched the completely intolerable conditions under which Indian people live in this country.
While making these introductory remarks I would like to say that there is obviously some validity to the claim that there are some improvements. We continue to face problems which are very serious and intolerable. These problems require attention. I would like to focus my remarks on Indians in the urban situation since that is much closer to my own experience. It is the general deterioration of the conditions under which Indians live in a rural setting which causes the migration to cities. Whether they are status Indians or non-status they come to cities with a great deal of hope. They come in search of better housing, better jobs, and better living conditions.
In the cities, status Indians face some special problems, some of which relate to the jurisdiction the federal government has over Indians and the jurisdiction provincial governments have with regard to social matters. I am thinking now of child welfare. I know that in my home province the provincial government tends to deal with the problem of Indians and child welfare on reserves only in emergency situations. There is a gap in the services, and a serious problem arises. What tends to happen is that rather than the problems being dealt with, the federal and provincial governments deal with the problems
Indian Affairs
of status Indians, where there is this conflict of jurisdiction, more in terms of a revenue problem about who is responsible financially. As a result, the Indian people and the Indian children get caught in the middle and fall between the chairs.
More specifically in dealing with the resolution, I note that it refers to self-reliance. My understanding of that term is that it calls upon the government to assist Indian people in their own self-help efforts. The reason I translate the word "selfreliance" into "self-help" is because I am afraid of the attitude which might prevail in one saying that self-reliance means we no longer have access to public funds in order to cope with the problems which we face. I think that is a real possibility since I know, with regard to the provincial government in Manitoba, under the premiership of Mr. Lyon, the approach there is really one that could be described as a freedom to starve, to be self-reliant in that sense. That is certainly not the sense in which I am speaking to the motion.
When that government came into office in Manitoba, the first thing it did was cut off many of the very valuable services to the Indian people, particularly those in northern, remote communities of the province. This has only helped to stimulate further the migration to the cities. Certainly, it is not the sense of self-reliance to which I am speaking here, and that is why I specify "self-help" as opposed to the word "self-reliance" which is in the motion.
While Indian people suffer under very grave social conditions, they should no longer be referred to as victims. It is useful to adopt the notion of the Indian as victorious, as the survivor, and as the person who is growing and coping better with these very difficult problems. It is important because in instances when the social problems which Indian people face are listed, it is often felt by Indian people to be a put-down. Obviously, we must face these very serious social problems in the light that Indian people are no longer simply victims of those problems, but are turning the situation around and coping with their problems much better than ever before.
In order for the Indian people to cope with these problems, the government assistance or public assistance must be effective. Indian people require the assistance of their fellow citizens in order to cope with these problems, the problems faced by Indian people in the cities are of a global nature and embrace such areas as education, employment, difficulties with the criminal justice system, lack of adequate social services and all the problems a person can face. Indians face these problems particularly in cities in the west, but also in many other Canadian cities such as Montreal. Of course in the west Indians in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver face these problems. All these cities have large Indian populations.
These very serious problems require immediate and urgent attention. Since the government is aware of these problems, it is incumbent upon it to take action which is appropriate to the size and urgency of the problems. I have seen no evidence of this action so far. When the Indian Conditions Report was

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
first published I felt, perhaps naively, that this document would cause the government to take serious action in this area.
1 also anticipated that the government would do something about the problems which Indian people in the cities face, but I have seen no evidence of that so far.
The Winnipeg Indian Council has often come to me about the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs does not deliver its services in the city. It seems to stop-
Mir. Orlikow: Writes them off.


Cyril Keeper: -it writes them off when native people move into the urban environment. Certainly this is not acceptable to the status Indians who live in the cities, nor is it good for the over-all community because it means there are serious problems which are not receiving adequate attention. This policy must be changed. The Indian Affairs Department should not write off Indian people when they move to the cities.
The government has a clear responsibility to the status Indians, but with regard to non-status Indians its obligation is not all that clear. While there is no specific clause in the constitution which outlines the federal government's responsibility to non-status Indians, clearly, because of the seriousness and the national scope of the problems, the federal government does have a responsibility to become involved so that provincial governments and local communities can adequately deal with these very serious problems faced by both status and nonstatus Indians.
There are several parts to this motion. It refers to the "failure" of the government, which raises the question of what is the benchmark for failure? It is not whether the government is doing a little more or whether there is some improvement. The benchmark should refer to the disparity between the living conditions of Indian people and the over-all population. Clearly, against that benchmark, the government has failed. It must take more aggressive action in this area. When the motion refers to self-reliance, we think of it in terms of self-help. The government must move to help Indians where they seek to help themselves. It is no use simply to allocate money for problems unless that money is used in programs which have been designed by Indian people.
There is one gap in the motion. By and large it is a good motion, but it contains no specific reference to living conditions, although it is implied in the words "failure to protect the culture, language and health of Canada's Indian peoples". However, it would be helpful if it were spelled out more clearly. Accordingly, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "health", the following words:
"and living conditions".
I move my motion because 1 believe that the motion, whether it refers to self-reliance, culture or language, is really based upon the living conditions under which people suffer today and this, fundamentally, is what must be changed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) for having provided the Chair with a copy of the amendment in advance. In a procedural sense, I find it acceptable and in order.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin today by referring to three articles which recently appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail. These three commentaries dealt with the plight of our native people in present-day Canada. They were written by Mr. David Lancashire, the chief feature writer of The Globe and Mail. Allow me to quote the first paragraph of article number one, which appeared on page 10 of the October 18, 1980, issue:
They call themselves refugees in their own land. They crowd by the thousand in the downtrodden districts of big cities across the country, some 15,000 in Montreal, perhaps 30,000 in Toronto and the same in Winnipeg, 20,000 or more in Vancouver. They are Canada's urban Indians, who have traded the poverty of their reserves and settlements for poverty and racial discrimination in the bright lights.
Let me quote from the first paragraph of the second article found on page 7 of the October 20 issue. It reads:
'We have got 111 houses on the reserves', says Roland Crowe, Chief of the Piapot Indian band outside Regina, 'and only four of them have running water or sewage disposal. There are almost no jobs, and 279 of our people have moved away. A lot of families are on welfare. The younger band members are getting very depressed and frustrated, but we are better off than most-we are an upper middle-class Indian reserve'.
Finally, I would like to quote the lead-off statement in the final article which appeared on Tuesday, October 21. It reads:
The 1980s must be a decade of decisions and actions, the white man was saying, but the Indians didn't pay much heed. After 100 years of what many Indians regard as empty promises, and in a decade when a minister in Ottawa can still forbid an Indian to raise chickens on a reserve 1,600 kilometres away, it sounded like more empty talk. The white man was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, his audience in Ottawa last April was a gathering of chiefs and elders from Indian bands across the country. Canada's treatment of its native peoples has been a failure, Mr. Trudeau confessed, and simply pouring larger amounts of money into the same programs will not work either. He told the chiefs the time had come for Indians to set their own action. It is time, said Mr. Trudeau, for Indian bands to be given a chance to govern themselves.
The first two quotations illustrate that the problems faced by native people are very real, and are still with us. The last one indicates that we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who publicly, at any rate, has the solution. But the Prime Minister of this country admitted publicly on April 29, 1980, that Canada's treatment of native peoples has been a failure. For once, I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. gentleman.
The Knox report, or to give it its proper title, Survey of Indian Conditions, published this spring, documented very clearly what an absolute disaster government programs have been. This report provides the following dismal list of statistics. These statistics, I am sure you will agree, sound as if they were derived from some fourth-rate, Third World, poverty-stricken nation. Mentioning the Third World reminds me that one of our best known Canadian Indian chiefs, George Manuel of British Columbia, coined the phrase, "The Fourth World" in reference to our native Indians. As a matter of fact, he is the
December 2, 1980

author of a book by that title, a book which deals with the plight of the native people. I can recommend it to anyone who is truly interested in this subject. My colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), quoted Chief Manuel in his closing remarks.
To return to the Knox report, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this sound like Canada 1980? The following illustrates how the Indian people of Canada are disadvantaged: 11,000 new houses are needed to meet existing needs while current construction barely meets new demands; 40 per cent of Indian housing needs replacement or repair; and one family in three lives in crowded conditions on reserves, usually in relatively small houses in poor repair, resulting in unhealthy and unsafe conditions. More than half of existing Indian housing lacks safe water or proper waste disposal. The alternatives are unprotected water supply and waste disposal that is a potential source of pollution. Fires and fire deaths on reserves are six or seven times higher than national levels.
Indian use of health services is two and a half times higher than national levels. Disease, accidents and violence are four to five times higher than national levels, with a considerable proportion of those related to alcohol abuse. Mortality rates are improving, but three times as many Indians die between birth and middle age as do non-Indians. One-third of Indian deaths result from accidents or violence. This is especially true for young adults, among whom the number of suicides is particularly high. Between 55 and 70 per cent of the Indian population use social assistance. This is 22 times higher than national levels. These are documented facts. And we, in Canada, the fabled "Just Society" have not been willing so far to supply the solutions.
As Canadians, how can we continue to pat ourselves on the back to maintain such a holier-than-thou attitude while such statistics occur in our own backyard? How can we continue to pump money into foreign countries and not address such horrendous problems in our own nation? In my view, it is hypocrisy of the ultimate magnitude.
Even this report, from which I have just quoted, is, with all due respect to its author, an example of the misguided endeavours so typical of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This little gem, "Survey of Indian Conditions" cost the department $246,940.26, almost a quarter of a million dollars. But what is even more disturbing is that $154,000 of it, or 62 per cent of the total cost of this catalogue of chaos, went to so-called consultants. This means to me that the Department of Indian Affairs is such a circus that it is not even able to author a report dealing with the very problems it works on day in and day out. What a sad case for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Who were the consultants? Surely they must have been some of Canada's foremost Indian leaders but, as far as I know, no Indian people were among the consultants. The consultants included W. Babcock, M. Giuliani, J. Nicholson, and G. Cassidy. I do not recognize any Indian names among those. If we are going to spend money on reports such as this one, at least some of the hired consultants should be Indian
Indian Affairs
people. Who know the problems better than those who have faced them head on every day of their lives?
What we have here is a report, a rehash of well-known facts, which has cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars. Worse still, it has deprived the needy of a quarter of a million dollars.
I say the Indian people of Canada have been studied to death. We have had report after report. All of them have pointed out the failure of various programs which continue to roll out of the department. We have had report after report on how to correct the situation, rolling out of the offices of the various organizations. It has become a game of report writing, or who can turn out the highest pile. It is the battle of reports, and I have a stack of them six feet high in my office. If anyone does not believe me, they are welcome to come to my office with a tape measure and measure them. Maybe all of this is simply a diabolical plot to have the problem solved by the department and to have the Indian people reading themselves to death.
These issues are with us today. Why are we making such slow progress in helping the Indian people of Canada solve the problems we have imposed upon them? I think I am aware of a few reasons for this. At the top of the list, and of paramount importance in my view, you must have a federal government willing to give the issue top priority. Have we seen this since 1968? I think not. This is borne out when you consider that the department has had six ministers in a 12-year period, not counting the nine months our party formed the government. I have been told that it takes most men or women at least two years to become familiar with and to get control of a ministry.
I should think that this would be especially so vis-a-vis the ministry about which we are talking. If gambling were allowed in this House, I would bet you $20, Mr. Speaker, that our present minister is shuffled to a new post within six months. The pattern is there, and it is well established.
Think what ramifications this must have upon the department. It is not hard to see why this department is run by bureaucrats. If you worked in a business, Mr. Speaker, which had seven managers or bosses in 12 years, you would probably begin to think that you knew more about what was going on than any new manager. You and your fellows would begin to make and implement policy simply for self-survival, if for no other reason. Also, if you are so disposed, you would be able to control the manager, or minister in this case, because he would never be around long enough to know what was really going on. In my opinion, this is what has happened in the Department of Indian Affairs.
There are many examples of programs and policies initiated through discussions between Indian leaders and well inten-tioned ministers which have been scuttled by the bureaucrats in the great teepee in Hull. Promise after promise made by the minister is thus broken, leading to frustration, building rage in those people who are supposed to be the benefactors.

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
Another reason for the failure is the seeming inability of the department to listen to and, what is more important, to hear and digest what the Indian people are saying. A good example of this has recently come to light, and that is the department's plan for the 1980s. When the directional plan for the eighties was unveiled to native groups, it was immediately denounced as a return to the policy of assimilation that was the thrust of the infamous 1969 white paper. The native protest against the 1980s plan was so overwhelming that the minister sent a telex to the National Indian Brotherhood in which he said, referring to the directional plan:
I think it should be made quite clear that this was sent out to senior personnel in the Department of Indian Affairs as a discussion paper only.
However, in a letter dated the very same day as the telex, October 3, 1980, an assistant deputy minister of Indian Affairs told all regional directors general that "we, as a department of the government, are committed to ensuring that it-the directional plan-is effectively instituted".
1 do not think that I have to amplify on this bit of nonsense. The problem is self-evident. Judging from this evidence, you can see who runs the department. It is certainly not the minister.
A third situation is one 1 touched on briefly in my first point, and that is the building of a bureaucracy. We now have approximately 7,000 civil servants employed by the department. When you look at the structure of the department it is interesting to note that there are five assistant deputy ministers, 13 directors general, 51 directors, and 20 regional directors. We are awash with directors. We could drown in a sea of regional directors. My cup runneth over with directors general!
The amount of paper that goes through the system would have to be measured in mega tons. In my own riding the Indian band managers have become the most skilled of all in filling in forms and applications. 1 actually hear of cases where town administrators have gone to band managers to get advice on filling in complex government forms. This has reached a ridiculous stage, but if you want to keep 7,000 people busy and you desire to build layer upon layer of bureaucracy, then paper shuffling is the order of the day.
A fourth reason for failure is the lack of authority of the standing committee. Of course this could be said of most committees on which we sit. In the case of our committee I get the distinct impression that all we are is simply a sounding board. I have only been on the committee for one year, but already we are seeing the same delegations a second time, hearing the same sad stories. We sit, we question, we listen, but that is as far as it goes under the present system. We must have some reform of the system as it now exists or it will collapse, and so it should. We, as a committee, have about as much influence on this government or on the department as a gnat has on an elephant's posterior. This must be changed.
A fifth reason for failure is in the area of funding. Expenditure on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as a percentage of the total government budget has
remained constant at 1.7 per cent since the 1970-71 fiscal year. It has remained constant in spite of the fact that the conditions are appalling. The conditions outlined in the Knox report are not new. The Prime Minister has known about these conditions; he admitted this on April 29 of this year. Yet the department, which is supposed to help improve these conditions, gets no increased aid in that endeavour.
Let me give a specific example of this government's priorities. About a month ago I was sitting in this House when the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lapointe) rose to praise the budget. The hon. member proceeded to point out that the "business acumen" of his constituents had netted them $419 million in Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants since 1969, almost half a billion dollars.
I do not know if this is a display of business acumen or government welfare. However, it is not for me to judge on what basis, political or otherwise, the government disburses its funds. But let me point this out. Beauce has a present population of 74,759 people. There are about 300,000 status Indians in Canada, or about four times the population of Beauce. According to the Knox report, Indians have received annual DREE grants ranging from $130,000 in 1972 to $3 million in 1978. That is for all Indians in Canada. That does not approach what Beauce, a single riding, has received, and with one-quarter the population. I am sure that the Indian people could display their business acumen also, given such funding. I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauce for bringing these figures to my attention, as well as to the attention of Canadian Indians.
We often hear that Indian people do not have business acumen, that they are not sharp. I wish to give an example of something that happened to me. Last Friday I received a telephone call asking whether we would distribute buttons, such as the one I am wearing. I said we would be happy to do that. Today I received a phone call asking for my cheque. They are $2 each. Therefore, they are sharp.
But that is not the end of it, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government is not interested in making Indian bands independent and viable economic units. It appears to want them on welfare, on the backs of taxpayers instead of as economic assets to our country. This point is neatly illustrated by the following figures. In 1976, the department spent $100 million on social support; in other words, welfare, and in 1979 it spent $150 million, a 50 per cent increase. In 1976 the department spent $44 million on economic development and in 1979 it spent $43 million, an actual decrease of about 2'A per cent. Does this make sense? Does it make sense to increase handouts 50 per cent and at the same time reduce development funding? I think not.
Then we have the issue of the mismanagement of funds. I look forward to the tabling of the audit of native trust funds, ordered over a year ago by this House. I am confident that we will see fresh horrors from the office of the Auditor General at that time. We already know that the department has lost some of its records of these trust funds, and I can only imagine what has happened since then. These are not even government funds
December 2, 1980

we are talking about, these are native funds held in trust by the government. As I said, I look forward to the audit which 1 hope will clarify this murky area.
The list of cost overruns by the department on its projects is also a nightmare. The list of overruns tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) this spring provides for depressing reading. The department had 77 cost overruns, some of up to 550 per cent. This is insulting and frightening news for the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. We have questions on this on the order paper asking for specific details, and have yet to receive the answers. 1 know I have been critical. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticize, and that is my role as an opposition member. However, it is only fair that I should be called upon to offer some solutions.
Many people, including the highest officials, know what these solutions are. Even the Prime Minister knows, and again I quote him in his speech of April 29 at the all-chiefs conference. He said, "It is time for Indian bands to be given the chance to govern themselves". This is the answer in a nutshell. This is what Indian leaders have been telling minister after minister for years on end. What must be understood is that today we are dealing, in most cases, with a very sophisticated segment of our population. Indian leaders and band managers are perfectly capable of organizing their own affairs. Give them the mandate and give them the funding, wind down the department and dismantle the layers of bureaucracy. I am positive that they can handle it. Naturally, there will be some problems. However, a system could be put in place that allows bands to opt in as they feel ready to accept the responsibility. The dollars expended would then actually reach the level at which they are so desperately required.
I know that many in the department feel this could be achieved. There are many good and dedicated people in the department, and to them I pay tribute. However, the problem we have here is that we are asking bureaucrats to agree to phase themselves out of their jobs. Such dedication is understandably difficult to find. This is where visionary and innovative government policy, carried out by a strong and capable minister, enters into the picture. Nothing will ever happen if we continue the ministerial revolving door approach to this entire shameful and disgraceful situation that now exists in our country.
In closing, on behalf of the native people of Canada I appeal to the minister, I appeal to this government to move rapidly in the direction I have indicated.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to add a few details to the overview the minister gave us of some of the amendments made to the Indian Act in the last few years.
Indian Affairs

The process of Indian Act revision has been going on for almost 20 years. The present Indian Act became law in 1951 and was last amended in 1956. It became apparent in the late fifties that there were already deficiencies in the act, and a report was tabled by a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in 1961. In 1962, the cabinet of the day decided to proceed with revisions to the Indian Act and a motion to that effect was introduced into the House in 1963. Recognizing that there was a need to be better informed about the conditions and the needs of the Indian people before such comprehensive revisions were proceeded with, Professor Hawthorne was commissioned to carry out a survey of the situation of the Indian people of Canada. In 1966 his report was released and recommendations on comprehensive revisions to the Indian Act together with an elaborate plan for consultation with Indian representatives across the country were prepared the following year in 1967. Following those consultations, the white paper on the Indian Act was introduced in 1969 but the principle that it proposed was soundly rejected by the Indian people as being contrary to legislative needs that they themselves envisaged.
After a number of exchanges of viewpoints in the 1970s, including the presentation of the Indian Association of Alberta's "red paper", the National Indian Brotherhood was formed and undertook to come up with suggestions for the type of revisions which they saw as being necessary from the Indian point of view. On their behalf, the Indian Association of Alberta prepared a submission to the government in 1974 but it was unable to command unanimous support from the various Indian groups. Consequently, the next year, the government agreed to establish a joint National Indian Brotherhood-cabinet committee process to tackle the question. This joint committee, through its various working groups, examined a variety of concerns, using as its base the principles spelled out in the annual general assembly of the NIB in through the summer of 1975. These were: The Indian Act should be revised on a phased basis; that is, that there should be no comprehensive revision but that the revision should be tackled on a subject-by-subject basis; that any revisions suggested should be made optional so that individual bands could study the new revision and each could make its own decision as to whether to adopt it or reject it; and that there be an extensive consultation process through which proposed revisions to the act would be made fully known to the Indian people and could be fully discussed by them.
At the same time, in 1976, the cabinet agreed to fund the NIB and its member associations in order to enable them not only to study recommendations which might be produced by the joint committee but also, when it was considered desirable, to come up with their own alternatives to any proposed legislation. The National Indian Brotherhood withdrew from this process in April, 1978, feeling that although a measure of agreement had been reached on some issues, there was nevertheless an over-all lack of progress in accepting their major position on the question of Indian rights and how this issue
5264

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
should be dealt with within any Indian Act revision. However, the government was still urged by certain Indian groups to continue with the process and at the same time it decided to continue funding the work of Indian associations in their efforts to develop their own views on the nature of the required revisions.
As a result, certain positions were put forward by the minister to chiefs during 1978 and certain responses were received from some associations in the period which followed. Over all, however, many bands and associations felt that further consultation should be involved in the discussion of these arrangements of Indian Act revision and the present minister decided, at a meeting of all the chiefs here in Ottawa last May, that he would like to get a clearer understanding of their viewpoints before proceeding further with this process. Accordingly, during this past summer he met with Indian groups across the country, from Vancouver to Truro, from southern Alberta to Fort Good Hope in the Northwest Territories. It became clear from these meetings that there was still a wide divergence of opinion on the whole question of legislation affecting the Indian people. Some groups were opposed to any changes in the present Indian Act until much more time had been given to its study and the presentation of their counterproposals. The groups have already proposed certain progress and substantial issues which they would like to see adopted by the government as revised Indian Act legislation. Still, other groups have insisted that while they are not opposed to changes to the legislation they wish to see some of their essential concerns settled within the constitutional committees before agreeing to any other legislative revisions.
At the same time, there are also bands and associations that have urged action be taken now to either amend the present act and its present provisions concerning Indian local government, or, alternatively, to introduce separate enabling legislation which will meet these needs without necessarily disturbing the remaining fabric of the present Indian Act. It is this latter course of action which seems to be more appropriate at this point in time.
There are many aspects of the present Indian Act which severely inhibit the ability of Indian governments on reserves to take adequate responsibility for their own social, economic, political and cultural development. The legal status of the present system of band councils has been queried on a number of occasions and the findings of the courts have consistently been ambiguous in this matter. Thus the ability of band councils to be considered as valid governing bodies in their own right has not encouraged the commitment of developmental funds from other sectors of the Canadian business community which is essential if the human and physical potential of reserves is to be fully developed.
It is the minister's proposal that enabling legislation with the object of recognizing the legal status of Indian governments within the reserve communities should be introduced during the coming year. In keeping with the ongoing concerns of the Indian people, this legislation would be optional in nature and only bands wishing to do so need take advantage of
its provisions which would recognize the responsibility of bands to be in full control of their own community planning and development.

In addition, this legislation would not propose to diminish the minister's responsibility as it relates to the ultimate questions of protection of Indian lands and the status of Indian people in their special relationship with other Canadians. It would, however, remove many of the barriers which the present Indian Act imposes across the chosen road to self-discovery and self-reliance. It would eliminate the sense of dependency and paternalism which is epitomized in many of the provisions of the present act. With the introduction of this legislation the previously agreed principles of full consultation would still continue. It would be proposed that a parliamentary committee travel across the country to meet with Indian bands and associations to gain their first-hand reactions to the proposed legislation. It would be the intention of the government to listen carefully to the recommendations made by that committee and to try to ensure that the final form of any legislation would meet, in as many ways as possible, the expressed needs of bands which would prefer to be responsible for the development of their own communities under its provisions rather than those of the present Indian Act.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are proposing will certainly draw the day closer when the autonomy of Indian reserves and bands will be recognized throughout the land. The recommendations we will implement as we pursue our course in coming months were submitted to the previous government which, at the time, chose to ignore them. To my mind, the negative criticism of hon. members for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberg-er) and Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) are somewhat ridiculous, considering the fact that during the nine months their government was in power they showed very little concern for the problems of the Indians of Canada.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, for decades the government seems to have recognized the need for adequate native housing and for health programs, but it has really only recognized the tip of the iceberg.
I believe we have to go back a long time to find out just what did happen to the native people in Canada. We have to go back to the time of Columbus. We came to North America and took North America. It was populated by native p.ople, and we felt we could just convince them that they should come into our life-stream and adopt our life-style. Because of the independence and pride these people felt, they could not accept the way we conducted ourselves. They could not accept the manner in which we lived. Because of that we decided to put them into specific areas and build fences around them. We left them there, possibly hoping that they would go away. Well, they have not gone away, nor have their spirit of independence, their pride and their culture. The only things about the Indian
December 2, 1980

which have gone away are the rights which are his and which for decades and generations we have chosen to ignore.
I have in my hand a confession of failure. It is a survey put out by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled "Indian Conditions''. Because my great concern is about Indian housing and health, I was appalled by what is contained in this book and by the facts to which the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development admits. Statistics prove that the department has failed dismally to give Indian people in Canada any semblance of human dignity.
With respect to present housing needs, the number of units needed has risen from 6,000 in 1966 to 11,000 in 1977. In 1970 the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the Hon. Ron Basford, made the commitment that he would provide housing for Indian people which, in a period of ten years, would provide them all with adequate living accommodations. He asked for 54,000 housing units over that period of time, and only slightly over 3,000 have been provided by him and his government over that period of time. There was a promise of 54,000 and an accomplishment of 3,000, which I feel is not only appalling but also a real offence.
The book is fraught with comparisons with respect to what Indian people are expected to put up with and what the rest of the Canadian population demands and receives. I have spent sufficient time in municipal affairs to know the demands imposed upon municipalities by provincial governments and imposed by the municipalities on people building homes. Yet we find that less than 55 per cent of Indian homes have running water. Less than 45 per cent have sewage disposal. Fire deaths per 100,000 population number 28 among the Indian population compared with four in the rest of Canada. With respect to fire protection, only on 15 per cent of reserves is there any semblance of fire protection. There is incredible and intolerable overcrowding in inadequate Indian homes. These people do not have a chance if fire breaks out in their homes. There are seven times the number of fire deaths in one segment of our population than in the rest. This segment of our population is being shabbily treated and put down for a long period of time. These are the original people of this continent, and even with all the years behind us we have gone only downward in our efforts to, establish them as a nation in their own right. They should be given more opportunities than those of us in the rest of Canada, but we are giving them far fewer.
It is a little known fact that in terms of people per square mile the most densely populated area in the entire world is the west end of downtown Vancouver. By any standard that would be considered a ghetto, notwithstanding the fact that that ghetto is made up of high-rise buildings of recent construction. These buildings are most certainly provided with all the facilities which are demanded with respect to health and living conditions. However, on the basis of people within a room let me give the House another grizzly statistic. In the west end of downtown Vancouver there are 1.2 people to a room. In the Fort Babine reserve in central British Columbia there are 3.8
Indian Affairs
people to a room. If we compare what our governments have called Indian housing with what we find in a high rise reinforced concrete building with all the facilities, and if the west end of downtown Vancouver is a ghetto, what in hell shall we call the housing found on reserves?
That is precisely what it is; it is hell. I have seen them and I walked away ashamed. The cost of operating the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been mentioned by my colleagues. Indian people are being provided with money from the taxpayers, but that money has been laundered so much that the Indian people in the end get very little of what the taxpayer is giving. One hon. member in my party made a reference to this, but it was challenged by the minister. According to the information which I have taken from the estimates, the Indian and Inuit affairs program operating expenditures, such as authority for the minister to enter into agreements, amount to $289,069,000. Capital expenditures, such as expenditures on buildings, works, land and equipment, construction and acquisition of houses for Indians, amount to $67,455,000. The total expenditures of the department amount to $809 million. When we find that the cost of operating the department is six times the amount provided to the Indian people for housing, we must come to the conclusion that those disgraceful figures speak for themselves.
No one can deny that our Indian people have suffered through the decades from degradation and deprivation. What a shame it is that they are also being fractionalized now by the politicians and are made the victims of regional disparities and regional pork-barrelling. It appals me that the Indians doubt and mistrust each other, that they look askance at each other.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote some government figures again. For example, the province of British Columbia has the second largest native population in Canada, yet, British Columbia receives the smallest amount of funds from the federal government for native services and programs on a per capita basis. In British Columbia, the individual Indian receives $191.61 a year per capital project as compared with his brother in Quebec who receives $2,198. British Columbia Indians get only 8.72 per cent of what Quebec Indians receive from the department. Quebec Indians receive more than twice the funding per capita that Indians in the province of Saskatchewan receive. It is bad enough that the politicians direct officials of the department in the disbursement of funding to assist native people. No one can deny that it is impossible to do a worse job managing the affairs of the Indians that has been done by the federal government. I am not putting the blame on the hard-working officials of the department nor am I blaming any of the ministers who have been in charge of that department. I put the blame on the Canadian people and their governments which, over the decades, have given no consideration to the rights and needs of the native people. That is why I listen very carefully when 1 heard my Indian friends talk about Indian government. The money which is being spent on administration is shockingly disproportionate to what eventually seeps down to the native

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
population, and even that is spent unjustly because favouritism is being shown, and favouritism originates with the politicians, not with the department. The one who suffers from it is the native Indian. There is no way in which we can provide his family with the facilities that are being made available.
I recall receiving a report on conditions in other parts of the world. Part of the report stated the following:
Anyone drinking this water unboiled breaks out with rashes, pimples and sores, especially around the eyes, ears, nose and mouth, but his digestive system also becomes infected with diarrhoea, nausea and worms.
1 am not speaking here of central Africa, 1 am speaking of central British Columbia. I raised this point in the Thirty-first Parliament with Mr. Ivan Head, chairman of the International Development Research Centre. Mr. Head responded in the following way:
-our statute states that IDRC's jurisdiction shall be working in the developing regions of the world. By my definition, there are regions of Canada that qualify.
I would like very much, and hopefully with-and it will have to be with-the full support of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to try out some of our techniques with the native people of Canada.
He went on to say in part:
-I will insist that we do this with the use of native persons themselves. I will not hire consultants to go and do the work for them. It must be done in the way that we have found successful abroad.
There are two points there, the most glaring one being that a responsible person heading a federal agency recognizes that part of our population is as primitive, filthy and deprived as any in central Africa. The second is that facilities are available within the federal government's structure, use of which could be made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but which the department has not chosen to use.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I only urge that the House give consideration to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak tonight I must say that I appreciate the opportunity to address myself to the issues raised in the opposition motion. It gives members of Parliament an opportunity to discuss the contents of the motion and perhaps to address themselves to some of its substantive parts. Perhaps one could query the sincerity of the motion inasmuch as the opposition benches are practically vacant this evening.


Charles Joseph Clark: But filled with distinction.


David Charles Dingwall: Notwithstanding that, the aspect of the motion to which I should like to refer is that respecting education. Education has been recognized by the Government
of Canada and Indians for some time as essential to reduce dependence and increase self-reliance.
Basically the concern of Indians and the government has been twofold: to ensure increased Indian educational achievement, and as a means of accomplishing this, to provide for increased Indian control of Indian education. In relation to the second issue, the principle of Indian control of Indian education has been an objective of Indians and the department since the early seventies. The object of this policy is not simply to transfer to Indian control the direct administration of schools, but to assure that the curriculum and the method of teaching is adapted to Indian needs in a way which will assist Indians in meeting the challenges they will find in the day to day world.
Obviously this is a difficult challenge since Indians must gain their education not only on reserves, but in provincial schools and indeed in post-secondary institutions such as universities and colleges. The first step has been at the band level and has involved the development of support to band education committees which could assume responsibility in the first instance for planning educational activity, and in the second instance, engaging provincial systems to ensure that they provide for the needs of Indian students.
At the moment this policy has reached a critical stage. Now only about 8 per cent of Indian students are in Indian-controlled schools, although about one-third of the education budget, or approximately $90 million, is controlled by Indian bands. During the next three years the department, in co-operation with Indian bands, will attempt to accomplish two things: first, to transfer approximately 50 per cent of Indian education staff now employed by the department to band control, and second, to review and revise joint school agreements with local school boards to provide education to Indian children. Therefore, by the end of the next two to three years Indians will have achieved a comprehensive degree of influence in the education system as a result of this progressively evolving joint policy of Indians and government.
Another indication of the increasing Indian orientation of the education system is the fact that of the 1,800 teachers employed by the department, approximately 500 are native people, 400 have proficiency in native languages and 600 have special training in cross-cultural education. But Indian control must be accompanied by increased participation and quality in order to accomplish the goal of reduced dependence and increased self-reliance. Some of the indicators in this include the fact that the proportion of Indian children enrolled in elementary schools is comparable to national levels; secondary enrollment has more than doubled since 1965 and university enrollment has increased tenfold since 1970.
Mr. Speaker, we readily acknowledge that this performance is not yet satisfactory, although it is particularly heartening to see the increased involvement of Indians, particularly in the post-secondary institutions and the various professional fields. We believe strongly, however, that the key to increased effectiveness and quality in education is Indian participation in
December 2, 1980

management and planning. Experience has shown in schools in Quebec, in Fort Alexander, Manitoba, and in the Indian Federated College and the Indian Community College in Saskatchewan that Indian control leads to an increase in quality, participation and, above all, a sense of pride.
Indeed, Indians are justifiably proud of these accomplishments since these are the initiatives not of governments but of themselves. For our part the government will continue to support Indian initiatives as we have done in the past. We have done this by providing funding-education accounts for more than one-third of the department's budget. We have done this by providing a special education framework through departmental and band-administered schools. This has been done in the past by our support of Indians in reaching new and revised agreements with provinces and local school boards which meet Indian priorities. It has been done by assisting in the development of Indian-oriented curricula and through cultural support to Indian cultural education centres. It has been done by providing special tuition and living allowances for Indians in post-secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, what I have said answers in part in a very real way the motion now before the House, one which in no way deals with what is actually happening in the field as it relates to Indians and the services available to them. Mr. Speaker, the fact that Indians are taking the initiative within this framework confirms to me, and I believe to themselves and all members of this Parliament, that Indian pride and self-reliance is well established and growing with each passing year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have always been proud to number among my constituents, in the two constituencies I have represented in this House of Commons, citizens of both status native background and Metis background. I am pleased my colleague from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has introduced this motion. It has allowed us to recognize today that in an age and in a country of increasing affluence, and at a time when the air is rife with talk of rights, the basic ability to live of our first citizens has been marked by a movement backwards-not by a movement forward.
The figures are stark, they are known and are shocking to all of us who have followed Indian affairs. The life expectancy of native people in Canada is, on average, about ten years less than that of other Canadians. That is a figure which is worse than the figure of ten years ago. We are not moving forward, we are moving backward. Pre-natal and infant mortality is 60 per cent higher among native people than the national average. Again, this is a situation which has not improved over the last nine years. Among the native people the suicide rate is three times the national average. The rate of violent death is also three times the national average. In terms of unemployment, chronically, the figures run to 20 per cent or 30 per cent; at certain places at certain periods of time the figures for unemployment among native people run in excess of 80 per cent. In 1960, 20 years ago, 10 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. By 1977, 24 per cent of native housing
Indian Affairs
units were in need of major repairs. Fire deaths are about seven times the national average.
I was interested to hear the hon. member speak about post-secondary schooling. The fact is that the proportion of Indian children aged 14 to 18 in school has been continually declining, since 1973 to a point at which almost 50 per cent of the Indian children in that age group are no longer in school. That is a dismal and frightening fact. Pre-vocational training attendance is down from 3,400 in 1973 to 1,000 in 1979. Those facts, sir, are all the more damning for this Parliament since the status natives of Canada are the one group of people whom the federal division of powers least affects by statute, treaty and tradition. They are citizens for whom the Government of Canada is particularly responsible. Their education, welfare and rights are indisputably federal responsibilities.
There have been instances when those responsibilities have been shamefully betrayed by their guardians in the Government of Canada, as the native people of James Bay were betrayed when the Liberal government gave only the most limited support in a crucial conflict where Ottawa had absolute and unlimited responsibility. But the deeper condemnation is that at a time when the federal government is trying to extend its powers into fields occupied previously by the provinces and the private sector, the health and the dignity as well as the rights of these people for whom the federal government is now responsible have deteriorated steadily and disgracefully.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had given the cause of native Indians one-quarter the priority he has given his own personal preferences for constitutional change we would have made more progress as a nation against the shameful spectacle of Indian poverty, suicide, infant mortality and the indignity which has become a part of life for the original citizens of this nation. 1 specify the Prime Minister because he is the head of the government and his priorities prevail.
But the condemnation, sir, extends to all of us in this House. Most of us have been too ready to allow other priorities to intrude. We have been too ready to turn our eyes away from the problems that the system of dependency on others has incubated among the native people of our land. No realistic thinking person will pretend that these problems are easy to resolve. Those of us who are experienced in this area are more aware of their complexity and difficulty. Those problems began with bad decisions more than a century ago. The reserve system has steadily drained status Indians of initiative and dignity. But the native people themselves have begun to reverse that trend. They have begun to take steps, some of them halting and some of them very dramatic. These steps will enable them to regain their pride and regain their place in Canada. For their pains and the work they have done they have been excluded from the decision about their constitution. They have been confronted with both paternalism and prejudice.
1 want to speak tonight about paternalism because it is within the direct responsibility and control of this Parliament.
I have particular cause to know that we have excellent people

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
serving Canada in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as we have in the rest of the public service. But federal bureaucrats will always be tempted to think they can make better decisions than the natives can. Occasionally they will be right, but usually they will be wrong. There is no department in the Government of Canada where the temptation to run others' lives is stronger and there is no department where the consequences of succumbing to that temptation are more ruinous for the people involved. When my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is now sitting on the constitutional committee, was the minister for Indian affairs we began to implement a deliberate decision to change the direction and orientation of Indian affairs policy across this country, to move more responsibility to the band councils themselves so that native people could grow in responsibility by exercising responsibility. We recognize that the most legitimate organization in the Indian community is the band council. It is a council which is elected by and responsible to the Indian people themselves. We tried to build up the force, the influence, the role, the independence and the autonomy of those band councils. 1 draw attention to that policy, Mr. Speaker, only because it appears to have been abandoned and replaced by new forms of paternalism.
Under the policy announced by the hon. member for Provencher, when he was the minister, the department would increasingly move back to an advisory role. This new approach would help Indian people carry out the programs that they propose. It would not tell them what to do and control their lives by controlling the purse strings. Three major reforms were announced and were in the process of implementation by the government which it was my honour to lead. First, we made it clear that band councils would be given the power to control their own social and economic development. They would no longer be told so rigorously what to do by the people in Ottawa or elsewhere. Second, a process was being established so that planning and development of programs would begin at the local level. It would start with the band council and not be forced down upon the band council by someone with less knowledge but more authority.
Third, the Indian affairs department would move gradually away from its administrative role and, instead, would provide resources to assist programs begun by the band councils. Regrettably, this new approach which would have broken the cycle of paternalism appears to have been abandoned by the Liberal government. That is a betrayal of the people whose interests that department is supposed to serve.
Whereas self-management and the exercise of responsibilities at the local level were characteristic of our approach to the programs of the department, full consultation and participation was the basis of our approach to constitutional renewal and the role of native people. As prime minister I met with Indian leaders to present our government's view that Indian representatives would participate fully in all deliberations of the consultative committee of ministers on the constitution
where there was a clear Indian interest or where the result of such discussions could affect Indian people significantly.
Indian, Inuit and Metis leaders would be called upon to participate in the development of the agendas for first ministers' conferences. We explicitly stated our hope they would join at some very near time with first ministers in the discussion of specific issues. Similarly, last August my party suggested that if the first ministers' conference of September broke down, as in the event it did, a constituent assembly be formed to deal with constitutional renewal. In the event of such an occurrence we made specific provision that native spokesmen be included in addition to members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures and territorial councils. The president of the National Indian Brotherhood responded to this suggestion stating that it was a very, very attractive progressive proposal.
This record of consultation and participation contrasts sharply with the dramatic events in this city this past week-a constitutional process which, only at the last minute, under duress, allowed for Indian presentations before the special committee on the constitution, a process in which the Prime Minister has refused to meet with the Indian leadership to discuss his constitutional proposals, a process which has so angered and so alienated the Indian people that they have felt compelled to go to the parliament of another country, the parliament of Great Britain, to present their case.
Indian rights and Indian concerns should be debated here in the Canadian Parliament. The Constitution of Canada should be decided here in this country by the people and representatives of this country, and in a way in which all the people of this country can be heard. I raise the constitutional matter because the conditions of poverty and of suffering which we all know to be too real a part of Indian life in this country are linked inextricably to the constitution. While the problems are specific-alcoholism, unemployment, school drop-outs, prostitution, to mention a few-the matter at base comes back to human dignity.
When a community has so essential a sense of the dignity of a people, that is why the constitutional questions which draw native people here from across this country are so central to the human, social, and economic problems which have been discussed throughout this day. The Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada regard themselves as being part of a community, with community or tribal rights as well as individual rights. These people cannot be taken out of their history.
Their history rolls out of their imagery, it rolls out of their language and out of their connection with the land which was once theirs alone. To most of us whose ancestors came after the aboriginal peoples, a constitution is a document of convenience, a way of ordering our lives. To the Indian and Inuit people, the Indian Act and the treaties are the only guarantees of their survival against a majority culture which, by threat of arms or guile of argument, took their lands and their livelihood and, inexorably, took their dignity. What they have left as a people is memory and legal claims and status which they feel
December 2, 1980

are menaced by this constitutional approach. And now, happily, a growing pride and a growing sense of purpose.
1 make the point that their documents are more important to them than our constitution is to us. If we say that their rights can wait while language rights are addressed, we are saying that guarantees which are sacred to them are secondary to us. Naturally, for the Parliament of Canada to say this will only breed anger and resentment. But, more dangerous still, that approach could destroy the growing sense of pride which is the only way this original Canadian people can find the will to work its own way back from the despair which causes indolence, alcoholism, prostitution and those shocking facts of infant mortality.
I am no romantic about Indian affairs. The mythical days of Crowfoot and the other ancient chiefs are long gone, together with other myths. But a people remain; a people as innately strong as any other, a people who once owned this continent and managed it well, a people who, like any other, can lift themselves up only if they start with dignity. In his days Chief Crowfoot commanded the plains and foothills where my father and 1 were born. When I was young and growing up, the people of Crowfoot had fallen from the pride which he symbolized. But in these last two decades, that has changed and the pride and strength that ruled a continent is becoming evident once more. If we worry about young people dying, about unemployment rates that can sometimes be in excess of 80 per cent, and if we want to reverse the shameful legacy of the reserve system then we must encourage that pride and that strength where we find it. We must encourage local native leaders to lead. That is why the tool of economic development exercised with local autonomy is so important, and that is why the rights, the source of identity and dignity of our original people cannot be treated by the Parliament of Canada as something secondary.
In our judgment, particular programs in the Department of Indian Affairs are wrong because they have turned away from the idea, the ethic, that decisions are more effectively taken when they are taken by band councils with local knowledge and local responsibility. But what is most wrong is that the priority we have given the Indian and Inuit people, who are the special responsibility of this Parliament of Canada, is too low. Their standing, in our view, their place in the work that we undertake, the priority which we assign them, is wrong. This must change if we are to accept our responsibilities as a Parliament to the native people of Canada for whom we are the only and ultimate guardians and spokesmen.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare);: Mr. Speaker, before I go further I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The Leader of the Opposition made the allegation in his remarks that this government has changed its view of how it wishes to treat the evolution of the native peoples. I will make clear in my speech that that is not the case. I will point out that regardless of which party has occupied this side of the House our record with respect to the treatment of native people,
Indian Affairs
whether it be with regard to the delivery of health care or with regard to social economic policies, leaves many things to be desired.
Despite all of the dollars we have allocated to many of the problems discussed by members of this House, it must be acknowledged that one cannot, simply by the use of dollars, alleviate the situation which exists for far too great a percentage of the native peoples of this country. I think everyone will agree that the presence of the elders, the chiefs and representatives of the Indian people in Ottawa this week make the subject of Indian affairs an appropriate and a timely topic for debate this evening. That speaks for itself.
The health of the Indian people was made a responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare in November, 1945. By order in council, the Indian health services division was transferred to the Department of Health and Welfare from the then department of mines and resources. It is important to note that only the health services were transferred. All other services for Indians, including land, housing, education and welfare, and even what is referred to as hygiene and sanitation, remain with the Indian affairs branch.
This is an important point because responsibility for the provision of many of the services which govern health-I am referring to such things as adequate housing, sewage disposal and safe drinking water-rests with another branch of the government rather than with the ministry responsible for the health of the Indian people.
In 1945, it was estimated that there were only about 125,000 registered Indians in Canada. By 1967 the Indian population had almost doubled. Today their numbers are almost 310,000.
The health of the Indian, and, I may add, of the Inuit people, has always been a focus of concern for this department. When the Department of National Health and Welfare took over Indian health services, Canada's original people were riddled with tuberculosis. Even as early as 1880, reports from Indian agents listed the disease as the major cause of death among prairie Indians. In 1897, for example, the death rate from tuberculosis among one tribe of Indians was reported at 54 per 1,000.
In 1945, when the department took over Indian health services, the Indian tuberculosis rate was over 12 times the national rate and there were 990 Indians in hospital with active tuberculosis. While tuberculosis is still a matter of concern today, the rate for new and reactivated cases is only slightly more than 100 per 100,000 population. While federal health authorities cannot relax their vigilance over tuberculosis, new patterns of mortality and morbidity have emerged that are of far greater concern, not only to the department and the government, but to most Canadians as well.
Despite the improvements that have taken place in the health of Indians since 1945, death rates for Indians in all age groups are two to four times the national average. For example, despite considerable improvement, the death rate for

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
Indian infants in 1978 was over 76 per 1,000, or twice the national rate. Mortality in the one to four age group is over three times the national rate, as is mortality in the 20 to 44 age group. That statistic is simply not acceptable to anyone who happens to represent the people of Canada in this House.
Over one-third of Indian deaths are due to accidental causes, many of which are preventable and should not occur. In the past decade, trends in Indian mortality and morbidity have shown marked improvements, particularly in the areas of infectious and respiratory disease. But, with the exception of heart disease and cancer, rates exceed those for the general population. One of the main reasons for the lower health status of Canada's Indian people is the harsh social and economic environment in which the majority of Indian people live. Although living conditions on Indian reserves have improved dramatically over the past 20 years, the fact remains that Indian social and economic development have not kept pace with the growth of the population.
In 1977, the Indian affairs branch estimated there was a backlog of 11,000 housing units on Indian reserves, and that to eliminate this backlog and to meet the demand for housing resulting from normal population growth, the current rate of construction would have to be doubled for the next five years.
The majority of Canadians take sewage and waste disposal and a safe and abundant supply of water for granted. Over 95 per cent of households in Canada enjoy these services. Nevertheless, only about half the houses for Indian people are equipped with running water and toilet facilities.
A great deal of catching up must take place in the effort to improve the physical environment on the reserve. As this comes about, there will be some improvement in the health of the Indian people, but the gains will not be dramatic until the Indian socioeconomic situation improves.
Social conditions on many Indian reserves are a major concern of the government and the Indian people. Direct evidence of this can be found in the appallingly high rates of suicide which have reached almost epidemic proportions among the 15 to 24 age group. Suicide accounts for almost 35 per cent of the violent deaths. Let me repeat that statistic; it accounts for almost 35 per cent of the violent deaths among young people, and for over 20 per cent of such deaths in the 25 to 34 age group.
The alcohol and drug abuse situation among the Indian people is another major contributing factor to the low level of physical and mental health experienced in many Indian communities. Health and Welfare estimates that over half of Indian sickness and death is alcohol related. It is estimated that hospital admissions for Indian people related to alcohol problems are five times the national average, and the rate for Indians living on the reserve is over twice as high as that for Indians living off the reserve.
I could continue this litany of health problems faced by the Indian people, but I think the figures I have quoted suffice to show the magnitude of the problem and the concern that this
government, and indeed all Canadians, feel for the circumstances surrounding the life of our native people.
I would like now to review the growth of resources which the federal government has made available for Indian health services in the past decade. These figures are for Indians living in the provinces; they do not include the resources spent on health services provided by the federal government for all residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
In the 1970-1971 fiscal year, Indian health services employed 1,588 people in the delivery of health services to the Indian people living in the provinces. Today, Indian health services employ 2,116 people and contract, in addition, for the services of a further 755 Indian and Inuit people through contribution agreements. Operating expenditures which were $29.8 million in 1970 to 1971 increased to over $96.1 million in 1979 to 1980. During the decade, the health and welfare department has expended over $45.4 million on capital projects. It now runs 15 hospitals 95 nursing stations and numerous other services. Nevertheless, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks this evening, that despite all the dollars spent on delivery of a health care system to the native people in this country, despite massive increases in this area, our success rate is far from what I think should have been accomplished in the past decade.
A new health policy was implemented for the Indian people. 1 return to this topic because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) mentioned it in his speech this evening. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) instituted this policy, so we cannot accept responsibility for it. However, we decided to support the intitiatives which commenced under the jurisdiction of the hon. member. I think it is well known that on this side of the House we have allowed native peoples in local councils, whether in the delivery of the health care system or in the beginning of an education system for their young, to have a say in recommending where federal expenditures should occur, thereby alleviating the system which exists now and is almost a self-perpetuating problem. I hope that at some point we will allow the system to expand so that native peoples can have their own say respecting federal expenditures.
The implications of this policy with respect to delivery of health care are, perhaps, greater than the authors of the policy first realized. I will now outline one of the problems we encountered in 1979-1980.
For example, expenditures on health services, such as glasses, dental care, drugs and medical transportation, which are not covered by provincial medicare plans, have skyrocketed and have reached the point at which over 66 per cent of the operating budget, excluding salaries, was expended on noninsured health benefits in the 1979-80 fiscal year. In dollar terms, the cost of these benefits has increased from $28 million in 1978-79 to an estimated $41 million in this fiscal year. As Indian health services is not a statutory program, the increase
December 2, 1980

in uninsured costs is putting an enormous squeeze on the funds budgeted for Indian health programs.
The feature of the Indian health policy that we believe has the greatest potential for bringing about improvements to health relates to the federal government's willingness-and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this-to transfer responsibility for local health care services from the department to the Indian community. Already, a number of transfers have taken place and more are in the planning stage.
For example, in Saskatchewan, the Battlefords Indian health centre is gradually taking over responsibility for health services to nine Indian reserves. In the Pacific northwest, the Nishga tribal council is being funded by the department to plan the establishment of a local health board for the Nass Valley that will run the local health services for both Indian and non-Indian residents. It is interesting to note that the Nishga tribal council has already taken over the school board, and we are confident that they will do a great job running their own local health care delivery system.
There is an important aspect of the Indian health policy that I wish to call to your attention. The policy is careful to state that the health needs of the Indian people are met through services provided by the federal government, by the provincial and territorial medicare and hospitalization systems and by the local community. Health services to the Indian people are, therefore, a partnership between the three levels of government, each of which has a specific role and responsibility for the provision of clinical and preventive health services. This is an important point and I wish to stress that this government does not wish to set up a parallel system of health care of the Indian people which would exclude the full participation of the provincial and private sectors in the delivery of services.
One question, I am sure, is foremost in the minds of hon. members in this House. It is: what is the prognosis for the health of the Indian people in the future? I would like to be able to answer this question optimistically, but there are a number of variables which make it difficult to do so this evening.
On the positive side, greater Indian involvement in health, as part of the federal policy of transferring responsibility to Indian local government, offers considerable promise. Also, Indian people have become more acutely aware of their health needs and responsibilities. On the other hand, the socioeconomic situation of the Indian people leaves a lot to be desired, and one can foresee economic development difficulties in the future, especially on the more isolated Indian reserves.
As long as opportunities for employment are limited to the provision of community services, unemployment on reserves will remain at between 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the work force. Only when there are natural resources in the area, such as fish, lumber or minerals, can an isolated Indian community expect to reach full employment. Nevertheless, the potential for economic development must continue to be exploited and new sources of jobs must be created.
Indian Affairs
As long as present harsh socioeconomic conditions persist on Indian reserves, it is difficult to see any major reductions in socially-induced mortality and morbidity.
Although the federal government is spending over $7 million per annum on alcohol abuse programs, it is sad to say that there is little tangible evidence that alcohol-related deaths and sickness are being reduced.
In 1978-79, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spent 43 per cent of federal expenditures for social services on social assistance, most of which went on direct payment of social welfare assistance. Almost 8 per cent of Indian children are in child care. It is not so much the percentage that should say something to the Canadian people, it is the fact that when we talk about the number of native children in child care, it is almost five times the national rate. The number of adoptions of Indian children has increased fivefold since 1962, with an increasing proportion of adoptions to non-Indian parents.
The Indian people have suffered over 200 years of dependency. A major task of the federal government is to help the Indian people break away from this dependent state, and this is the thrust that the federal government is following in its relations with Indian leaders. The light at the end of the tunnel is community self-government, with the Indian people accepting responsibility for the programs and services which are currently being provided directly by the federal government.
Self-government, within the broad framework of Canadian society, and the development of greater economic opportunity is surely the key to the social and cultural survival of the Indian people. This will require increased expenditures for individual and community development, for housing and services, and for economic development. Ways have to be found to make Indian communities sufficient in employment opportunities so that the young people can stay in their communities and not have to migrate to alien Canadian cities, looking for work.
Canadians have an enormous obligation to the original people who inhabited this continent thousands of years before the first white man arrived. The task of all of us is to assist them to establish their place in society where they can feel that their culture and their social and economic development is secure. This places an enormous responsibility, not only on the Indian people, but also on all other Canadians. It will take patience, resources and good will, but if we and the Indian people are determined, we can all look forward to a brighter future.
I say this in a meaningful way. If we look realistically at the future, we realize that despite the enormous amount of resources we are going to devote to dealing with the problems of native people and despite the fact it will take a number of years to occur, we hope that at some point non-Indian people in Canada, will be striving to achieve a level of health and well-being equal to that of the Indian people, rather than the other way around, where they are continually trying to play catch-up with the delivery of health care in the social system we have developed for other Canadians.
5272

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My purpose in doing so is to thank the representatives of the other parties for agreeing to our request that instead of our having one more speaker tonight for 20 minutes, we will be given two with ten minutes each and ten minutes only.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think it necessary to seek unanimous consent of the House because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated he has already achieved that. Subsequent comments indicated that members of the Liberal party may choose to use the same option, and I will be advised by them. In order to conserve as much time as possible for those who wish to speak, I will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and, pursuant to remarks made, it will be ten minutes and ten minutes only.


Mr. Kempling:: 1 want it understood, Mr. Speaker, that we have our full 20 minutes left for our last speaker. If we choose to have two speakers for ten minutes each we will, but we will still have our full 20 minutes left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unfortunately, the mathematics suggest that if each and every one of those who choose to speak does so to the extent of the time described, whether it be multiples of ten or 20, we will be attempting to get exactly 64 minutes into the next hour. I cannot give an undertaking to do that. Much as I would like to do so, I am unable.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has included living conditions in this amendment because we feel one of the most serious problems facing native people, both in the cities and on reserves, is the appalling housing conditions. This has already been mentioned by a number of speakers.
We know that the housing is not only unhealthy and unsafe, but is without adequate sanitary conditions such as clean water, and is not constructed with a view to fuel conservation. As a result, the young people are leaving the reserves for the cities. The people are living in overcrowded conditions. Women, especially those raising children on their own, are often the last to qualify for the limited housing being built. Housing and the servicing of land is a very important government responsibility and must be given high priority for government funds. It is important to train local people to help make some impact on the terrible unemployment situation on the reserves. It is very important to look at the funding so that people can feel they do not have to go begging but can get adequate mortgages without getting permission from the minister with only a small proportion of the people qualifying. Adequate housing is necessary for families as well as for elderly people. I raise this as a result of conversations I have had with women today respecting the importance of providing adequate housing so that bands will be able to take advantage of the moratorium approved in this House allowing women deprived of their status under section 12(1)(b) to return to reserves. It is understandable that reserves are reluctant to expand when they do not have adequate housing for people
already there. I would like to mention very quickly a couple of statistics and then I am going to talk about people. We know that 19 per cent of the on-reserve housing is extremely overcrowded with several families often living in a single house. This would not be so bad except for fact that the housing itself is very poor. This affects 40 per cent of Indian families living on reserves.
[DOT]	(2050)
Only 40 per cent of on-reserve housing units have adequate water systems: only 40 per cent of the homes have adequate sewage disposal systems. On remote reserves these figures drop to 20 per cent so only one out of five has adequate water supply and sewage disposal. Heating systems are very substandard. As a result of this there are many fires. The rate of death in home fires is 30 per cent higher among Indians on reserves than in the rest of the country. Inadequate heating and very damp weather conditions lead to a much higher incidence of respiratory disease. I know this is the case on the west coast. General unsanitary conditions are a result of inadequate water and sewage systems. Those are some of the statistics.
Let us look at it in terms of real people. Tonight I sat at dinner with ten of the native women who appeared before the committee on the constitution this afternoon. Half of them were from the Indian Rights for Indian Women group. I told these women I would be speaking in the House tonight and asked them to suggest from their experience some of the matters they might want me to raise concerning not only housing but some of the positive things, the kind of projects that develop self-reliance.
1 will give the House some of their examples. On the whole question of self-reliance they feel that this not only refers to the autonomy of bands and bands being in control of social and economic development, as the Right Hon, Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was just mentioning, but also that in our constitution consideration must be given to the third order of government. This is something that is hard for us to understand. I think it is important based on Indian traditions, on aboriginal rights, on the language and culture, and so on. As they describe it, it is more than just geography. They are concerned about the education of their children. If we are talking about housing and better communities on and off reserves we have got to think about the particular cultural needs and desires of Indian and other native people. Schools should be planned and developed by native people themselves having adequate funds for decent facilities and to pay their own people to train for teaching and be hired as teachers.
[DOT]	(2100)
The same thing applies in the cities. There is a great need for Indian culture to be available to young children, particularly in the cities where in quite a number of cases they have lost their sense of identity.
The women to whom I spoke tonight also felt that multicultural funds for Indian services are not available in the way
December 2, 1980

they are to other groups, particularly in the cities, and that there is constant buck-passing between departments both in city programs and on reserves.
On the question of self-reliance, these women told me they felt very strongly that much more effort and much more funding should be going into economic development. This refers not only to the development of community development corporations on reserves and, indeed, in cities, some of which might be forms of co-op, but also to the sustaining of these efforts. There have been repeated experiences in which LEAP funds have been used for three-year periods to get something started and to train people, after which there is no way to carry on. LEAP has proved that people have the potential, the desire and the ability to manage their own affairs, but there has to be sustained and realistic funding.
With respect to training they said that everyone on reserves needs training, not just men but women too.
They spoke about a very interesting development on the West Bay reserve on Manitoulin Island. In this case there was a very great lack of housing, and those who were last on the list were single mothers raising children on their own. This is a great example of self-reliance from which we hope most people will not have to follow. These mothers got together, trained themselves and built apartments to house themselves and their children.
We heard also about scattered housing in Thunder Bay which is being bought up. Housing development is beginning with the aid of rent supplements. I visited a Burns Lake native development corporation in northern British Columbia where women as well as men are being trained in the operation of heavy equipment, and they earn a share of the lumbering industry there.
I could go on and on. 1 have many more points to make, but I see that my time is almost up. Four major problems related to housing have been raised by my colleague, our Indian affairs critic, who could not be here tonight. These four major problems have to do with the government's response to the demand for Indian housing. First, although the minister increased funding by $20 million last July, nothing has been done in a real way to meet the very serious backlog of housing needs. I refer to housing repairs as well as to new housing. As 1 said before, funds are not available for servicing land and developing the necessary infrastructures such as roads, sewage and water. Federal funding programs for housing on reserves do not provide permanent funding for labour, yet the labour component for housing developments is very important. There is a mish-mash of government buck-passing and no co-ordination, and Indian people get caught in between.
My time is up, but 1 would like to say again to the House that Indian housing should be given a much higher priority.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) before the House this evening is imbued with insulting negativism
Indian Affairs
towards the native peoples of my riding. It is negative not only in spirit but in letter. The motion reads as follows, I quote:
That this House condemns the continued failure of the government to promote Indian self-reliance and the continued failure to protect the culture, language and health of Canada's Indian peoples.
This afternoon, the hon. member spoke of his many years as a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He could not say that the government continued to discourage self-reliance among the Indians, to destroy the culture, language and health of the Indians of Canada because his words would have been contrary to the truth. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the motion means the same thing.
Last week, I went around my riding. I shall speak to you about its Indian population. Toward the south, in Abitibi, 1,135 Attikamegues live at Obedjiwan and 920 Algonquins live at Pikogan and Lake Simon. In the mid-north, south of the 55th parallel, 7,129 Crees live divided into eight bands. Further north, 3,535 Inuit share nine villages. In all, Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Abitibi, 12,719 Indians and Inuit live in 19 separate bands, which I endeavour to represent well in Ottawa.
I am sure Chiefs Richard Kistablish of the Algonquins, Billy Diamond of the Crees and Charlie Watts of the Inuit would be furious if they knew what the Progressive Conservatives think of them as expressed in the motion.
Mr. Speaker, the facts deny this motion according to which the government failed to protect the culture and the language of the Indians of Canada. The last decade has been noted for our native people's increasing awareness of their identity. The expressions of the native character, whether it be Inuit or Indian, can assume various forms but, at school, they are usually identified with the spiritual or artistic worlds. Still, it must be remembered that the way the Indians chose to express themselves this week in protecting and demanding their rights gives us the true measure of the dynamism of their culture.
Since 1970 the government has granted over $6 million to native organizations to enable them to take part in the review of the Indian Act and the constitution. The financing of research for claims during that same period has now reached over $30 million. At present, native political organizations are receiving over $20 million a year for their administration, research on claims, review of the Indian Act, consultations and development of their political platform.
Those points allow us to assess the continuous commitment of the government to assist and support the natives' efforts to protect, develop and express their cultural identity. We should also remember that the key concepts of that relation are assistance and support since it would be entirely unadvisable for the government to try to assume prime responsibility in that area. Moreover, the Indians would not appreciate such intrusion. Indeed, it is obvious that they would not tolerate it.
In 1971 the government developed a program to set up cultural and educational centres to assist the native people to

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
develop, preserve and appreciate the numerous aspects of their culture. The program provides financial support or other assistance to the Indians and Inuit to allow them to set up and operate cultural and educational centres contributing to make education meet their needs as they perceived them. In those centres, educational programs based on the language, the culture and the Indian and Inuit heritage are organized and made available. Those programs are drawn up and carried out by them.
Programs offered in these centres cover areas related to specific needs, such as the rehabilitation of traditional techniques, research on culture, language research and learning, the development of study programs, the training of native teachers and services aimed at Indian communities. These include programs of activities for the reserve such as leader training workshops, libraries, publications, information bulletins, development courses, radio programs, advisory services for band councils and schools and services for non-Indian communities. The latter include activities for increasing understanding and relations between Indians communities and others.
These programs also provide for liaison services with organizations and teaching institutions, cultural resources for provincial schools, museums and cultural exhibitions, cultural programs for tourists, cultural programs and public relations through community television, radio programs, newspapers and magazines. At present, there are 59 educational and cultural centres across Canada, which between all of them receive $5.3 million. Since 1972 the government has spent $37 million for those centres.
The variety and scope of the programs offered by these centres depend on the number of people who use them. For example, the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College receives a grant based on the range of services offered to the entire Indian population of Saskatchewan. Indeed, it receives over $1 million a year and administers a whole variety of programs. However, several centres serve only one band and the scope of their programs is necessarily more limited.
I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, the cultural grants program. Under this program, the government gives grants to Indian artists to help them learn new techniques and advance in their career. The objectives of this program are the preservation, promotion and expression of traditional Indian culture through music, dance, theatre, drawing, painting and sculpture, the promotion and expression of contemporary Indian culture through the same media and the promotion and expression of traditional and contemporary culture together.
The grants are given to Indians to help them make their mark in these areas. With these grants, they can pay for tuition fees and the tools, instruments and supplies that they need and meet the costs related to artistic shows and exhibitions, native artists sometimes even use the money from these grants to pay for the basic necessities of life so that they can
show or exhibit some of their work instead of having to sell it immediately to survive.
This program has a clear and positive effect on the whole range of cultural activities of the Indian people. We have only to look at the imposing number of Indian artworks both in private art galleries and in the theatres across Canada.
In the last few years, the existence of native culture has been increasingly recognized in the teaching programs of the schools administered by the Indians, the federal government and the provinces. This recognition is reflected in many aspects of the programs and generally comes directly from the initiatives of local communities which want teaching services capable of strengthening their cultural identity and their pride in their heritage to be offered to Indian children. In the areas where native children attend provincial schools, the department has supported the efforts made by the communities to enrich the teaching programs with publications on the native cultures and has also contributed to the production of these publications. It should be noted that these publications greatly enrich the non-native children who attend these schools. The series on people of native origin produced for the Ontario schools is a good example of the progress which can be accomplished through the co-operation of the Indians, the federal government and the provinces.
In the last 14 years, the percentage of Indian administrators and teachers in federal schools has tripled and has now reached nearly 30 per cent. This is due to an increased interest in teaching on the part of the native people and to a greater awareness on the part of the teaching institutions of the need to train specialists in the area of intercultural education. The native people are making their presence felt in education in a great variety of roles. They control their own schools as members of the school boards. They act as consultants in planning curriculums, strengthening the critical home and school relationship as cultural co-ordinators, consultants and teaching assistants. Finally, as language teachers, they promote the survival and perfecting of native culture.
With regard to curriculums, the native culture is perhaps more prominent in the training material developed to be used throughout the country. The curriculums have also been improved through the introduction of courses in traditional music methods, physical education, nature classes as well as art and craft courses.
The position held by elders in native societies is reflected in the contribution that many of them make to syllabuses and, less officially, in other areas as well. There is a very close relationship between culture and language, and the use of native languages has increased significantly over these last few years. During the school year 1978-79, more than 29,000 registered students out of some 78,000 were using classrooms where a native language was either the medium of communication or a curriculum study matter.
December 2, 1980

Mr. Speaker, Indian peoples are legitimately proud of their achievement in promoting the development and use of their old languages and culture, which have much to offer to Canada. I would like to indicate once more that this government will continue its efforts to support such achievements, so that new generations may point to their heritage as a continuing confirmation of their identity within the over-all Canadian society. For these reasons, I shall vote against the non-confidence motion.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address this motion which was moved by the Conservative party and amended by the New Democratic Party. However, before I start my comments I should like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) for allowing me a portion of the time allotted to her to address this very important issue this evening.
I find it somewhat strange that the Conservatives would move such a motion in view of the way in which they have treated Canada's native people in the past. Since the beginning of confederation the Liberals have held government for over 60 years and the Conservatives for over 40 years, but neither of those parties has treated the Indian people with any degree of respect until now, so I do not know why the Indian people should believe they will be treated fairly by either of these parties in the future.
Although some of the things which the parliamentary secretary said has happened on Indian reserves sounds fine, I know that it is not so. My wife and I lived on an Indian reserve for two years where I taught adult upgrading at one time and I know conditions have not changed a great deal since the time we lived there. In the area which I now represent as a member of Parliament for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake there are 17 separate Indian reserves and the living conditions in every one of them is, to say the least, not the same as those which exist in some of the white or Metis neighbouring communities.
I should like to refer to an article in a newspaper which states that the Indian people do not want to be dependent on handouts from some bureaucrat. They have problems with alcoholism, welfare dependence, crime and suicide. I agree with what this article says-
Toward this end, the land claims must first be settled.
1 think Indian people must be given a greater degree of control over their own affairs. I hope they will be equipped with the tools and resources which will assist them in achieving self-government. I sincerely hope the government will pay attention to the recommendations of the first nations' conference which was held here in Ottawa, and that it will listen for a change to what the Indian people want. I hope the government will listen to what they want so far as sovereignty is concerned to make them an independent nation, and they should be recognized as such. This has not been the case until now.
Indian Affairs
I should like to quote from another article on the organization of the Government of Canada in 1980. It has a couple of headings, one of which is "Education and Skill Development Branch". The aim is to ensure good education, according to this article. This looks fine on paper, but let us examine the reality. The reserve at Waterhen was promised a gymnasium for its school as far back as 1975, but today the project is still being delayed. Now they are told they might get it in 1984 or later. The parents at the Indian reserve at Dillon have stopped their children from going to school this year for a period in excess of a month because of the deplorable conditions at the schools on that reserve. The Thunderchild reserve has been promised a school for a number of years. That request, although approved by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was being stonewalled by the Treasury Board. Because of the bureaucratic bungle and hassle here in Ottawa they could not have a school until the issue was raised in the House of Commons.
Another area in which problems have arisen is the community services branch. They are supposed to provide housing, electricity, community buildings, water and sewers. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that not one of the 17 reserves in the constituency I represent has running water or sewage facilities, and I think that is a darn disgrace. Although conditions have improved somewhat this year, the Liberal government and the Tory government which has preceded it have done nothing much. They gave Indians SI2,000 to build a house. What kind of a house can you build for $12,000 today? There is a problem with community services on the Thunderchild reserve where they are trying to put in sewers and running water. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of the Department of Supply and Services, whichever is responsible, has not been able to have a well dug, so they dug a trench from a water supply over a mile away until they ran out of money and could not afford to complete the work to provide running water. That is a disgrace.
The biggest laugh of all is the economic and employment development branch. I should like to relate to you the case of the Moosomin Indian reserve in my constituency. They ran a successful farming operation which they developed in spite of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They had cattle, machinery and land which they were farming. They happended to have a chief who performed some sleight of hand with a pencil, and a council member, both of whom were prosecuted for fraud. They ended up in jail, but the case did not stop there. To pay off the debt which the chief had incurred, the department came in and seized all the machinery, took away the cattle, and thus completely destroyed the economic base of the reserve. Then they said, "That is not enough to pay off your debts, you bad Moosomin Indian reserve, you will have to pay the rest of the debt". How can they pay off their debt when this government, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has seized their only means of existence, their only viable economic base?

December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
I should like to recount another instance concerning a contractor from the English River band at Patuanak. The department says it wants to promote the Indian people and help them get into business. In spite of the Department of Indian Affairs, this individual became involved in the contracting business. He went away to trade school and became a journeyman tradesman. He started a company in northwestern Saskatchewan, and he wanted to bid on building and Indian school on an Indian reserve for the Department of Indian Affairs. The department indicated the following to him: "You cannot do it unless you have a bid bond to cover the entire job". Although the minister has the ability to waive that condition and recommend an Indian to do the work on an Indian reserve for the good of the Indian educational system, he would not waive that condition and has not waived it up to now. That is no commitment to those people living on Indian reserves who are trying to develop an economic base.
This happens on many reserves. Indians in places like Fond du Lac, Canoe Lake and English River have tried to raise money in order to build recreational facilities on their reserves. 1 have before me a directive from the assistant deputy minister of Indian Affairs to all regional directors-general and regional directors of the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada. It indicated that $100,000 was available for Indian reserves to build recreational complexes. Many of the 17 reserves in my constituency applied for that funding, and they did not receive even a response from the Department of Indian Affairs as to whether the fund existed. Well, it must exist because I have the directive here, but when Indian bands try to get money from the department they are faced with a great many problems. There are inconsistencies from one reserve to another. If there is a problem on the Joseph Bighead reserve near Pierce-land which is identical to a problem on the Witchekan reserve, there is no assurance that those problems will be handled in the same manner. They could be handled very inconsistently, with a different solution to each.
In conclusion, I should like to say that 16 treaties have been signed in Canada since September 7, 1850, when the first was signed with the Ojibway Indians. Almost all those 16 treaties were signed under Liberal governments; two were signed under Tory governments. I have seen no commitment by either the Tories or the Liberals to the native people of the country. They do not listen to them in constitutional terms. They have not done a darn thing for them in terms of building economic bases. They have made those people live in disgrace. The only help of any substance Indian people have received up until now has been from a few provincial governments. Of course, there were people who had the desire to leave the reserves and build futures on their own. 1 ask the government to take a different direction in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take only a moment, because that is what it deserves, to
comment on the contribution of my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party and his verbal diarrhea.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is a terrible thing to say.


Jack Wendele Shields: I listened very carefully. I wanted to hear one constructive suggestion in the last ten minutes, but I am sorry to say that I did not.
The hon. member mentioned in constitutional terms that the Liberal government and the Conservative party had sold out the Indian people. My party is on record; we would like to have the constitution brought home to Canada, amended here in Canada, with the participation of Indian people. We were sold out by the coalition of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party, the Liberal party with the NDP rump.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Also I should like to point out that it was John George Diefenbaker who brought the vote to the native people of Canada. Up to that time I do not remember any member of the NDP running around the country saying anything about the downtrodden, voteless native persons of Canada.
I should like to tone down my remarks somewhat. I hope hon. members will give me their attention because I have had the good fortune of living in northeastern Alberta and working with native people on and off reserves for 25 years. I should like to relate a story about the very first trip I made to the Janvier reserve which is east of Fort McMurray. I toured the reserve and I saw the poverty which existed. I saw the poor living conditions and all the things to which many people have alluded today. Also I saw a tractor and a seed drill. Obviously those pieces of machinery had been sitting there for many years, because it was an old tractor with lugs. I inquired how this had come about, and I found out that the seed drill and tractor had been brought to the Janvier reserve as an economic development program probably in the early 1950s. Someone got the brainwave that an economic development program could take place on that reserve. It was decided, outside the reserve and without any consultation with the band or the Indian people of that reserve, that the economic development program would be a farming one. A tractor, a seed drill, some seed and a couple of ploughs were delivered to the reserve, and the Indians were told to plough up the land and start farming; then the department officials left.
Of course we know what happened. The weeds started to grow around the tractor and the seed drill. Their whole approach to assistance in the economic development program has been modelled along those lines. Many good ideas come from the Department of Indian Affairs. Many good ideas come from the reserves which are accepted as viable economic development programs in which to invest money. But what happens is classic-the money is invested, the equipment is bought, and then everyone leaves. They leave behind people who have never attempted business before, they leave behind unskilled workers with no training; they leave behind people who are expected to do an accurate accounting of what they are doing with no training. Absolutely no thought has been

December 2, 1980

given to the backup system which must be in place when an economic development program is launched on a reserve. There are private corporations in northeastern Alberta which are attempting to assist in the economic development of the reserves in many ways. They are also attempting to assist in affirmative action programs which will allow the native person to train so that he may work in the work force. Many companies have tried, but they all seem to fall by the wayside. There are reasons for this, and some of those reasons are very obvious. I find it incredible that our government will not recognize what the problems really are.
For example, I would like to talk about a family in which the man is approached and asked to take part in a training program because of an oil sands plant going up in Fort McMurray, which means steady employment and good wages; the man will be able to educate his children and hold up his head. The man agrees that is what he wants. Fie goes to the work site with absolutely no counselling whatsover, and his family is left behind. In many cases the company says he must wait for 30 days before he can be paid. He cannot wait those 30 days. How will his family survive when he is not there? He goes to the company and asks if he can move his family. They say that he cannot because he does not qualify for housing until he has worked for three months. All those obstacles are put in his way, but from the company's point of view they are sensible. Someone coming to one of the oil sands plants in Fort McMurray, from Ontario or Saskatchewan, someone who is used to the Protestant work ethic, will understand that he will live in camp, that his family will remain behind and that in three months he will qualify for housing under the company plan. He understands this and knows that he can pick up the phone and talk with his family. That is not the case with native people. When you go to Janvier and to Chipewyan lake and pull a man out of an isolated reserve, he leaves his family there and he does not know whether they are surviving or not. He has no means of communication with his family. Have we never heard of a family counselling program? Have we never heard of bridge financing? We use the term all the time when we are talking about industry but we do not use it when we are talking about people. These are some of the things which are needed in the area of economic development. We have the resources.
The native people have expressed a desire on many occasions to participate. They come in with a plan. Let us follow a plan through for a moment. A man writes to his member of Parliament. He has an excellent idea. There is a brand new highway going through his community where there has never been one before. He does not have much experience in business but he has fooled around with cars a bit, he knows how to change oil and repair tires and he would like to set up a service station. He will employ four people. There is not to be a gas station within 50 miles on either side of his proposed site due to the kind of traffic in the area. In other words, he has got it
Indian Affairs
made. This man writes to his member of Parliament-in this case it happens to be me. He asks where he can get some financing and some assistance to get this business going. He thinks it is a good idea-indeed, it is an excellent idea. There will not be another gas station within 50 miles on either side of his site, a main highway will be running through and he will employ at least four men. Speaking for myself, if I was putting up this service station 1 would employ many more people because I would add a restaurant on to it-he has not thought of that yet, but it will come.
1 phoned the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to his proposal. They told me to write a letter and send with it a copy of his letter, which 1 did.
I wrote to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) and I received a reply back from him. I wrote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe). In all, I wrote about six letters. I received a reply back from each one indicating the types of program each department had available. But they were all very discouraging. I sent all the information 1 had obtained to this gentleman. I even talked to him on the phone this morning. He has given up the idea because it is all too complicated. The government has made it too complicated for him.
The other day I asked in committee about the Economic Development Fund which is not being used. Obviously it is not being used because there have been a number of failures. Programs have been funded which have all been failures which makes people a little excited and a little frightened. After all, it is risk capital that we are talking about. Of course there will be failures. Because you have one failure does not mean the supply must be cut off. Each application should be judged on its merits.
More important, with regard to the funding available from the Department of Immigration, Small Businesses and the Department of Indian Affairs cannot an agency be set up to co-ordinate it? Or would we rather take a community development project funding, for example, $350,000 or $400,000 in my area alone, and blow it on make-work jobs which will last for only three months? It is like a pacifier which might keep them quiet for a while. Why not take $300,000 and fund a program like the one I have described? The pro forma itself indicated the man would make a healthy profit and he would employ four people. Those four people he would employ would be taken directly off the welfare rolls. This represents a saving to the Government of Canada of something in the range of $50,000 per man, if he is married and raising a family. Just two years and you would have the return on your investment.
Every time we attempt to use a program, particularly as it relates to economic development, it falls down because we do not provide the backup which is required. Backup is needed not just in the business sense but in the training of the individual who will work in that community or that job. It is a case of having the backup in management and accounting skills.


December 2, 1980
Indian Affairs
Another example is a sawmill which was set up in my constituency and funded to the extent of $500,000. Once the machinery was set up and operating, everybody took off for the high hills and left the Indian people, who were not skilled and who did not understand the operation of the business, to function on their own. They survived for a year and now the mill is idle. It is idle because they were not given the necessary training, the necessary backup or the necessary counselling.
question necessary to dispose of the amendment and the motion, the main estimates and the first and second reading stages of the bill based thereon. The question is on the amendment by Mr. Keeper. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those in favour will please say yea.
The whole situation was ridiculous and a total waste. The mill employed 14 family men and meant a saving to the Government of Canada of $50,000 per family.
All such projects have not failed. Some communities in my riding, with the help of industry more so than the help of government, have made projects work by finally realizing that we must begin to carry out what we have been talking about. A laundry was built on the Goodfish reserve, and it brought down the unemployment figure on the reserve from 95 per cent to 40 per cent. This laundry plant has also caused some spin-offs. Because of it, a little store was built and because of the little store a recreation complex was built-all because funds were created as the result of this plant and circulated in the community.
All of what I have described came about because one company had the foresight to approach the band at Goodfish reserve and say, "Look, we will assist by giving you our laundry contract for all the coveralls, overalls and sheets if you will employ a couple of men to deliver as well as do the laundry". I would like to show hon. members what can happen when a little bit of foresight, guidance and backup is used and money is invested in an economic development program.
We are not giving the native people the proper backup. We are not giving the communities which receive economic funding the proper counselling and guidance. When there is a failure the bureaucracy feels it must pull back since one project failed and money was lost. Certainly, some areas will be high risk, but we must invest in the native communities because they want the pride of participation and they want for their children exactly what you and I want for our children. 1 wish we could get on with the job.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are only 30 seconds left in this debate but I would like to make an appeal on behalf of the Lucky Man band in my constituency which has waited 101 years for a reserve. I do not mean all their entitlements, 1 mean a reserve. This band signed a treaty with the Government of Canada and to this day they have not received one acre or one square inch of land. I condemn all governments, including the government of my province which, according to the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act, is committed to assisting in completing the entitlements of the native people of Saskatchewan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to order made Tuesday, April 29, 1980, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every


Some hon. Members:: 
Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In		my opinion the nays	;>
' x;
have it.			
And more than five members having risen:			fif:-.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: ++NAYS
Messrs.
Appolloni	Erola (Mrs.)	MacGuigan(Mrs.)	Ethier	MackaseyAxworthy	Evans	MacLarenBachand	Ferguson	MacLellanBaker	Fisher	Malepart(Gander-T willingate)	Fleming	MaltaisBeauchamp-N iquet	Flis	Masse(Mrs.)	Foster	MastersBegin (Miss)	Fox	McRaeBerger	Francis	MunroBlais	Frith	(Hamilton East)Blaker	Garant	NicholsonBloomfield	Gauthier	(Miss)Bockstael	Gendron	OlivierBossy	Gimaiel	OstiguyBreau	Gingras	OuelletBujold	Gray	PennerBussieres	Henderson	PepinCampbell	Herbert	Peterson(Miss)	Hervieux-Payette	Pinard(South West Nova)	(Mrs.)	PortelanceChenier	Hopkins	Prud'hommeChretien	Hudecki	ReganCollenette	Irwin	ReidComtois	Isabelle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Corbin	Johnston	RobertsCorriveau	Joyal	RobinsonCosgrove	Kaplan	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Cote (Mrs.)	Kelly	RompkeyCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	RooneyCullen	Lachance	RossiCyr	Lajoie	RoyDawson	Lalonde	Savardde Corneille	Lamontagne	SchroderDemers	Landers	SimmonsDeniger	Lang	SmithDesmarais	Laniel	StolleryDingwall	Lapointe	TessierDion	(Charlevoix)	TobinDionne	Lapointe	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	TurnerDionne	LeBlanc	Veillette(Northumberland-	Leduc	WatsonMiramichi)	Loiselle	WeatherheadDuclos	Lonsdale	WhelanDupont	Lumley	Yanakis-127.Dupras	MacBain	Duquet	MacEachen


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Keeper) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Indian Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division!


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, laid upon the Table, Tuesday, April 22, 1980, less amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.


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


Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Donald James Johnston: that Bill C-47, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31 st March, 1981, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Madam Speaker:: It being 10.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Wednesday, December 3, 1980