1982-06-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the government is clearly aware of the vital necessity of establishing an immediate program for the reduction and eventual elimination of acid rain, the greatest single threat to our environment today. It is also aware that, although acid precipitation from the United States contributes significantly to the problem, that country's administration is obviously unwilling to participate in a meaningful way in such a program. In light of the recent collapse of bilateral negotiations, due to the obstructive attitude on the part of U. S. representatives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Prime Minister immediately contact President Reagan to demand that priority action be taken by both nations to solve the serious problem of acid rain.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, housing in Canada is in a deplorable situation, while housing starts in the United States are up 22.3 per cent. The Premier of Saskatchewan today is implementing a mortgage interest rate of 13.25 per cent for housing in Saskatchewan, which will stimulate housing starts in that province. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this government take positive steps on interest rates before the House closes, in order to put an end to the depressed state of the housing industry in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Ed Clark, the architect of the Liberal government's ruinous National Energy Program, is being sent off to France for one year at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of approximately $70,000, in order that he may work for a Paris-based multinational, a company that would appear to have a death wish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Everett Greenaway: In view of the disastrous effect that Ed Clark's policies have had on the Canadian energy sector and the entire Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the government fire Ed Clark and urge him to spend the next year in western Canada instead of in Paris, in order that he can explain the National Energy Program to the thousands who have lost their jobs and businesses as a result of his destructive policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of statements made by William Brock of the Reagan administration that his discussions with the Canadian External Affairs minister about FIRA were, "encouraging" and "would make life easier for both of us", implying a weakening of the Agency, and this in spite of the Minister of Industry's recent

June 17, 1982
5.0.	43
statement that, "the purpose of our foreign investment review law is to help provide an assurance that Canada and Canadians benefit from the investments that are reviewed under the act", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House oppose any attempt by the Liberal government to abandon the interest of Canadians by weakening F1RA.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in a faltering voice, spoke to a Liberal fund-raising dinner in Toronto. Consternation developed when he came to that part of the speech which dealt with solutions to our economic problems, and he found the pages missing. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government undertake a nation-wide contest in which all Canadians are invited to supply the last few pages of the minister's speech. Prizes for the runners-up will include a trip to Versailles, or the Liberal nomination in Leeds-Grenville, and the grand prize, the chance to be the next Liberal finance minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


TAXATION OF EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the November 12 budget included medical and dental benefits- although paid for by employers-in the income of employees for income tax purposes, on the pretext that the revenue gained would be used to lower income tax rates generally to the benefit of all Canadians. The Canadian Dental Association has submitted arguments to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) which show his statements are not valid and that this taxing of employees for benefits provided by their employers is basically unsound and wrong. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House deplores this insidious type of taxation which robs the needy of dental and medical care; and urges the minister to withdraw the entire November 12 budget which contains numerous inaccuracies and inequities.
When is the minister going to stop putting the bite on the poor and the needy?


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I, too, have a motion under Standing Order 43. Twice this week the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has risen in the the House to espouse the cause of Donald Marshall, who in 1971 was convicted of murder in Nova Scotia. Referring to the reports that another person has since admitted to the crime, the member asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), "If an injustice has occurred, can he take steps to have it remedied?" Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that a year ago this month the same hon. member represented the majority view of his party on the issue of capital punishment, when he said, "I am in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House invite the member for Halifax West and other members of his party who hold similar views, to reflect on their capital punishment position and to ask themselves where Mr. Marshall might be today if their hanging views had prevailed when Marshall was convicted in 1971.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise with regard to the limited rollback or so-called "Update" of the National Energy Program. People expected a torrent of relief but, instead, all they got was a trickle. Canada is losing $16 million a day because of foreign crude imports while the minister and the government fumble with the levers of socialism. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Prime Minister personally intervene in the energy picture and order a complete rollback of this destructive program which has caused the loss of jobs, investment and investor confidence in the oil and gas industry in Canada, and is adding unnecessarily to gas and oil prices in Canada, all of which is taking a heavy toll on Canadians through human suffering.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


June 17, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: 
FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, at a time when Canada is experiencing record unemployment, record high interest rates, and a record low dollar, it is refreshing to know that the federal government has not forgotten the golfer. Therefore, I move, seconded by my golfing seatmate, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House congratulates the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for hiring one of Canada's top professional golfers to tour Canada and educate Canadian golfers, professional, amateur and recreational, on the joys of playing golf using the metric system, and at the same time requests that the government hire the hon. member for Edmonton North to do the same for football players.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the childish, adversarial decision by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) to slow down the customs clearance of Japanese manufactured automobiles entering this country through west coast ports, which is causing inexcusable hardship and unemployment for countless port workers, transportation workers, and businesses dependent on this important trade, and whereas at present more than 3,000 cars are being held up at Fraser Wharves terminal at Richmond, B.C., saturating that facility and preventing a recently docked freighter, the Canadian Ace, from unloading a further 1,750 cars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House direct the Minister of State for International Trade to abandon immediately his peevish approach to trade relations with the Japanese and adopt a more creative and constructive approach aimed at negotiating a fair trade agreement with Japan which would protect Canadian jobs instead of endangering them.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. There will be 37 fewer fisheries officers than needed to protect the B.C. salmon industry, and the Treasury Board refuses additional funds. This reduction would place many salmon runs in jeopardy of illegal fishing, and expose more B.C. recreational and commercial fishermen to danger as a result of decreased search and rescue capability. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House recognizes the urgency and significance of at least maintaining previous patrol capabilities and demands that the Treasury Board approve the request of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for funds to carry out its mandate to protect salmon stocks and B.C. boaters.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program is a recognized disaster, the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is a bust, and we now understand that the much heralded pension reform program has collapsed and the country's senior citizens will continue to suffer under the government's punishing economic policy. This country no longer has any government. The frightened and confused cabinet and bureaucrats have lost control. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House move non-confidence in the government so that the Governor General can call an election and allow the Canadian people to remove this albatross from their necks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 17, 1982
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Today the Saskatchewan legislature meets under the newly elected Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The throne speech will include a 13.25 interest rate for mortgages of $50,000 for a three-year term. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the House instruct the minister responsible for housing to offer the same mortgage package to all people in Canada in order to stimulate the economy and provide decent housing for Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know the latest results of the government's drift in economic policy has resulted in the continued fall of the Canadian dollar to 77.50 cents and an increase of 39 basis points in the bank rate. This could lead to an increase of a full point in the prime interest rate and the mortgage interest rates that Canadians have to pay. That underlines dramatically the urgency of stopping the drift in Canadian economic policy. Has the Minister of Finance decided on a date for his economic statement, and will he tell the House of Commons what that date is?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not yet decided on a date. When I do, I will advise the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I can only assume that the date is written on the last two pages of the minister's speech notes and he has mislaid those too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPACT OF ECONOMIC POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as reported at page 18416 of Hansard, in answer to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge, the Minister of Finance said:
Madam Speaker, of course I find the comments of the hon. member really quite unjustified and almost nonsensical when he attributes the current economic situation in Canada to the policies of the Government of Canada.
That is what the Minister of Finance actually said. Is it the position of the Government of Canada that Canadian economic policy has no impact on the Canadian economy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are making progress, point by point.


REQUEST THAT MEASURES BE CONSIDERED IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Charles Joseph Clark: The
minister has admitted that his economic policy is contributing to 1,200 Canadians a day losing their jobs, is contributing to record collapses in Canadian businesses, and is contributing to the record decline in the value of the Canadian dollar. Now that he has indicated to his caucus colleagues that he will be proposing an action program in this mysterious forthcoming statement, will he give us a firm commitment that this so-called action program will include specific measures that can be considered in this House of Commons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we were making progress until the right hon. member asked this last question. All I can say to him is that he asked the same question yesterday, and the answer is precisely the same today.


REQUEST FOR POLICY CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has admitted the responsibility of his government for the serious economic situation facing Canada today. He knows that every day of drift drives the value of the Canadian dollar down, drives interest rates up, drives Canadians out of jobs, out of homes and out of businesses. When is he going to accept his responsibility and come before the House to give a commitment that at least the measures he is going to bring in and the statement he is going to make will include specific measures to help Canadians?
Why is he afraid to tell us whether there will be something specific in the proposals? Is he trying to set Canadians up for a statement that will contain nothing at all? If he is not, why does he not have the courage to tell the House that there will be specific changes in economic policy announced in that statement?

June 17, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 must comment on the preamble to the right hon. member's question when he relates the question he asked today to a question that had been answered in reply to another hon, member some days ago. I believe, of course, that the interpretation which the right hon. member put on the two questions is a gross misinterpretation. Of course it is true that the economic policies of the government have an impact on the Canadian economy. That ought to be obvious even to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The field of transportation and the field of trade for instance- all of these things have an impact on the economy. But when the hon. member a few days ago attributed all the circumstances existing in our economy to government policies, I said that was untrue. We are in a world recession. We are being affected by what, just two days ago, a member of the United States cabinet described as tragically high interest rates in the U.S. All of these are affecting the Canadian economy, and that is what I am trying to get the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to understand in order to try to expand his understanding of the situation which currently exists in this country.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. McGrath:: Madam Speaker, we can only hope for the sake of the country that the minister finds those two key missing pages from his speech yesterday.


HOUSING
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Finance prepared to exercise his responsibility and the responsibility of the government to shelter those who are least able to protect themselves from the government's disastrous monetary policy? For instance, the minister will know that housing starts in the U.S. as of this morning rose by almost 23 per cent over those figures reported in April, contrasted with a decline in Canadian housing starts of 51 per cent. In light of the fact that the minister's housing policy does not address itself to protecting those Canadians least able to protect themselves, is the minister prepared to exercise any responsibility or any leadership-


An hon. Member:: Question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I presume the hon. gentleman who interrupts me had his say in caucus yesterday and will let me finish.
Does the minister have any leadership to show in terms of protecting these innocent Canadians, over 40,000 of whom are facing mortgage foreclosures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that we, as a government, have already
Oral Questions
taken measures to increase housing construction. In the last budget we provided the sum of $350 million; we provided support for people with mortgages in a bill which members of the opposition took a very long time to pass in the House of Commons.


APPLICATIONS FOR MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I find it strange that the minister has not been adequately briefed on exactly what is happening to the governments housing policy. If he had been, he would know, for example, that under the mortgage renewal plan less than 1,300 Canadians have even bothered to apply, only 497 have bothered to apply for the one-time grant of $300, and only 800 have bothered to apply for the mortgage interest deferral plan. Even the minister responsible for housing is now saying that he cannot understand why this program has not been taken up by Canadians. He is quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying "Maybe people were confused and unaware." Madam Speaker, it is this government which is confused and totally unaware of what it is doing to the average Canadian.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: The
hon. gentleman's rhetoric is one of misconstruing the facts to this House. It is a $3,000 grant to individual families, not a $300 grant. If you start with those kinds of facts, Madam Speaker, and make those kinds of inaccurate statements which go out to the public, there is no wonder the public is not using the program.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The ground is shifting internationally toward strong and realistic disarmament initiatives. On Tuesday of this week the delegates to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament greeted with enthusiasm the Soviet Union's unilateral pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. At the same time people around the world are demanding a nuclear freeze which would be followed by weapons reduction. Tomorrow the Prime Minister will address this U.N. special session. Since his strategy of suffocation has yet to be accepted by the super powers, will he commit his government tomorrow to new initiatives such as a no-first-use policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing attention to the fact that I will be stating government policy at the United Nations tomorrow, and I will be dealing with the question of no-first-use. I hope the hon. member tunes in.

June 17, 1982
Oral Questions


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS-FIRST-USE OPTION
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, can the Prime Minister let the people of Canada know what the policy might be? In response to the Soviet Union's promise this week, the Secretary General of NATO, Joseph Luns, and the commander of NATO forces in Europe, General Rogers, insisted yesterday that NATO must retain the option to be the first to use nuclear weapons. As a member of NATO, does Canada subscribe to that policy? Does the Prime Minister believe that retaining the first-use option is the best way to maintain world peace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we recognize that the question is argumentative. I will give the point of view of the Canadian government tomorrow. I hope I will persuade the hon. member that that point of view is the right one, but he cannot say until he has looked at the arguments.


QUERY RESPECTING FREEZE ON DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I will not continue to ask what he is going to do tomorrow, because clearly he is not going to tell the Canadian people and the House of Commons until tomorrow. What I would like to do instead is to go back to a question and answer of last Monday, which the Prime Minister will recall. Looking at the past in 1978, as reported in Hansard for June 14, 1982, the Prime Minister said:
I did advocate the policy of suffocation, which is a freeze, but that policy was always advocated in a bilateral context-
And the Prime Minister told us that that policy was not accepted by either of the two major powers.
In his speech in Madrid, the Prime Minister said that he would be advocating a freeze on the development of new nuclear weapons. Was he saying that he would lend his support and the support of Canada to the freeze movement now taking place, which is asking for a bilateral, verifiable freeze on the development of new nuclear weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will have to answer that question in at least the same length as it was asked. The 1978 position was the advocation of a suffocation on new weapons, which it is perfectly justifiable to call a freeze on new weapons. That proposal, as the previous questioner pointed out, was not accepted by either of the super powers. On the contrary, since that speech was made, the Soviet Union has not suffocated new arms, it has deployed 300 SS-20s, each with a capacity of three warheads. That is what happened since I made my futile plea for a freeze. That has changed the strategic balance. The policy that NATO is following now is the re-establishment of the balance, and the freeze should continue on all other weapons.
As to the SS-20s, the NATO decision is a two-track one. It is on the one hand to be prepared to deploy Cruise and Pershing II missiles, which are a year and a half down the road at the soonest, but to hope that the threat or the possibility of deploying those missiles to counter the SS-20s will be enough to convince the Soviet Union to go either for the zero option proposed by the United States-no intermediate-range nuclear arms-or, alternatively, to negotiate a very, very reduced level of such arms. That is the position of the Canadian government.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the last couple of days backbenchers of his party have caused a great deal of concern across the country among those who are hardest hit and hardest hurt by the government's economic policy. Those Liberal backbench members have advocated removal of indexing for those in social programs, in other words, cutting off indexing for people who receive old age pensions, guaranteed income supplements, family allowances, veterans pensions, and disability pensions. If these people, who are the most vulnerable in our society, are going to have their indexing cut off, has the Minister of Finance given in to the pleas of his backbench members?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not given in to such pleas because I have not heard such pleas.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister may deny that those pleas were made, but his backbench members, even coming out of caucus, reported that those were the suggestions made to the Minister of Finance.


PRODUCTION OF GREEN PAPER ON PENSION REFORM
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister as well, how long will he place the credibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in jeopardy. The Minister of National Health and Welfare gave a firm commitment last August that she would bring in pension reform proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She gave a commitment again in committee in January and February to bring in pension reform proposals. She said that they would be brought in before the end of the session.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member must ask a question. Her preamble has lasted for over a minute.
June 17, 1982


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why has the Minister of Finance pressured cabinet and caused the delay of the introduction of the green paper on pension reform until next autumn or later, a pension reform which would be of great help to a large number of women?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's facts are as far off the mark as the facts in the initial question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Then table the paper.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The credibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in jeopardy. Her credibility is outstanding, and it will be further improved when the pension reform paper is produced.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the distinguished Right Hon. J. Doug Anthony, the Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Madam Speaker:: I also have the honour to call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of a delegation of Norwegian parliamentarians, the Committee on Consumer and Administrative Affairs of the Norwegian Parliament, and its chairman, Marit Lovvig.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I may have his attention. Last week a former chairman of the International Joint Commission blamed the Prime Minister for the failure of Canada's negotiations with the United States to achieve a binding bilateral accord on the urgent problem of acid rain. Robert J. Sugarman stated in Calgary:
There has never been a statement in the U.S. by the highest official in your government to the American people that has reflected the seriousness with which Canadians take the problem.
Oral Questions
Given the fact that the Canadian Minister of the Environment this week said that Canada may have to scrap its negotiations with the Americans toward a bilateral accord on acid rain, will the Prime Minister finally take a leading role in Canada's efforts to impress upon Americans the urgency of the problem and the need for strong action on it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred me to a speech of which I have no knowledge. I am happy to take notice of it on behalf of the Minister of the Environment who, I am sure, knows about the speech. When the hon. member suggested that Canada take a role, I can assure him that perhaps everyone except the hon. member knows the Canadian Minister of the Environment has been taking a very strong position in this matter, and that I personally raised the matter at least twice with the President of the United States.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The credentials of the Minister of the Environment in this matter are not suspect; the Prime Minister's are.


ECONOMIC SUMMIT AND NATO MEETINGS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, no doubt the Prime Minister had ample opportunity to discuss urgent Canada-United States issues informally with President Reagan during the Versailles Summit and the NATO Summit in Bonn a few days ago. Did the Prime Minister use either of those occasions to press Canada's case on acid rain with the Americans, and with the President of the United States in particular? If so, what was their response? If not, why did he not do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member judges that my credentials are suspect because I did not raise every outstanding bilateral matter which exists between the United States and Canada at international meetings dealing with none of these bilateral matters, then that is his judgment and I do not share it.


THE JUDICIARY
[Stage Direction]
BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDGE'S VIEW OF 1*70 FLQ CRISIS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to an article written by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger of the Supreme Court of British Columbia that appeared in the June/Juiy 1982 edition of "Canadian Forum", in which he said with respect to the October FLQ crisis in 1970:
-my view is that ordinary police powers of detection and arrest were sufficient to deal with the FLQ, with the kidnappers of Mr. Cross, and the murderers of Mr. Laporte ... By the enactment of the War Measures Act the federal government converted the kidnapping into an insurrection.

June 17, 1982
Oral Questions
1 wonder whether the Prime Minister agrees with the conclusion of Mr. Justice Berger with respect to his handling of the FLQ crisis.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be interested in knowing whether the hon. member's question is addressed more to me or to Justice Berger. If he is questioning the conduct of Justice Berger in entering into this kind of political debate, then he should address the question to the magistrature itself, not to me.


JUDGE'S VIEW ON POSITION OF QUEBEC UNDER CONSTITUTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in the same article Mr. Justice Berger supported the concept and suggested that there should be a veto for the Province of Quebec under the Constitution of Canada. I wonder whether or not the Prime Minister shares the point of view of Mr. Justice Berger and if he agrees with Mr. Justice Berger speaking out with respect to these political issues.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think anything in the rules calls for me to comment upon every statement made across the country, or anywhere, for that matter, by private citizens. If the hon. member wants to ask a series of questions about the War Measures Act-I have answered them in the House-and of course if Mr. Justice Berger wants to debate them he can do so in the proper forum.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister; it is supplemental to the previous question asked on acid rain. As the Prime Minister may know, as long ago as last year there were requests made of the government by members of the acid rain subcommittee representative of all parties that the committee be allowed to continue. Part of the reason for those requests was the anticipation that traditional forms of diplomacy would not be sufficient to obtain an acid rain agreement with the Americans.
In view of the comments of the Minister of the Environment yesterday that these talks are on the verge of falling apart, if they have not already done so, would the Prime Minister consider giving a commitment to us and to the members of his own caucus that the acid rain subcommittee will be reactivated so that Members of Parliament in all parties could stand together on this issue and can move with some authority in the United States to pick up the pieces and get the negotiations going again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The cooperative movement is an effective component of every part of the Canadian economy. It takes in agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing and finance, to mention a few. The co-operative movement is struggling to meet the real needs of people in the midst of a faltering and hostile environment, and is one of the optimistic forces in the economy today. Will his government respond to a long-standing request by the co-operative movement to establish a department of co-operatives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is, indeed, a request that has been-


Mr. Broadbent:: Give Serge something.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the Leader of the NDP wants to ask a supplementary. I will wait for it.


POSITION OF CAISSES POPULAIRES AND CREDIT UNIONS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, the need for a department of co-operatives is very obvious. When we ask about machinery, we have to go to agriculture. When we ask about housing, we have to go to housing. My supplementary question is for either the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Supply and Services. The caisses populaires and the credit unions are put to particular disadvantage in their dealings with the government. This disadvantage is caused by archaic regulations and legislation. Last April the minister promised in a letter to me that action would be taken to alleviate this disadvantage. Will the minister give me an indication now of when that action will be taken?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for that question. I want to tell him that not only are we acting on the representations that the hon. member made relating to the cheque issue and the ability to deal with certified cheques issued on caisses populaires but I would also call to the attention of the hon. member that tomorrow we will be passing, through all stages, the Co-Enerco bill which indeed is one of the most brilliant initiatives that has been advanced by this government relating to the co-op movement, and for which the hon. gentleman, as well as all hon. members of the House, should be grateful.
June 17, 1982


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I have given him notice of it. As the minister knows, a housing situation has been created by the failure of his officials to act in a timely fashion in the disposal of ten housing units at Renous, New Brunswick, and by their subsequently interfering at the eleventh hour with the tender process. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into this situation, and when can we expect a resolution of this serious and unfair problem?


An hon. Member:: Why do you not raise it in caucus?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Shut your mouth and ask your own questions.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me notice of his question. I would point out that the action taken by myself, answerable for the department, has received the support of the Indian chief of the band in question in that particular area, by telegram the other day, confirming the decision taken. However, I do realize there is a difficulty and, as I have told the hon. member, 1 will be meeting with him to try to iron out any difficulties within the next few days.


MINES AND MINING
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister may recall that he interrupted his budget speech to announce a $350 million smelter to be erected in New Brunswick, which brought great hopes to a large number of unemployed people in that province. The proponents of the smelter have recently announced an indefinite postponement of construction. Has the minister had any consultation with the Noranda group or the New Brunswick government with a view to bringing this vital project on line as soon as possible? Does he have any favourable indications which he can give the House?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice, because I have no exact information on this project at the present time. I shall be able to report on the matter to the hon. member next week.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE EARLY ACTION
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, would the minister of Finance and his colleagues treat this matter with high priority and pursue it vigorously, since this smelter will create 1,000 construction jobs and about 400 permanent jobs in a part of New Brunswick which has 40 per cent unemployment largely because of the government's policies and acts of omission in this regard?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, on the basis of information I have received in the past, I feel the project is still progressing, and I would not want the hon. member to give the House the impression-and I know that is not his intention- that the project has been abandoned. The project is still progressing, 1 shall enquire about the implementation date next week-I can assure the hon. member that we are aware of the importance of this project for New Brunswick and Canada-and I shall then be able to be more specific about the dates involved.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to his forthcoming financial statement. As the minister will know, reference has been made today to the impact of the problems of housing and jobs, family violence, and the problems of the elderly and the disabled. With respect to their particular needs during these difficult economic times in Canada, will there be reference in his statement to the voluntary sector which offers the most cost efficient way of providing services which are needed more every day by those people? This was omitted in the November budget. Can we expect that there will be a reference and incentives in the statement for the voluntary sector?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern about the voluntary sector. I share his views about the necessity of maintaining very active voluntary participation in our society. If he has any suggestions or views on that subject on how the voluntary sector might be advanced, I would be prepared to receive them and give them consideration.


MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIONS
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On March 12,1 wrote to the Secretary of State with an outline

June 17, 1982
Oral Questions
of program suggestions on how the voluntary sector might be supported. I have not had any response to that. In speaking with the Under-Secretary of State when dealing with estimates we are assured that proposals were forthcoming. Has the Minister of Finance not received these representations from the Secretary of State on behalf of the voluntary sector?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am sure that our officials have been discussing this question. I have not, however, had these representations, to my recollection. They are probably being given consideration by the minister himself.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It also deals with the question of world disarmament, but from a different approach. During my recent attendance at the United Nations as a member of the Parliamentarians for World Order, I was dismayed to see the lack of understanding and the distrust between representatives, at the ambassadorial level, of the Soviet Union and the United States on the subject of world disarmament at an open forum.
Would the Prime Minister, in an effort to reduce international tension and to promote mutual understanding between the two super powers on disarmament, be willing to use his good offices to bring together in the near future some members of the Senate of the United States and of the Politburo of the U.S.S.R., the politicians with power to create change, in order that they may meet and discuss mutual problems on an individual basis, get to know each other, and develop the trust that is needed if an agreement to reduce nuclear arms is to be reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the suggestion of the hon. member is an interesting one. It is certain that politicians at all levels should be interested in this question, as is the hon. member. I do not think it is a bad idea at all if members of the U.S. Senate and members of the Soviet Politburo could meet together on that kind of exchange.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES-NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the Hibernia oilfield off Newfoundland.
Will the minister agree that Premier Peckford, who is now in Ottawa, appears to have made some concessions in this dispute such as, for example, shared ownership? Premier Peckford seems to be prepared to return to negotiations before the Supreme Court of Canada case is completed. Does the minister agree with what I just said? Also, can we now expect the Government of Canada to do likewise?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I obviously cannot speak for Mr. Peckford or speculate on what he has in mind. I can tell the hon. member that we never left the negotiating table. Mr. Peckford refused to meet with us on February 16, as had been requested, and decided to go to court instead. He has refused negotiations ever since.
I had a meeting with Mr. Marshall a few weeks ago. I asked him whether he would come to the negotiating table, but was turned down. He agreed to meet with me, only on the basis that it would not be a negotiating session but simply a discussion. Therefore, the federal government has been at the negotiating table all along. We never left it.
If Mr. Peckford or his representatives want to come back to the negotiating table, they will find us there. We have been waiting for them. We have never said that we refuse to negotiate while the matter is before the courts. We are quite ready to negotiate. In fact, we indicated quite clearly, as we did with Nova Scotia, that we are ready to arrive at an agreement that will withstand any court decision, one that cannot be changed by whatever court decision might be rendered eventually.
The record is straight. It speaks for itself. We are quite ready to negotiate. We have always been ready to negotiate. The ones who left the negotiating table are the representatives of the Government of Newfoundland.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the answer is inadequate in that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Malone:: Don't make him do that again.


ISSUE OF SHARED OWNERSHIP
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me direct a supplementary question to the minister. Premier Peckford is now talking about shared ownership. That seems to be something new and reasonable. The minister talks about federal ownership. Is the minister aware that we have an economic crisis in this country and we need co-operation, not confrontation? Is the minister prepared to consider shared ownership on the east coast and is he prepared, for example, to sit down with Premier Bennett on the west coast with regard to the dispute there, and Premier Peckford on the east coast, before the summer is out? This would show the Canadian people that co-operation is possible in this country and that we can reach an agreement. Why not do this on the basis of shared ownership?
June 17, 1982


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. member that the Government of British Columbia has appointed an outstanding representative that my officials have already met with that representative, and discussions have begun on that very subject. These discussions will continue at a rate that is satisfactory to both governments.
As far as the other point raised by the hon. member is concerned, we have indicated that we are ready to talk about revenue-sharing and joint management. Even leaving aside the question of management, we have said that the question of management is one that can be decided by the courts one way or the other at whatever time is satisfactory. As far as we are concerned, we have not set any pre-conditions before starting or continuing negotiations. We are as ready to talk now as we were all along, as we proved with the Government of Alberta, the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Nova Scotia. These governments are representated by Social Crediters, New Democrats, and Conservatives. If the hon. member is suggesting that this government is not ready to negotiate, I suggest that he check to see whether it is the Government of Newfoundland that has not been ready to negotiate.


CONSTRUCTION OF GRAIN TERMINAL AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The proposed Prince Rupert grain terminal continues to waver under a cloud of uncertainty. Can the minister advise what action he or his department have taken in recent days to ensure that this project goes ahead?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the grain consortium have asked us, as I have said before, for essentially two things. The first was to raise the level of government support that exists so as to make the contribution of the federal government and of the Government of Alberta, which is sharing with us on a 50-50 basis, higher. This has been agreed to and the parties are quite satisfied with that. The other item mentioned was the possibility that CN might build the tracking facilities in port. CN is convinced that this might be a good idea on a cost recovery basis; added to each tonne of grain going through Prince Rupert in the future. They are now looking at this and seem to be favourably disposed.


RAILWAYS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yester-
Oral Questions
day the minister received the final copy of the Gilson report. Can he now inform the House and the grain producers of western Canada whether that report will be tabled while the House is in session, or will he take the other way out, as he did with VIA Rail, and table the report after the House is adjourned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is unnecessarily antagonistic. My reputation for being friendly is well known. I do have the report. It is now being translated and will be printed. If all goes well it should be ready by June 29. Again, everything going well, I will be in a position to table it that day.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Furniture workers across Canada are facing mass lay-offs. In the town of Hanover, Ontario, the unemployment rate has reached 30 per cent in consequence of that. Does the minister have anything in mind that will be forthcoming in his economic statement that might provide some hope for the future of these people, the workers, their families, and those in other towns like this across Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I heard every word of the hon. member's question. If he is asking me whether I have anything in mind to put in the economic statement that will affect these workers, obviously I will be able to satisfy the hon. member's curiosity when the statement is made. I am afraid I have no suggestion for him but to be patient for a little while longer.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the furniture market is at least partially dependent on housing starts and on the sale of new homes. He will know from previous questions today that new housing starts are at about 50 per cent of what are reasonable levels. The unemployment rate in the home construction industry is 25 per cent. Only one in six Canadians who is renting can look forward to owning a new home. Does the minister have in mind anything that might accommodate the housing industry by way of lowering interest rates and mortgages so that new housing starts will again occur and there will be some return to the economy, that industry, and the furniture industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks me whether consideration is being given to the problems of various sectors of the economy, including the furniture indus-

June 17, 1982
Royal Assent
try, the housing industry and the construction industry. I wish to tell him that of course all these matters are being considered intensively by myself at the present time.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is responsible for the Post Office. In view of the statement earlier this year by the president of the Canada Post Corporation with regard to providing improved postal service, including new letter carrier walks across the country, can the minister advise when these additional letter carrier walks will be provided to rapidly-growing communities such as Elliot Lake, Ontario, thus improving the present unsatisfactory service to new subdivisions in that town?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I will bring to the attention of the president the representation made by the hon. member, and report to him as soon as possible.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C- 111, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Madam Speaker, you said you would look at the "blues" to find out what the point of order is really all about. I certainly did not reflect negatively on the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I quoted from his speech and complimented the hon. member on his efforts to espouse the cause of Mr. Marshall in Nova Scotia.', 'June 17, 1982\nIntroduction of Bills']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
June 17, 1982
Madam:
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. Z. Estey, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 31st day of March, 17th day of June, 1982, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader what the business will be for tomorrow and for next week. Presumably he can give us the business up to and including Wednesday.


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker. In so far as the business for tomorrow is concerned we have made an agreement to deal with all stages of the following four bills, with a maximum of one speaker per party.
First, Bill C-116, to establish the Cooperative Energy Corporation and the Cooperative Energy Development Corporation; second, Bill C-38, to provide for garnishment or attachments; third, Bill C-120, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act; and finally, Bill C-118, to provide for the retention of certain records. On each of those bills there will be a maximum of one speaker per party for all stages of the bills tomorrow.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, next Monday will be the last allotted day for this supply period-in other words, Monday will be an opposition day. Next Tuesday and Wednesday we shall be considering the following bills, in order: the bill on occupational training, if the committee report is ready and that seems to be the case; the bill on export development, if it has been reported by the committee; and finally, the bill on national harbours. We are going to try to finish the second reading stage, and subsequently, we shall consider the bill to provide for payments to owners of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Now it seems it may be possible to refer this bill very quickly to committee, by allowing only one speaker per party, at least as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned. Thursday, as we all know, is a holiday and a very special day for French Canadians, so that Parliament will not sit on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the government House leader for that. I want to make it clear to him, in view of the exchange which took place yesterday between the member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), that we are prepared to deal with Bill C-109, the bill with respect to urea formaldehyde foam
June 17, 1982

insulation assistance, with one speaker per party, and get it into committee as soon as possible.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that that is the understanding of the agreement, with one addition. I believe it is acceptable to the government, and also to the official opposition, that in Bill C-120, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, a minor amendment removing retroactivity would be acceptable to all sides.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader with respect to the bill mentioned by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, and that is agreeable.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, this is not strictly on this point of order, but 1 would like to indicate to you, in keeping with our previous practices on the matter of the estimates, that given that the supply period will be over on Monday, and given the request by previous speakers when estimates are challenged, the Chair should give an opportunity for consideration of a day or two before the end of the supply period. I have talked to the President of the Treasury Board and indicated that it would be our desire to raise a point of order tomorrow in respect to some of the votes in the estimates which will come up for a vote on Monday evening.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, on House business, as the President of the Privy Council will know, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has completed its consideration of Bill C-43 respecting freedom of information. We on this side of the House are agreeable to this bill being debated, in fact today. I am wondering if the President of the Privy Council could indicate to the House when he intends to bring this important legislation forward. Will he give the House an assurance that this legislation will in fact be brought forward before the House rises for the summer?


Yvon Pinard: I suggest that the hon. member talk to his House leader, who will have all the answers. At the same time, he could inquire about the bill respecting Canada Day. I have been expecting an answer.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council about the changes affecting the credit unions and caisses populaires in the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act, which was tabled about March 18. When is this legislation going to come before the House? It is Bill C-96.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will take the representation made by the hon. member into serious consideration and discuss the matter with his House leader.


Mr. Parker:: Madam Speaker, in December, Bill C-60 was passed both here in this House and in the Senate. My constituents are patiently waiting for that bill. Their property has been trespassed and the provisions in this bill would give them the opportunity to be heard. Can the President of the Privy
Standing Orders and Procedure Council say when this bill will be proclaimed so that they will have the use of this bill?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked this question last week and I told him I would report to him. I am doing so now. I am told that this bill will be proclaimed any time between now and the end of the month.


POINT OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is in the House, but he is not in his seat. During my second question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) who is responsible for housing, I inadvertently used the figure "$300" for "$3,000" for first-time grants. I want to correct the record. However, Madam Speaker, there was nothing inadvertent about the sheepish way the minister used that to avoid answering my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, to the many households, approximately 1,500, who would use that money, there is a great difference between $300 and $3,000.


Charles Joseph Clark: That still does not excuse your lack of courage in answering questions.

[ Translation]


STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
Yvon Pinard: On a
point of order, Madam Speaker. If there are no further questions about the business of the House, I would like to raise a related matter. I have consulted with representatives of various parties on the subject of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform. Today, it is with great pleasure that I can inform the House that we have agreed on the membership of this committee and consequently, I would like to present the following motion, with the unanimous consent of the House:
That the members of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure be the following: Messrs. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), Blaikie, Collenette, Cousineau, Cullen, Daudlin, Deans, Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi), Epp, Herbert, Huntington, Lachance, Lefebvre, Lewis, Mayer, McGrath, Reid (Kenora-Rainy River), Simmons, Smith and Thacker.
Madam Speaker, these are the hon. members who would sit on the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform, and this is a formal motion.

June 17, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Rose


Madam Speaker:: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 seek to put a question for clarification. With the greatest respect, I seek Madam Speaker's ruling about the role of hon. members in the matter of "protected persons" as described in Bcauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 321.
The reason I seek this clarification is that yesterday the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was named by Your Honour for using unparliamentary language and was removed from the House following his attempt to set the record straight on a matter of consequence, at least to Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. Yet on Tuesday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) twice described the conduct of Mr. Justice Berger as reprehensible. Madam Speaker, Citation 428 of Erskine May cites the following passage; it is in the footnote on page 428:
Mr. Speaker ruled that... reflections on a judge's character or motives cannot be made except on a motion, nor can any charge of a personal nature be made except on a motion.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, the minister's remarks were not by way of motion but in answer to an hon. member's question. Describing a judge's conduct as reprehensible is bound to be construed as a reflection on the judge's character and, according to the precedents I have cited, perhaps the judge deserved the protection of the Chair-or other hon. members-under Beauchesne Citation 321 or May at page 428.
1 would be grateful if Your Honour would be so kind as to consider the points I have raised and later, perhaps, inform the House as to the duties of both hon. members and the Chair in cases such as this in order to end the confusion or any possible inference of double standards.


Madam Speaker:: At all times during the course of those exchanges I was conscious that perhaps some of the things which were being said in the House might reflect on the conduct of judges. I was extremely cautious about that. It seemed to me that when the minister referred to Justice Berger in the way the hon. member has just described, he was quoting from a report.


An hon. Member:: No.


Madam Speaker:: At any rate, if the hon. member felt there was a point of order concerning that particular intervention it should have been dealt with at that time. Points of order have to be dealt with when they arise. They cannot be dealt with two or three days later.
It is very clear that hon. members must not reflect, except through a formal motion, on the conduct of the judiciary. That is very clear, and I can reaffirm that so that hon. members will not be confused. However, although at times that exchange came very close, it did not seem in my judgment that it reflected on the conduct of judges.


MR. DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-WITHDRAWAL OF REMARKS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, during the question period today and at the end of a question I put to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) shouted something across the floor at me. I responded impulsively and in language which was not very dignified. Whether I feel justified or not, I believe we should use dignified language in this chamber. I ask to have that comment withdrawn because I do not believe it is in keeping with the spirit of Parliament. Whether I feel that way or not, I should not tell the hon. member to do something he should know enough to do by himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I was going to congratulate the hon. member, but I guess I will not!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, you will recall that I gave you notice of a question of privilege which relates to remarks made in this chamber by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on June 16 and previously on June 15. The minister is not now in the chamber, so I will reserve my question of privilege, if I may, for another day.
The question of privilege relates to the Donald Marshall case and the manner and circumstances under which it was referred to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may present his question of privilege even though the minister is not present in the House. I can entertain the question of privilege. Since it is a question of privilege, it supposedly is extremely urgent, so I urge the hon. member to present his question of privilege.


Howard Edward Crosby: Very well, then.
June 17, 1982


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is a longstanding practice in this place that, as a matter of courtesy, when an hon. member intends to raise a question of privilege reflecting upon the conduct of another hon. member, the hon. member against whom allegations are about to be made should be in his place in the House.
I strongly suggest it would be most inappropriate and certainly not in keeping with the long-standing practices of this place to raise a question of privilege reflecting on the conduct of a member who is not here to hear the allegations. I suggest there is every right and every obligation to set the question over until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is in his place.


Madam Speaker:: In my time I have heard questions of privilege in the absence of hon. members involved in those questions of privilege. I am very careful not to give rulings in the House unless the hon. members involved are in the House.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will know that question of privilege is a matter that is very, very urgent and that I am justified in telling the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that since it is an urgent matter, he probably would want to raise it immediately. 1 am suggesting that he probably would want to raise it immediately, and I am ready to hear him today. If he wants to defer, that is fine with me, I will wait; but it seems to me somewhat contradictory that an urgent question of privilege can be deferred one day or even a couple of hours. However, if the hon. member wants to defer, 1 will be patient with him.


Erik Nielsen: It is not that it is not a question of urgency, with the greatest of respect. The practice is that a question of privilege, particularly one of this nature which deals with personalities, should be raised at the earliest opportunity. The earliest fitting and proper opportunity is when the minister is in the House, since the question deals with reflections on his personal conduct as a minister.
1 would advise my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), to defer the question until such time as the minister is in the House.


Madam Speaker:: That is fine, but 1 do not accept the idea that a question of privilege may not be discussed when the person referred to in the question of privilege is not in the House. The one whose privilege is affected, of course, is the first one who is concerned, and in his view it is supposed to be so urgent that we stop all business of the House because we must consider that question of privilege. That is the basic principle behind questions of privilege.
Does the hon. member want to defer? If he wants to defer, that is fine; I will wait.
Point of Order-Mr. Crosby


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, let me make it clear to you and all members of this House that my purpose in deferring the question of privilege was respect for a colleague in this chamber and not for any reasons of my own. I would be happy to go ahead with the question of privilege.
I want also to make a second point. In addressing this question of privilege, I intend to say things about the Minister of Justice which I want him to hear and to which I want him to respond. He can deny or admit as he sees fit. I certainly am prepared to go ahead, but I think I ought to-and I will-ask permission to defer, as I said, out of respect for members of this chamber.


POINT OF ORDER
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, with respect to the rules and the Standing Orders of the House, I would like to draw to your attention Standing Order 35 and the remarks made by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) during proceedings under Standing Order 43 today when he reflected on a vote taken in this House in which I participated. I participated in that vote and in that debate. I draw Your Honour's attention to that.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member now raising another question?


Howard Edward Crosby: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: He had the floor for a question of privilege, which is quite legitimate, but if he wants to speak about another matter, he would have to rise on a point of order.


Howard Edward Crosby: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask Your Honour to reflect on the remarks made by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody during proceedings today under Standing Order 43. I believe he may have reflected on a vote in this House and particularly my participation in that debate and in that vote.


Madam Speaker:: I will have to look at the text. I did not get that impression, but I will look at the "blues".


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, you said you would look at the "blues" to find out what the point of order is really all about. I certainly did not reflect negatively on the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I quoted from his speech and complimented the hon. member on his efforts to espouse the cause of Mr. Marshall in Nova Scotia.

June 17, 1982
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, as minister responsible for the co-ordination of the federal government's response to the "Obstacles" report presented to the House by the special parliamentary committee on the disabled and the handicapped, I am pleased to table today under Standing Order 41(2) the federal government's continuing response to the "Obstacles" report. This report describes actions the government has taken subsequent to the initial response which I tabled in the House on December 17,1981.


PETITION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many constituents in the Hamilton-Wentworth area who view with alarm activities such as group sex in their communities. This petition is especially timely since the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at this moment is discussing amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to sexual offences. Through this petition the citizens of the township of Flamborough and elsewhere in the Hamilton area call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain those provisions in the Criminal Code which prohibit any form of group sex.


PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT
Gordon Edward Taylor: for leave to introduce Bill C-657, to amend the Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act (spouses).
He said: Madam Speaker, section 7(3.2) of this act discriminates against a married couple when both are productive. A productive man and a productive woman may live common law and both will receive prairie grain advance payments; but if the same two are legally married, then the advance payment is cut in half. This bill would remove this discrimination. If our legislation is to favour anyone, it should be those who are legally married and not those who are living common law.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,695, 4,030, 4,159, 4,160, 4,161 and 4,228.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does Mr. Peter John Nicholson hold a position in the public service and, if so, what is his position and remuneration?
2.	What are the qualifications (a) claimed by Mr. Nicholson (b) stated for the office?
3.	Was the position advertised or otherwise offered to other persons?
4.	(a) Was Mr. Nicholson in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in 1978 or thereabouts and, if so, what was his salary (b) did he resign from the office to be a candidate in the provincial general election in Nova Scotia and, if so, was he given any retirement or other payment from the government?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	Mr. Nicholson does not hold a position in the public service. He was awarded a contract with the task force on Atlantic fisheries to act as an advisor to the chairman for a period of eight months at a rate of $6,000 per month.
2.	Extensive knowledge in the field of Atlantic fisheries. Experience acquired from one of the four largest fish companies in the Atlantic. Experience in industry-government relations.
3.	No. A judgment was made that Mr. Nicholson's qualifications in both the fishing industry and government meant that he would be an excellent addition to the task force staff.
4.	(a) Yes, at a salary range between $34,436 and $37,909. (b) Mr. Nicholson took a leave of absence without pay from August 17 to September 20, 1978. He resigned from the public service on September 19, 1978 to become the elected representative for Victoria County in the Nova Scotia Legislature. In relation to pension entitlement accumulated during his employment in the public service, Mr. Nicholson chose a deferred annuity as provided for in Section 12(c)ii(a) of the Public Service Superannuation Act. He has not received any retirement or other payment from the government.


Mr. Herbert: Are there any conditions under which the post office can refuse to surrender mail to a properly identified person, when the mail bears the full residential address of the individual requesting the mail?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am informed by the Canada Post Corporation as follows:
June 17, 1982

Yes, under the following conditions: prohibitory order issued by the minister; postage due unpaid; letters in customs where the addressee refuses to open the letter when requested to do so. Items refused by the addressee because of customs charges, or items prohibited entry into Canada by law as administered by customs and excise of Revenue Canada; non-mailable matter under the prohibited mail regulations. This would contain items that are prohibited or dangerous that have found their way into the mail stream.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many lock boxes are presently in service in post offices and how many are used by individuals that (a) are not entitled to residential delivery service (b) have no residential address or do not wish to disclose a residential address (c) are entitled to delivery service but choose to have a lock box?
2.	How many lock boxes are used by companies and associations?


Gary Francis McCauley: I am informed by the Canada Post Corporation as follows:
1.	Canada Post maintains approximately 1,507,000 post office boxes, of which about 1,360,000 are rented, (a) approximately 834,000 boxes; (b) the corporation has no record of any customers in this category; (c) approximately 526,000 boxes.
2.	The corporation does not compile information regarding the number of companies and associations that use post office boxes.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,141 of the first session of the 30th Parliament, what percentage of the 1982-83 total budget of the Canada Post Corporation is for personnel costs and benefits, including ail labour and wage related items?
2.	Is it anticipated that there will be any appreciable change in this percentage in future years?


Gary Francis McCauley: Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows:
1.	It is 71.8 per cent.
2.	The corporation cannot at this time predict the outcome of future collective bargaining; therefore this question cannot be more fully answered.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to question No. 2,136 and question No. 2,703 of the first session of the 30th Parliament, what is the present percentage of postal volume that comes from individuals and what is the percentage of postal volume from individuals to individuals?


Gary Francis McCauley: I am informed by the Canada Post Corporation as follows: The most recent data
Order Paper Questions
indicates that 20 per cent of postal volume comes from individuals. Of that, 41.1 per cent is sent from individuals to individuals.


Mr. Mazankowski: Since 1969 (a) in which cities and for which years has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had offices (b) how many projects did each office fund (c) what amount did each office commit?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
(a)	DREE has 33 offices across the country. A list of locations and dates of opening is listed below.
(b)	and (c) Projects are not identifiable on an office by office basis. The department's annual reports provide this information by year, province and program.
List of DREE Offices across Canada
Location of DREE Offices	Date of Opening
National Office-Ottawa	April	1969
(moved to Hull, Quebec July, 1978-moved back to Ottawa January,
1982)
Quebec
Montreal	June	1970Quebec	March	1969Rimouski	April	1969Val d'Or	April	1978Alma	January	1978Trois-Rivieres	March	1982Sherbrooke	November	1980Drummondville	April	1982Ontario	Toronto	December	1969Thunder Bay	March	1974Sudbury	April	1978Atlantic	Moncton	January	1974St. John's	April	1970Goose Bay	December	1975Charlottetown	July	1969Summerside	July	1981Fredericton	April	1970Bathurst	March	1973Halifax	November	1969(then moved to Darthouth in February, 1980) Halifax (Ocean Industries)	April	1982Sydney	October	1981West	Saskatoon	January	1974Prince Albert	February	1981Regina	January	1975La Ronge	November	1978(closed October, 1980) Winnipeg	April	1973Thompson	August	1975Edmonton	May	1970Victoria	December	1969Prince George	December	1977PFRA Headquarters (Regina)	April	1969PFRA Manitoba Affairs (Winnipeg)	May	1979PFRA Alberta Affairs (Calgary)	April	1980
June 17, 1982
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 4,318?

[DOT]"UNDERSTANDING CANADA"


Mr. Dinsdale: Did the government pay United States academics to write the book "Understanding Canada" and, if so, what amount?


David P. Smith: No, although the Department of External Affairs, in response to a need identified by U.S.A. academics, did contract with U.S.A. academics to prepare a manuscript which could serve as the basis of a multi-disciplinary text book about Canada conceived and written for United States undergraduates. The copyright of that manuscript was subsequently sold to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS) for $1 in November, 1980. The book has recently been published in accordance with arrangements made between New York University Press and ACSUS under the title "Understanding Canada: A multidisciplinary Introduction to Canadian Studies".
The amounts of the contracts were as follows:
(a)	In 1976 $17,000 (U.S.A.) with Professor Roger Swanson, then Professor of Canadian Studies at John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, to prepare an initial manuscript. The amount was designed to cover editorial expenses, author's fees, referee's costs, etc. This amount was increased by $1,000 (U.S.A.) in 1978.
(b)	In 1979 $1,500 (Canadian) with Professor Peter Kresl, Director of the Canadian Studies program at Bucknell University, to write a chapter entitled "Canada: An Economic Perspective".
(c)	By 1980 Professor Swanson had left the academic world and there was a contract for $11,000 (U.S.A.) with Professor William Metcalfe of the University of Vermont to: edit the manuscript; bring the material up-to-date; and introduce and delete such material as required to maintain a consistent style.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe question No. 3,543, which I put on the Order Paper on December 14, has been answered. It is a very simple question about the Canadian Media Corporation. I should like to know if the parliamentary secretary can tell the House when that question will be answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to advise the hon. member of the date that question will be answered, but I will look into the matter on his behalf and see what I can do to expedite it.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That this House condemns the Government, and in particular, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for its failure to meet any of the objectives for which the Government continues to seek authority to spend in excess of one billion dollars in this fiscal year on behalf of Canada's aboriginal peoples, for its tolerance of the miserable conditions existing in native communities throughout Canada which are of a standard vastly inferior to those found in most Third World countries, for the minister's failure to exercise his obligatory trust responsibility, and for the minister's contempt of Parliament as manifested by his deliberate refusal to comply with the statutory obligations which legally require him to report to the House on the progress of the implementation of the James Bay agreement.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, you may well ask, and we may well be questioned by our friends opposite and by people who watch us through the window to the outside today, why we would use a whole day of precious parliamentary time, when the country is in such serious economic difficulties, to discuss matters relating to the affairs of our native people. I would rather look at it as discussing a favourite subject of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the North-South dialogue, except that this dialogue is more of a domestic nature.
I shall not have any difficulty explaining to you, or to anyone who is watching, why this has become such an urgent problem. It is urgent because the burden of economic difficulties that we must all suffer in times like these is unequally distributed in the country. A disproportionate load of the economic misery which this government has bestowed on the Canadian people is borne by the poor. And most native people in this country, Mr. Speaker, are among the poorest of the poor.
We talk about high unemployment, but in most native communities the unemployment rate is not 15 or 20 per cent, it is 95 per cent. Despite a whole series of royal commissions and studies over the last two or three decades into the housing conditions in the native communities, the housing situation is deplorable. It is not even comparable to conditions which exist in some Third World countries.
This debate is urgent because the conditions in which our native people live have attracted the attention of the world
June 17, 1982

outside. International tribunals such as the World Health Organization, world courts and human rights fora are dealing with the problems of the native people in Canada. Our image as a nation which espouses certain fundamental values in terms of the human condition is being blemished. It is urgent because the government is embarking on a new phase of the implementation of its Indian affairs policy which, when completed, will have the most profound effect and consequences on our native people. It is also urgent because there is a requirement under the first part of the constitutional accord to hold conferences within one year with provincial premiers and officials to determine once and for all the role and place of our native people within the framework of our new basic law and our new charter of rights.
I do not wish to overdramatize this question but some people are asking why it is that we impose economic sanctions on countries like South Africa because of the way they treat their native people when standards of health care and education for our own natives are, in the main, very much inferior to those found in South Africa.
Some people will be offended by what I have to say today. Many people find it easy to practise virtue from a distance and manage to overlook what is occurring in their own backyard. They will say that it is not fair to make the comparison with South Africa because, after all, our native people were declared persons 30 years ago. Ten years after that they were given the right to vote by the Right Hon. George Diefenbaker.
We consider it urgent, nevertheless, when one small segment of our society finds itself totally isolated from the mainstream of life. We hear reports of life-threatening situations which exist in our native communities, and our jails are overcrowded with native persons whose only relief from frustration is alcohol and crime.
We want to talk about all these things today, and my colleagues will place on the record in some detail statistics and facts of which we should all be ashamed. On the surface, as I have said, our Indian people have all the rights society grants its citizens, or at least so it seems when one looks back over history. There are, however, some very essential differences. For instance, when an ordinary Canadian goes to the polls he elects a government; an Indian person elects himself a trustee. The ordinary Canadian in a provincial election chooses a government or representative most able to manage such things as health care, education, and community services. But the Indian on the reserve has to rely on the federal government to provide him with these things. The provinces redistribute money they have collected in taxes to municipalities and individuals in the form of per capita grants and contributions to sustain community infrastructures. But when such payments are made by the federal government on behalf of the native people, the average Canadian usually considers that to be welfare.
There are other factors which set native people apart from us. Our registered Indians cannot buy and sell their houses without the consent of the minister. They cannot start a
Supply
business without such consent. If the band to which they belong has any property or assets, then the band cannot sell or convert them without the consent of the trustee, which is the federal minister. If consent is given to, say, sell land or resources belonging to Indian people under their treaty, the money is put in a trust fund maintained and controlled by the minister. That trust fund presently contains between $500 million and $600 million, which will grow to $1 billion by 1985. Incidentally, the government, of course, uses this money and pays a rate of interest 3 per cent or 4 per cent below that which it currently pays in the marketplace. I asked the minister in the House why it is that he cheats our native people of $30 million a year. I have been fighting for a year on behalf of the Fort Nelson Indian band to get the minister either to release the funds or pay a decent rate of interest. The fight is still going on and I hope the minister takes note and will remember that I will not be giving up.
There is a special trust fund for minors which the minister administers, presumably because Indian parents are not considered trustworthy to care for their own children. We have heard evidence before the committee of children for whom such trust moneys are kept in the minister's pocket here in Ottawa while they go to school hungry every day.
Such are the rights of our native people, Mr. Speaker, and such is their equality before our law. It is that trust responsibility which the minister has under the act and the way it is being discharged which I wish to examine in greater detail a little later. First let me give you an overview of the situation to which we generally refer as Indian affairs.
Under the new Constitution Indians, Inuit and Metis, all non-status Indians, are all referred to in one general category: aboriginal people. There are about 300,000 registered Indians who are governed under a special statute known as the Indian Act. The Inuit are specifically excluded from this act, but because of a 1939 court decision the minister had to assume some jurisdiction and responsibility for the Inuit people as well. By far the largest category of aboriginal people are the so-called Metis or non-status Indians. We think, although no one knows for sure, that they number in excess of one million.
The issue of the Metis, as far as the federal government is concerned, was settled during the Riel rebellion. The nonstatus Indians have, through bureaucratic commission or omission, never obtained or never lost their status. They are administered by the provinces, and in most cases are even worse off than their counterparts on reserves. In some cases they live on the reserves and share the same house with brothers and sisters. Under the treaties made with the Indians they were allowed to select certain lands, in most cases up to 160 acres per person, which could not be alienated or expropriated nor made subject to taxation, although much of this land has, of course, been alienated and expropriated over the years and some bands have never selected their lands. But that which is owned by the Indians and held in trust by the minister amounts in the aggregate, south of the 60th parallel, to an area the size of Nova Scotia.

June 17, 1982
Supply
These lands, even though they lie within the provinces, are not provincial lands. The resources, both surface and subsurface, are not provincial resources and the people who live on them are not governed by a provincial government. They are citizens, some argue, of a third territory who have the distinction of not being represented in Parliament. I should perhaps qualify that by saying that they are represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). We must assume the reason for this is that Indians are not capable of representing themselves. However, we look at the minister's mandate to represent our first citizens as part of his trust responsibility as well.
There is a lot of misunderstanding around, Mr. Speaker, even among our own colleagues here in the House, about the responsibilities we and the minister have for our aboriginal people. What is more, we believe that even the present trustee and his colleagues in cabinet are not certain what their responsibilities are. Let me quote from the report of the Auditor General who had difficulty determining what the minister's trust responsibilities were as well. In his last report he says:
For example, managers posed the following questions: is the role of the department one of prescription, where resources are allocated according to priorities interpreted by the department, or is it one of support, where the allocation is based on priorities determined by native people? Is it some of each and should the mix vary from one native group to another? Is the department accountable for producing social and economic gains for the native people, or is it responsible simply for ensuring an equitable distribution of financial support as native groups pursue their own objectives? Responses to these kinds of questions would have implications for accountability and control within the department.
Further on he said:
We therefore concluded that the direction given to the Department concerning its relationship with native people was not sufficiently clear to identify what DIAND should be accountable for in relation to its mandate. We also found little evidence to indicate that the Department had tried to clarify its accountability to Parliament by making assumptions in regard to its mandate, developing corresponding objectives and seeking approval for them.
The minister, in response to a question I asked him on May 13 concerning the Musqueam Indian situation in Vancouver, said this:
It is the fundamental principle of whether the minister has a trust responsibility, which is a key question to the Indian community in Canada.
He says it is a question whether the minister has that responsibility; he does not even know. He goes on:
That is what is involved in this particular case. I think some Indian leaders to whom I have talked realize that this fundamental question which has been a source of frustration to everyone concerned for so many years will have to be determined.
It is for that reason that he is putting the Musqueam people of Vancouver through the Supreme Court at a likely cost to them of $1 million. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you would not permit me the time to give a very precise historical and legal overview of the various acts, statutes and Royal proclamations which establish the special rights Inuits and Indians have, and what they are. But there is really no longer any doubt that special rights do exist, and the various instruments by which they were established have been badly bruised and injured and offended.
There is one general understanding which distorts the perception most Canadians have of the problem, and that has
to do with the treaties we have made with the Indians in the past. None of them were treaties of surrender; rather, they were arrangements for co-existence and friendship. The Indians were never conquered. They never surrendered. They signed arrangements and contracts for co-existence. At no time did the Indians agree to give up land to which they always considered themselves spiritually attached. Instead the treaties were viewed as a guarantee that as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, the rivers flow and nature celebrates its cycles, they shall at all times be part of those cycles.
I want to quote briefly from a report of treaty commissioners who negotiated Treaty No. 8, which was made June 21, 1899. The commissioners said:
Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed. The provision in the treaty under which ammunition and twine is to be furnished went far in the direction of quieting the fears of the Indians, for they admitted that it would be unreasonable to furnish the means of hunting and fishing if laws were to be enacted which would make hunting and fishing so restricted as to render it impossible to make a livelihood by such pursuit. But over and above the provision, we had to solemnly assure them that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians ... would be made .. . and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.
Such is the nature of these treaties, and there cannot be any doubt about that. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the courts have come to grips with the situation and in the main agree with the native people about that.
We all know what happened to these treaties. All of us must share part of the blame. We have not had the courage to admit that what has been done in the past was wrong. Nor have we had the compassion or the will to set it right. Maybe I should qualify that by stating that we have never been stingy in providing sufficient financial resources to set this inequity right, or to solve any problems the Indian people have if money were a solution to these problems. In fact, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a budget which exceeds $1 billion a year to carry out his mandate. That is $4,000 for every man, woman and child under his care. In the case of a family of five, that amounts to $20,000. That excludes the Metis and non-status Indians. While that would normally be sufficient to sustain an ordinary family above the poverty line, the paternalistic system and a ravenous bureaucratic monster administering these funds is not only gobbling up the lion's share of the money, but in the process has gobbled up any self-esteem, any self-reliance and even some of the most basic freedoms and rights that our native peoples once thought they had. It has rendered the Indians totally dependent upon the welfare system.
Let me give a few examples in terms of numbers to show the enormity of the problem. Overall, in the department of Indian Affairs-and the minister is responsible for a couple of other departments as well-there are 4,463 people. This includes Indian agents and people who help to carry out his mandate. Despite the fact that Indians have taken over or are supposed
June 17, 1982

to be taking over many of the programs which were formerly administered by the department itself, the number of people increased by 308 over the last two years. The over-all cost of the minister's administration is $1.1 billion. That is over $1,000 million to administer the affairs of 250,000 people.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in the course of examining this year's estimates, which, incidentally, led to the drafting of its now infamous fifth report which was tabled in the House and on which this motion is generally based, singled out one of the regions for closer scrutiny and special consideration. Because of a number of problems which are peculiar to British Columbia, some of which my colleagues will touch upon, the committee held two days of hearings in Vancouver examining the affairs of the B.C. region. This region stands out for two main reasons. First, most of the province was not covered by a treaty. Treaty commissioners did not cover the province as they did the prairie provinces. Treaty aid covers almost all of northern British Columbia.
Second, most of the bands and tribal councils in British Columbia have reached such a high degree of self-reliance that the departmental services and interventions are no longer required or wanted. In fact, there is duplication of some services, if not outright competition for some of the programs between departmental officials and some of the bands. Despite that fact, the region employs 557 people who are organized within ten major departments.
I have with me a brief overview of how the department of Indian affairs functions. First we have the department of the director general which has four staff members. The average salary amounts to $35,000 or $36,000. Incidentally, this department spent $63,223 on travel between April, 1981 and January 11, 1982.
Next is the department called director of local government which has 13 staff members who earn an average salary of $30,000. That group of 13 people spent $109,457 on travel between April, 1981 and January 11, 1982.
Next I will mention the director of the socio-economic development department. He and his 21 staff members earn an average salary of $30,000. They spent only $94,000 on travel in the same period.
The next department is that of the personnel manager who has 18 staff members. They have an average salary of $25,000 and spent $32,000 on travel in the same period.
Then we come to the engineering and architecture department which has 23 engineers and architects in the B.C. region. But the 23 engineers and architects have spent $119,674 in travel between April, 1981 and January 11, 1982. What I have mentioned comprises just the executive branch. There are in total 171 people who work in the British Columbia regional office.
We have many horror stories like this that we would like to place on the record today. The bureaucrats are in competition with the Indians for programs. They are in this bureaucratic game of "save your job and build your ivory tower". So fierce is the competition for control that it eats up most of the resources available to the region, to the point where those
Supply
bands who experience 95 per cent unemployment, abject poverty and human deprivation of the worst kind are left out almost completely.
The minister might want to dispute these figures, but we have a document that comes from the minister's own regional office in Vancouver. It shows the per capita distribution of funds in the region. The document is entitled "Department of Indian Affairs Contribution to Band Councils, 1981-1982". One band in northern British Columbia has received $36 per capita; yet another band received $4,087. There is no norm. There is no rule. There is nothing. There are no guidelines. There are no standards or minimum requirements for community infrastructure. There are Indian villages everywhere in Canada in 1982 which are taking into account such factors as climate and that are infinitely worse off than some of the poorest settlements in the Third World countries. Often they have no electricity or water distribution or even the most basic sanitary facilities. I can take you, Mr. Speaker, to places in my riding where three generations of one family live in one room not bigger than a living room in the average home. They suffer temperatures of 40 degrees below zero with the only source of heat a converted oil drum as a stove. There is no television and no money to buy batteries for the transistor radio.
What does that do to our national pride? Are we the same people who parade around the world promoting North-South dialogue, the champions of the Third World? I make no apologies at all for taking the time of the House today to speak about these problems.
As I said earlier, there are some bands and individuals who have the ears and the attention of the bureaucrats. We heard from the Indian affairs Mafia in British Columbia. Of course, we do not call them that, but some of the Indian people with whom we have come in contact call them that. The interpretation of the word "Mafia" as it relates to the British Columbia Indian region means Members Against the Firing of Indian Agents. We heard in committee of an individual who at one time received a $300,000 loan to start a personal business. The business was not designed to create any employment or jobs. It was a trailer court, his own personal business. An official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told the minister right from the outset that this particular loan was intended to be a personal retirement fund for the individual. The loan was made at preferred rates of interest to start the business. When he failed to meet his other obligations and failed to repay the principal and interest under the loan, he was given another $300,000, except this time it was in the form of a gift. The second $300,000 was to help him over the hurdle. My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similk-ameen (Mr. King), will elaborate more on this particular case because this money has not helped him over the hurdle at all. He is still in dire need of a further infusion of funds, and the regional director in British Columbia will likely give them to him.

June 17, 1982
Supply
Earlier I said in fairness that the blame must be shared more widely than just by the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his cabinet colleagues. No matter how hard one tried, it would be difficult to create such a disgraceful situation in only 14 years. But this minister deserves a prize, if for nothing else than the selectivity with which he discharges his trust responsibility and his mandate. He is likely to end up being the minister who will preside over the institutionalization of what I call the lesser of the two evils policy.
This policy started with the white paper in 1969, shortly after the proclamation by the Prime Minister of his just society. In terms of any policy for Indians, justice had to be tempered with equality. That meant, as was pointed out in the white paper of 1969, forced assimilation of the ways of our western civilization. Some people would not see too much wrong with that, but to the Indians and Inuit it would mean nothing less than a cultural transformation. Some use stronger words-cultural and religious genocide.
To appreciate fully what that means, one should compare it with a single language policy, for instance, where suddenly either French or English is no longer an official language and where only one language would be compulsory in school. In fact, anyone who understands anything about the culture and spiritual values of aboriginal people, regardless of where in the world they are found, or anyone who has looked at racial integration from a historical perspective, will know that assimilation or integration is not possible unless some of the most fundamental values of one or the other cultures are sacrificed.
Few of us understand much about the culture of our aboriginal people, but we know that it is inextricably tied to nature and all its creatures. Unlike our western civilization which sees as its Christian-Judeo mission to subdue-the earth and to conquer it, the Indian culture is harmonious with nature, and clearly the two cannot co-exist without very special accommodations. This is in part what I meant when I said earlier that the Indian territories and their people are not represented in the House, of course with one exception-the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).
In fairness, it should be said that those of our colleagues from all sides of the House who serve on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development not only have a good understanding but also a deep and genuine compassion for the native people they represent. But none of us has walked in a mocassin or can really say what it would be like to accept nature, with all its splendours, with all its generosity but as well its cruelty, as one's spiritual master.
The 1969 policy of forced assimilation, despite consistent denial by the government, is in various stages of implementation even without any constitutional accord which the federal government hopes to get from the provinces in terms of their acquiesence to the forced assimilation strategy. The official land claims policy is an example. The 1980 policy approved by cabinet indicates clearly that settlement means extinguishment of rights and title, that any special rights which may exist are
to be surrendered for cash and/or other considerations such as land, and that the people involved will surrender, to become the wards of the provinces within which the settlement takes place.
The James Bay settlement is the result of this policy, and one of my colleagues will speak specifically about it. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence that any provincial government feels in any way obliged to consider or recognize any special rights our aboriginal people may have, or plans to offer any special services commensurate with such rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have called this the lesser of the two evils policy. The other option which has been considered and tried from time to time is the isolation policy. Despite its abhorrent nature, it is preferred by some native leaders since it at least guarantees some form of cultural and spiritual integrity or sovereignty. In some other countries such an official policy is called apartheid. Although this policy for all intents and purposes existed in Canada, as far as registered Indians are concerned, right up to 1961 when the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker gave them the right to vote in federal elections, all of us surely must agree that this option deserves no further consideration. However, I sometimes wonder whether we would be so sure about it if our country's population consisted of 85 per cent aboriginal people and 15 per cent whites.
This leaves us to consider whether or not there are any other alternatives. Our native people certainly think so, and we in our party certainly agree with them and would like to listen to them. Even though such other options should have been considered and worked out in the context of the first stages of constitutional reform, we think it is not yet too late. However, we also know that any other options which could lead to a solution will not and cannot emerge from the kinds of meetings which were planned in accordance with the constitutional arrangement.
The provincial governments will not, nor should they be expected to, listen or agree to any proposals which would interfere with their own jealously-guarded jurisdictions and ambitions, particularly if any of the proposals include a form of Indian self-government or Indian autonomy. Naturally, we would never condone the development of a governmental structure which would not conform with our federal system. In other words, we do not see a state within a state as a solution.
I am not as certain, however, as the government appears to be, that it would not be possible to grant an Indian government certain powers and jurisdictions which are similar to the powers and jurisdictions enjoyed by the provinces, particularly when it comes to education and culture. Under such an agreement lands, which I have already identified as being lands belonging to the aboriginal people and held in trust for
June 17, 1982

them, and communities on such lands, might be administered under laws similar to municipal acts of the provinces. This idea has been advanced by some native leaders. While it may need a lot of refinement, it may not be too farfetched, particularly when one considers that it was and will be necessary from time to time to give special consideration to any legitimate concerns and aspirations of other ethnocultural groups in society. It is not so farfetched when one considers that all cultures other than that of our native people, of course, and the languages through which they find expression have their origin somewhere else in the world and are from time to time enriched and replenished from their source. As you know, that is true even for the languages and cultures of the so-called two founding races.
The aboriginal people of Canada have no such outside source. Their home has been this continent for at least 16,000 years. The earth of this continent is their soul. To deprive them of an opportunity to protect their language and to move from a firm cultural base to evolve to meet the challenges of tomorrow is nothing less than genocide.
I personally feel that the natives are not yet ready to enter into the discussions that have been arranged to decide their future once and for all. Furthermore, I see it as an example of this government's stubborn, arrogant and inflexible attitude that the native people may be nothing more than observers at the conference.
I have heard evidence to satisfy me that, at least in British Columbia, responsible native political leaders have been starved out and the department has purchased itself the kind of help from among the Indians who may be prepared to sell out their brothers and sisters for their own selfish gain. They will no doubt be the representatives at the conference. I referred to one such person earlier. If they are the kind of people being groomed to represent the native interests at the conferences, native interests will be doomed for sure.
These are harsh words but I stand by them. Why do you think that the committee unanimously approved the report, including all the Liberal members who served? Regardless of what the minister says about using trickery to achieve a report, they were all there. We spent three weeks writing this report and the words in the report are strong. Why do hon. members think all the members on that committee unanimously approved that report-and agreed that it should be tabled in the House-expressing dismay and condemnation over the way the minister and his regional czars are discharging their trust responsibility?
My colleagues and I will insist that some specific problems which are more like Mafia-type operations-I will not withdraw that word as well-will be redressed without delay. We do not intend to let these matters rest for another year. We will insist that the fifth annual report of the Indian affairs committee be implemented. We will insist on that because the conditions which exist as a result of this government's policies
Supply
toward our native people are a disgrace and a shame which all Canadians must share.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to express my disappointment and concern with the language of the notice of motion which is now before the House. I would also like to express my disappointment and concern with the language which was used by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) about both the department and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). I believe that some of the inaccuracies which he expressed in his speech today were very well explained to him, but he preferred (o use the same tactics that he used in the committee to try to impress upon the Canadian people that we have problems.
The government has long recognized that there are very major outstanding questions, problems and challenges that have to be faced with respect to Canada's aboriginal people. The complexity of these matters is well known to hon. members on both sides of the House. Solutions which governments and aboriginal people seek are not easily attained. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), when he was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, realized that. In private conversations he has admitted that it is difficult to obtain a consensus.
From the government's perspective, searching for those solutions involves a delicate balance. On the one hand, we need to respond to the need and aspirations of Canada's aboriginal people. On the other hand, we must meet our special obligations and responsibilities as a government in a manner which respects accountability to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds.
Not only are these issues complex in themselves, but the political environment in which governments and aboriginal people must search for solutions is rapidly evolving and is not without its difficulties.
As consitutional discussions have proceeded in recent years, Canada's aboriginal people have articulated more specific views on their present and future place within Canadian society. In some areas the positions presented are extremely difficult to accommodate under Canadian political sturctures and systems. In other areas, aspirations are realizable if government at all levels and Canada's aboriginal peoples can work effectively together.
It is this sense of complexity and challenge that is not reflected in the motion now before us. It is my belief that this government has demonstrated a priority commitment to improving the social and economic conditions of Canada's aboriginal people While it is not possible to move in all major new directions at once, as members on the other side of the House discovered while they were in government, I believe that not only is the commitment of this government apparent but so, too, are the results.
Over the course of the last decade major changes in developing land claims policies and attempting to resolve claims have

June 17, 1982
Supply
occurred. Major advances in key program areas such as education, housing, economic development, support of Indian culture and language have also occurred. We have increased government expenditures in all program areas and have done this at a time of fiscal restraint.
The government does recognize that major problems remain outstanding and while the ability to move quickly, particularly in a period of fiscal restraint, is not as great as one would like, the commitment to resolving these issues is demonstrated.
I would like to now focus in more detail on the accomplishments which I believe reflect our commitment on the part of our government. Consider for a moment some of the positive achievements of the last couple of years in programs which deal directly with the priority concerns of native people These achievements demonstrate that in meeting its obligation and commitment to native people the government is making considerable progress.
First, let me suggest that we are making considerable progress in moving toward better definition and protection of the aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. The new Constitution Act which was proclaimed last April, with great difficulty because of the opposition-


Walter David Baker: Order. That is not so.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: had in its first draft protection for aboriginal people. It was the governments and the premiers of the party represented on that side which had it taken out. We finally got it back in.


Walter David Baker: That is dreadful.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: The government is committed to pursue the Phase II conference with determination and good faith. As a matter of fact, the first meeting between the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the three national associations of Canada will take place next Tuesday. This does not mean that we will reach agreement on all issues, but it does mean that we will reach an understanding of native positions. It also means that we will have honest discussions and a clarification of the issues. It does mean that we will make a real effort to reach agreement.
At the Phase II meetings, delegates of native peoples will be seated at the table. They will sit down next to the Prime Minister and the first ministers of the provinces. The agenda will include, to quote Part IV of the Canada Act, "an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada". Let me add that the native leadership commands the respect of all of us for keeping native rights front and centre over the past months.
I would like to suggest that the Canada Act will become a powerful instrument that will help the Indian, Inuit and Metis people achieve their goals in Canadian society. On the one hand, it recognizes aboriginal and treaty rights and thus protects Indian and Inuit identity. On the other hand, it
guarantees the rights and freedoms of native people as citizens of Canada.
Second, we are making progress in co-operation with the native people toward eliminating discrimination among men and women in native communities. More than a year ago, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made it possible for bands to exempt themselves from certain provisions of the Indian Act, namely those which cause women to lose their status if they marry white men and those which cause children to lose their status. At last count, 48 bands had requested the exemption from the discriminatory provisions affecting women and about 270 others asked to be exempted from the double mother clause which affects children's rights. We expect that additional bands will avail themselves of this option in coming months. The government has also clearly indicated its commitment to removing the present discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act following consultations with Canada's aboriginal people.
Third, we are making progress in assisting native communities to strengthen their system of band government. In discussions with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over the last couple of years, the Indian leadership has expressed the need for establishing self-government at the band level and taking charge of their own financial affairs. They want to transfer to their administration more of the development and delivery of programs.
The minister has supported the native peoples in this objective. In fact, we have been successful in transferring control and the delivery of various programs to Indian bands. By the end of last year, for example, 385 bands across Canada were administering social assistance programs on reserves. In British Columbia, 60 per cent of the regional budget is now administered by Indian organizations. It is the other 40 per cent which is administered by the regional office that did not appear in the figures that were cited by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and that made the figures appear so abominable.
We are looking at ways and means of strengthening Indian band government in order to enable us to deal more effectively with Indian demands for increased autonomy and still provide a basis for greater social and economic development. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is examining a variety of proposals, including proposals which would enable bands to move out from under the more restrictive provisions of the Indian Act in certain circumstances. Any proposals, of course, will be the subject of consultations with Indian people, and these are going on already.
[ Translation]
Now, a few words about education. Since 1980, native people have made tremendous progress towards achieving control of their education system. This is true of both the Inuit and the Indian people. Today, there are three Indian and Inuit schoolboards at the provincial level. Two were created following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. In nine
June 17, 1982

provinces and in the two territories, 58 cultural centres are now being managed by Indians and Inuit. School enrolment in Indian communities has made considerable progress at all levels. There are now 157 schools serving 10,000 students, and it is expected that enrolment will increase to 20,000 by 1986. The most impressive gains have been made in post-secondary education, both in the vocational sector and the post-secondary programs. In 1969, for instance, 800 Indians were enrolled in post-secondary programs, while by the end of last year, their number had increased to 6,000.
I shall now mention some of our achievements in the field of economic development. Considering our objective to have certain areas of federal jurisdiction revert to native peoples, we have stressed community-based rather than large-scale development projects, with a view to responding to the desire for increased autonomy expressed by native peoples. Among these projects, to name only a few, I would mention the wild rice project in Ontario and the caribou management program in northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba and the Northwest Territories which was finalized about two weeks ago.
We have started creating jobs at the community and reserve levels, but much remains to be done. For instance, the department's Ontario regional office provides counselling for Indian businessmen and local projects, a program that has helped to stimulate job creation and to safeguard existing jobs. In last November's budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) mentioned additional funds totalling several million dollars which will be used for economic development in native communities. These funds are in addition to funds already allocated. Last year, for instance, we set aside $8 million to ensure that we would not have to turn down valid economic development projects because of lack of funds. Once again, these are supplementary funds. In addition, $5 million was earmarked to help Indians take advantage of the opportunities offered by large resource developments. In a period of budgetary restraint, I think the House will agree that the amounts involved are impressive. These figures and the new approaches involved clearly demonstrate that the government is prepared to meet its commitment to improve the economic and social status of native peoples.
The Norman Wells project should illustrate the truth of this statement to everyone's satisfaction. In this particular development, our concern is both with protecting the environment and protecting the future of native communities. We have insisted that the entire population, and especially native people, be able to obtain jobs and participate in the project on a partnership basis. Over $20 million have been spent on these programs which include providing technical and general training to help native people find jobs, either in the oil fields or on pipeline construction sites. As work progresses, at least 240 jobs and business opportunities estimated at more than $100 million will be made available to the local population. In addition, native people associations will be able to take part in joint
Supply
ventures. With the skills and experience acquired as workers or entrepreneurs, native people will be able to start similar projects.
The two-year waiting period set for Norman Wells can and must be used to good advantage. During this period, we shall be able to establish training programs and give Indians and other people a chance to prepare for future opportunities for employment and subcontracting. Thus, the communities involved will have ample time to adjust to the situation.
The House will be pleased to know that the project has been enthusiastically received by the Indian people, the territorial government and business groups.

In consultation with Indian bands, we are progressing in establishing joint ventures in major capital projects such as schools, health clinics, band administration buildings and so on. Such ventures will enable band councils to be rightly involved in all aspects of a capital project on their reserve, from the design of a construction to the actual day-by-day operations. Furthermore, the joint venture guidelines that we are developing will also guarantee jobs, training opportunities and related economic developments at the band level.
Over the last two years the minister has met with native people and their leaders in all the regions of Canada on land claims. I believe that the actions that the minister and the department have taken reflect the concerns of native people with respect to claims. The vast majority of Canadians, I believe, would agree that the land claims have been left unresolved for too long. We are responding to that view in a positive way.
I hope that in Manitoba, for instance, where I am involved in land claims, the new provincial government will not have the attitude of the previous Progressive Conservative government that was not interested even in beginning negotiations on land claims.


Mr. Kempling:: That is not true. It is typical bilge, garbage.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: We are responding to that view in a positive way. The government is committed to reaching a settlement of all legitimate claims on the basis of fairness as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: The members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, seem to hurt a little bit today. The moment they hear "PC government" they get sick.


William James Kempling: We want the truth. We do not trust the Grits.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: As proof of our resolve, we now have in place negotiators who are working to bring the major claims to a

June 17, 1982
Supply
conclusion, and we have allocated funds to support native organizations in their research, preparation and negotiations.
Recently the minister participated, along with the Hon. Allan Williams, the attorney general of British Columbia, in the signing of an accord with the Penticton band. Under this agreement, the band will receive $14 million and the return of some 12,000 acres of land that was severed from their reserve in 1916. This agreement should be regarded as a milestone-


An hon. Member:: It took 70 years.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Sure it took us 70 years, but we did it. What did the opposition do when it was in government? How many claims were resolved? None. Six months?


Gordon Edward Taylor: You did one in 60 years, for one band.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: We settled most of the claims in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. We have settled some in the maritime provinces. We have settled some in British Columbia. The hon. member should check his facts.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What about Alberta?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: In addition, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) recently participated in the signing of an agreement with the Wagmatcook band for loss of reserve lands dating back to confederation. Once again the government is clearly demonstrating its determination to deal fairly and to settle long-standing grievances. This commitment is based on policies on specific and comprehensive claims which have been reconfirmed and inscribed in two recent DIAND publications, "In All Fairness" and "Outstanding Business".
Just two months ago the minister, together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), jointly announced a new program for fighting native alcohol and drug abuse. It was backed by a commitment of $154 million. This will be a permanently funded program to support native peoples in their efforts to prevent and treat these problems in their own communities. The successful implementation of the program will depend on the development of community-based projects which they will initiate and administer. Nearly all reserves will be involved in the program; the number of treatment centres will increase from eight, under the present program, to 30, and the number of in-patient beds will increase from 140 to 730. It will be operated with the assistance of 800 trained native therapists and helpers.
In February I participated on behalf of the minister, along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), is signing the Canada-Manitoba Indian child welfare agreement. The Indian signatory was the Four Nations Confederacy. The agreement is a major advance in devolving responsibility in the Field of child welfare to the native communities. This agreement will create 53 permanent jobs at the reserve level and will cost $14 million over a five-year period. This landmark agreement, the very first in Canada, delegates
powers to Indian child care authorities and band governments in Manitoba who now have the resources to deal with this new responsibility.
These are some of the achievements, Mr. Speaker, of the last year or two to which all Canadians can point with pride. They are the result of the determination on the part of the federal government to deal with Indian communities in a fair and equitable manner, and to assist Indians, individually and as communities, to achieve self-reliance. They are equally the result of the determination on the part of native people to control their own destiny.
It is with this type of progress that the government has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, its will and support to working co-operatively with the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Together we can and will effect major changes and resolve outstanding problems. Not only is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development specifically, and the government, doing their utmost to discharge their obligations and responsibilities, but in many areas federal programs and approaches go significantly further than those required as a matter of legal responsibility and obligation.
It is also because of this progress that I view with real disappointment the wording of the motion before the House. There is no doubt that much remains to be done. For further progress to be made, the co-operation of all members of this House-individually and through established vehicles such as the standing committee, as well as other levels of government working co-operatively with Canada's aboriginal peoples-is required. I call on all members to demonstrate their cooperation and I especially would like to see some members of the official opposition, rather than trying to obstruct, trying to offer real co-operation, so that we can resolve these problems as fast as we can.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette)-Criminal Code-Request for severer provisions against prostitution; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Administration of Justice-(a) Role of parole board officer, (b) Nature of supervision; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Canadian National Railways-(a) Announcement of lay-offs, (b) Notification of unions.
June 17, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Schellenberger:
That this House condemns the government, and in particular, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for its failure to meet any of the objectives for which the government continues to seek authority to spend in excess of one billion dollars in this fiscal year on behalf of Canada's aboriginal peoples, for its tolerance of the miserable conditions existing in native communities throughout Canada which are of a standard vastly inferior to those found in most Third World countries, for the minister's failure to exercise his obligatory trust responsibility, and for the minister's contempt of Parliament as manifested by his deliberate refusal to comply with the statutory obligations which legally require him to report to the House on the progress of the implementation of the James Bay agreement.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important topic of the wellbeing of the Indian people of Canada and also to look at some of the conduct of the Department of Indian affairs.
This topic is important perhaps for two basic and fundamental reasons. First of all, our government is spending over $1 billion supposedly for the wellbeing of the Indian people of Canada. I believe that neither the Canadian people in general nor the Indian people in particular are getting their money's worth for that $1 billion. We spend $1 billion to perpetuate an inflated bureaucracy in the Department of Indian Affairs and the depressed and depressing economy of poverty and despair in most Indian communities. As the watchdog over the public treasury, this House must be concerned.
Second, this topic is important, Mr. Speaker, for perhaps a more basic and fundamental reason, but a reason which it is harder to define. It concerns who we are as a people and how we see ourselves as a people. Perhaps it would help us at this time if we contrast our vision of Canada with the way in which one writer saw Argentina over the last decade. V. S. Naipaul, in "The Return of Eva Peron", writes of "A simple history of Indian genocide and European take-over". The author says:
There is as yet in Argentina no myth of the noble Indian. The memory of the genocide is too close; it is still something to be dismissed in a line or two in the annals. In Argentina, the detestation of the vanished Pampa Indian is instinctive and total. The Argentine terror is that people in other countries might think of Argentina as an Indian country-
Land in Argentina ... is still only a commodity. It is an investment, a hedge against inflation. It can be alienated without heartache.
I believe that Canadians want a different relationship with the Indian people and with the land from what Naipaul saw in Argentina. Perhaps some people over-romanticize it, but the fact is that Indian, Inuit and Metis people do have a close relationship with the land. It is a relationship others of us have lost but still recognize as important. On this basis we see that aboriginal people and their wellbeing are of vital importance to the Canadian psyche.
Supply
In Canada, from at least the time of the Royal proclamation of George III, we have always recognized that Indian people had a special and unique status. However inadequately we recognize this status both in the BNA Act and in the recently proclaimed Canada Act, it is there. Often the government of the day has been uncomfortable with special status and has sought to eliminate it by some program of assimilation. The Indian people have suffered under the treatment they have received, but they have stubbornly refused to be assimilated into a non-Indian society. They see remaining Indian as being something very basic to their lives. They have held to some vision of themselves as a separate and unique people who have a special role and a special place in our world.
We have neglected the Indian people. We have seen them die of European diseases. We have alienated their children from their parents, their communities, their language and their culture. We have tried to destroy traditional Indian religions and their political institutions. We have subjected them to alien laws in a colonial-type bureaucracy. Although some of our policies may have been genocidal in their results, we have always maintained that we have worked for the best interests of the Indian people. Perhaps we did but, strangely enough, in the process we ended up with most of the Indian land! In the process of working for what we said were the best interests of the Indian people, we destroyed the base of the Indian economy and left the Indians dependent on our generosity-our welfare payments.
The way we allow Indian people to live says a great deal about what kind of people we are. At present when our economy is in such a shambles some people might be tempted to deny or ignore the needs of Indians because we have many other problems in Canada. Nearly two million people are unemployed. There are no jobs for the young people coming out of our high schools this week and next week. The value of our dollar is sinking, interest rates are rising and there is a growing number of bankruptcies.
With these difficulties it might be easy to forget about such issues as aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims, decent housing, water and sewage on reserves, economic development for Indian people or ending discrimination against Indian women. However, there are two reasons why we cannot do that. First, we have a debt of honour to the Indian people. I do not believe we will want to say to them that we have gone morally bankrupt. We have a debt of honour, and I believe we must meet it. Second, it is important that we recognize that Indian people themselves are part of the total Canadian economy, and if we give them the means for economic development in their own communities and if we make available to them proper funds for housing and infrastructure, this money will circulate in the Canadian economy and help all of us. What we cannot afford is to perpetuate a welfare economy, so I emphasize the importance of this debate this afternoon.
In our Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development there is usually a relatively non-partisan spirit,
18566

June 17, 1982
Supply
and 1 must say I was pleased and impressed when the government members of that committee agreed to the fifth report. On the other hand, I cannot see how government members could have opposed it in good conscience, after they and the rest of us heard the testimony of Indian people from across the country about the conditions they face. In a non-partisan way the fifth report says exactly the same thing as this motion does with perhaps more loaded language. I look forward to the participation of other government members in today's debate because the fifth report of the standing committee, which was accepted by the House, has a real message for the minister and for the cabinet from all members of that committee, Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats alike. We hope the minister will hear that message and act on it.
There are three basic issues with which we need to deal this afternoon. First, there is a need for Indian people to be involved in the budgetary process. Second, there is a need for greater funding for the Indian people. Third, there is a need for dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Let us look at these in order.
First, the Indian people must be involved in the budgetary process. It is a very frustrating experience for Indian bands to have to be accountable to the department but to have no participation in saying how funds are to be allocated. It is a very frustrating experience when a band such as the Cowichan band is not able to get any indication of what the target figures for its budget will be and then, in the middle of March, to be told that because their budget will exceed $3 million and because of changing Treasury Board requirements, they will now have to submit a Treasury Board application before their budget can be approved. They are told this about two weeks before the end of the fiscal year. It is a very frustrating experience for people such as the Oweekano band, who have expressed their concerns in a letter as follows:
Our initial comments regarding this morning's meeting are not complimentary to say the least. We must voice our dissatisfaction with your process of negotiations where we are required to merely jot down those allocations you have decided we should get. We came away from the meeting thoroughly frustrated with the way in which small and isolated Bands are dealt with including ours.
Large bands are told two weeks before the deadline that they have to submit Treasury Board applications for their budgets. Small bands are called in, the so-called process of consultation involves having them jot down which items are approved, and that is that.
Then there is the problem that even after a budget has been approved and even when Indian bands are punctual in getting their quarterly reports in, the department is very lax in getting moneys out. Our committee heard testimony from the Nes-kainlith band in British Columbia that because of delays in the payment of funds which were included in the budget, that band has had to pay something like $10,000 to $12,000 a year in interest.
We are hearing some rather despairing cries from the banks these days about their profits, but I do not think it is really in the interests of the Canadian people that the department should be so slow in making payments to Indian bands that they are having to pay interest in order to maintain some line of credit at the banks. It is absolutely essential that the Indian
people be involved in the budgetary process from the very beginning and not simply be called in at the end and told what there might be.
Second, I would like to speak about the lack of funds for identified needs. One of the reasons for the present crisis in funding is probably due to the success of one of the programs of the government. Over the last several years the government has adopted a policy of devolving administrative responsibility to the Indian people, and during that time the leaders of the Indian people have developed considerable expertise in identifying the needs of their people. It is no longer a matter of their simply accepting what the Indian agents give them. They have developed an expertise in identifying their needs but they find that the money to take care of those needs is not available.
We used to expect Indian people to get by in poverty after we had taken away the base of their economy. Today we are making promises and we expect them to get by on those, even when they are not kept. I should like to put a few examples on the record, Mr. Speaker.
A few years ago Indian students were given a spending allowance of $10 per week. In spite of the fact that inflation has cut away at the dollar and that everyone else is getting more money, Indian students are still expected to get by on that amount of spending money. Sometimes it makes the difference between whether they are able to attend school away from home or not. It we are concerned about Indian education-and we all claim to be-then we should ensure that students receive enough spending money.
I was pleased to hear the minister say in the House yesterday that he is engaged in the process of revising upwards the standards for Indian schools. Ten years ago standards were set for Indian schools but then the department decided that they were too high and reduced them. In most provinces today the federal standard for Indian schools is below that of the provinces. I was pleased to hear that the minister is going to take action on that matter and will watch closely to see what is done about it.
A program called the infant stimulation program was shared by five bands on Vancouver Island. Initially this program received funding for the training of young Indian people so that they could work with parents and pre-school children. For three years it received funds from the community development program on a declining basis and no other federal department has taken up the slack. This was a very good program and now it is threatened because of lack of funds.
The Union of New Brunswick Indians has brought to our attention many times its concern about the termination of the community development hot lunch program for children. This is not limited to Indian children. When there is a lack of money in the home children are often sent to school hungry. The hot lunch program was an attempt to provide basic nutrition for them because it is recognized that children cannot learn on an empty stomach. Money for the hot lunch program did not come through, however.
June 17, 1982

In Mission, British Columbia, the residential school of St. Mary's is facing budget cuts. This will mean a decrease of ten in the number of staff and of 35 in the number of students. Many of these students come from broken homes or isolated communities or communities where there is not adequate housing. This residence should be maintained until there is something to take its place.
Recreation budgets have not been maintained. That might seem to be a small thing to a departmental official but for the Indian people recreation and sports are one way in which they can develop a sense of confidence and pride in themselves. The budget for these items should not be cut at this time.
On many occasions the government has announced that $345 million is available for economic development over the next few years. That money has been promised but so far we have not seen any of it. No mechanism has been developed in consultation with the Indian people to allocate the money to the Indian, Metis and Inuit people.
When we visit Indian villages we see how the people suffer because their housing lacks adequate sewer and water facilities. I visited the Penelakut village in my own constituency and there I saw plastic pipes bringing the water supply up to the porch of a house. That was the extent of the running water. Side by side with the water pipes were other plastic pipes for the disposal of sewage. Both pipes were leaking, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind of situation that prevails in those communities. It is very depressing for someone from the outside but for the people of the village it is life threatening. In many Indian villages the people live on the verge of serious epidemics. We have heard testimony about this from the Cree of James Bay. We have to take action, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to make a few short comments about the work of the department. The employees are demoralized. They are not bad people, Mr. Speaker, but the system is wrong. The Indian people want the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to get off their backs.
The government should immediately begin the process of involving the Indian people in the budgetary process from the beginning. An acceptable method must be found for the aboriginal peoples to have control over the $70 million economic development fund-which is eventually supposed to total $345 million.
The fifth report of the committee asked that a special capital fund be set up for the infrastructure for housing, sewage and water supplies. We ask that the report on the implementation of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement be tabled immediately and that the Tait report on this agreement be tabled and funds provided. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I urge that supplementary estimates be provided to meet the needs of the Indian people and that action be taken to decrease the size of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate on an opposition motion. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Supply
Oberle) who opened the debate referred to the surprise that some people might feel at having a debate on this subject today. I believe he referred to the fact that the subject is close to the heart of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that is, involvement in the North-South dialogue. I agree with the hon. member because I too have that feeling.
One of the reasons I have enjoyed my work on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is that I happen to be one of the few members of that committee whose riding does not have an Indian band. There are several all around my riding, however. As a matter of fact, a number of Indian young people attend one of the secondary schools in London West.
I want to talk about some of the advances in education which have taken place for Indian students as a direct result of government involvement over the years. Already it has been stated that there is a non-partisan feeling on the part of the standing committee when we meet, and 1 would agree with that. That is why I was rather discouraged and disheartened when I heard some of the words expressed earlier by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. That certainly was not the feeling expressed during many of the hearings. As a matter of fact, I had the feeling when we met with many Indian bands and band councils over many weeks that while many problems do exist there is a respect held for the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) by many of those groups and there is a definite spirit of co-operation between the native peoples and the minister. I think that has to be said and underlined because it came through very loud and clear in many of our hearings.
I would like to take one objection to references by the previous speaker to the fifth report of the standing committee as coinciding fully with the opposition motion. I reject that observation. While there certainly are areas of criticism in the fifth report, it does not coincide with the entire wording of the motion up for debate today. I seems clear that the motion, when it speaks of the government failing to meet any of its objectives in respect of programs designed to afford development of Indian people in this country, overlooks some very obvious steps which have been taken-and I stress this-in concert with the Indian peoples themselves. This is particularly true in the matter of Indian education. As I earlier mentioned, many of the Indian young people in southwestern Ontario come into my riding for education, and that is why I want to comment on this area this afternoon.
In addressing this topic, I believe it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, to outline the relationship of changes in specific educational programs to the fundamental changes we have seen coming to fruition in the last decade of Indian education in this country. If we go back to the early days of Indian education, we see that from about 1850 schooling for Canadian Indian children was segregated in order to be protective. This derived from the government's view of the social climates

June 17, 1982
Supply
of the growing immigrant communities as being potentially injurious to the welfare of Indian groups. The dark side of this residential schooling for Indian children has been well documented; the enforced separation of children from families and devaluing of the Indian culture and languages involved. The large majority of Indian children, in the years from confederation to about 1950, were educated in residential schools on reserve lands. During this period, however, a small but significant number of Indian people were able to achieve high academic levels.
Following World War II, raised public consciousness of human rights and race relations as well as representations from Indian people caused a change in education policy. During the 1960s, following some consideration of the condition of native minority groups and at the urging of some Indian leaders, the federal government moved towards encouraging the participation of Indian youth in provincial education systems. As part of that movement, the government introduced special programs designed to support financially the integration of Indian students in provincial schools. These included school supplies, travel, personal and other miscellaneous allowances. The government was addressing directly the priorities of Indian school development as they were perceived at that time.
As many hon. members are aware, however, Mr. Speaker, the work of the standing committee and the National Indian Brotherhood brought about a changed government posture which, in 1973, acknowledged that Indian education, like that provided for their fellow citizens, should defer to the principles of local control and parental responsibility. Indian control is not, of course, restricted to band-administered schools. Even within provincial jurisdictions where Indian control is admittedly more difficult to achieve, mechanisms for enabling greater involvement of Indian people in education are being developed.
In the last decade, reflecting the social advances of Indian people generally, we have seen some significant trends in Indian education as communities have asserted their influence on administration, curriculum content, teacher training and other critical segments of the system. The impact of both Indian and the department's initiatives has also been felt within provincial jurisdictions with provincial departments of education moving towards greater recognition of native Canadian cultural realities in schooling generally.
An important indicator of the place of Indian cultures in Canadian curricula is the fact that over 32,000 out of over
73,000	Indian students study native languages in federal, provincial and band-operated schools. Significant progress has been made in increasing Indian involvement in all aspects of eduction. In 1970, about 200 Indian school committees had some, generally minor, responsibility for education programming. However, by 1980 three Indian or Inuit school boards had been created under provincial law: the Nishgas of B.C. and the Cree and Kativik school boards of northern Quebec; 450 of the 573 bands are administering all or parts of their programs. There are also 137 band-operated on-reserve schools. There are band-administered education budgets.
including post-secondary and student residences. These have grown to almost $110 million from about $7 million in the early 1970s. The percentage of Indian administrators and teachers in federal schools has grown to 30 per cent.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that policy and programming changes and, most importantly, the increased decision-making role of Indian authorities have necessitated the addition or elimination of various programs as priorities change with changing circumstances. Local control has naturally resulted in greater attention being focused on the resources required to continue to improve the quality of on-reserve educational services. Inevitably, reallocation of budgets based on departmental and band education authority reviews of priorities lead to decreases in, or the discontinuation of, certain discretionary programs. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is realistic to allude to this management process of redefining priorities and reallocating available resources as "cutbacks" if at the same time we are increasing our over-all expenditures on the education operations and maintenance budget, which in 1980-81 amounted to over $278 million.
It should be noted, as well, Mr. Speaker, that the department is limited by the Indian Act in responding to requests for educational services to Indian elementary and secondary students. While the federal government affirms its special relationship with Indian people, it is clear that those residing off reserves are fully entitled to all those services available to other provincial citizens, since both groups have the same obligations to their provincial administrations in terms of contributing as taxpayers.
Let me briefly address the question of how tuition agreements relate to the principle of Indian control. This is of primary concern, especially in light of the fact that in 1980-81 about 53 per cent of Indian elementary and secondary school students resident on reserves or Crown lands attended schools under provincial jurisdiction. In the same year, band education authorities controlled 26 per cent of the tuition fees paid to provincial agencies. It has been projected that in 1981-82 over
41,000	reserve or Crown land residents attended provincial schools at a total cost, excluding capital, of $145.1 million.
The jurisdictional situation makes the negotiating and administration of tuition agreements quite complex. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development operates within a context influenced by Indian government, the minister's responsibilities under the Indian Act and the constitutional powers assigned to the provinces. The reality of provincial jurisdiction has necessitated differing approaches to the development of tuition agreements, with the most important variable being the extent to which Indian education authorities participate in the process. This varies from Indian operation of provincial school boards to parents having only the status of visitors in schools.
Where Indian people have opted to make use of provincial educational services, the department sees a primary responsibility of the provincial authority as being the encouragement
June 17, 1982

of Indian involvement in the design, delivery, administration, control, review and evaluation of provincial education programs. In such situations the role of band education authorities is considered to include representing the interest of Indian parents and communities; negotiating federal and provincial service agreements; managing education budgets; accounting for results to parents and the community generally.
The department sees its present role in this matter as being twofold. First, there will be continuing emphasis on co-operating with regional Indian associations and bands in seeking the enactment of provincial legislation to increase Indian representation on education decision-making bodies. Second, at the local level, department staff will continue to support Indian initiatives which aim at achieving more meaningful participation of Indian parents in determining the nature of programming in provincial schools.
At the same time, as I mentioned a few moments ago, there have been significant advances in the post-secondary education program for Indians and Inuit which has been specifically developed by the department. During the 1970s, as education and particularly post-secondary education became for Indians the single most important means of improving their standard of living and providing opportunity for intellectual, social and cultural development, departmental programs were evolved and developed to give full measure to those aspirations. Greater access to post-secondary education resulted in a near 100 per cent graduate employment, a teaching staff for Indian schools which is almost 30 per cent Indian, significant increases in the numbers of Indian lawyers, social workers, nurses, administrators and managers.
The Indian graduates have assumed lead roles in the development of band government and Indian politics. It was our opportunity as members of the standing committee to meet many of these individuals as they presented themselves on behalf of the various bands and councils throughout this country. Indian graduates have become models to inspire younger generations and they symbolize the turn-around from drop-out schooling to a contemporary student retrieval thrust spearheaded by active Indian educational leadership. Indian educators in curriculum development work and through cultural education centres have revitalized Indian languages and culture so that Indian people now have the opportunity to regain the pride in their Indian identity. These factors have led to a very rapidly expanding program in terms of enrolments, graduations, and expenditures.
For example, the post-secondary education of Indians has been the prime force in the establishment of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College of the University of Regina, the Blue Quills post-secondary centre of Alberta and the establishment of university native studies programs in every province, the beginning of an Indian business management training network, and other initiatives, all of which point to the Canadian Indian community being poised for a new and prosperous era in the twenty first century.
Almost ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the then minister of Indian affairs, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), in addressing the council of ministers of education, spoke of
Supply
the joint obligation of the provinces and the federal government to respond to the need to improve Indian education by ensuring parental involvement, developing appropriate curricula, expanding teacher training requirements and encouraging Indians to enter the profession as well as meeting the demand for teacher aids.
We have today good solid indicators in the federal, provincial and band-controlled education systems that these ideas have been and continue to be valued and respected. The federal government's role has changed visibly over these years as the Indian people have assumed more of their rightful role in educating their children. Recognizing the role formal education plays in cultural continuity, the federal government will continue to support the Indian people in their efforts to achieve their goals in this most fundamental aspect of human endeavour. I think it was as late as yesterday, in answer to a question from a member of the New Democratic Party, that the Minister of Indian Affairs referred to a particular situation dealing with the building of a school where he gave his support to this matter.
I want to reiterate in closing that this federal government will continue to support the Indian people in all aspects of education so that they may develop their own wherewithal in achieving their goals in this most fundamental aspect of human endeavour.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in trying times those already in difficulty get hit the hardest. As this recession deepens it is evident that many of our native people are suffering more than usual. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), has, I think, laid out very clearly the foundation to what is happening to the Indian community or, more importantly, what is not happening to our native people.
The inaction of this government, the false promises of the minister, and the inertia and callousness of a huge and insensitive bureaucracy, are grinding many of Canada's native people into the dust. The Third World conditions endured by native people across this land are well documented by groups who come before hearings of the standing committee. Unbelievable and disgraceful stories of pain, suffering and betrayal often unfold before us. By and large, Canadians are unaware of these conditions, but any member of the standing committee who has listened day in and day out, month after month and year after year, is well aware of these terrible situations. How any government can go on year after year and not get to the root of the problems and solve them is beyond comprehension.
What is interesting to me is that we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who travels the world advising Third World countries on how to deal with their problems, while in our own country, and in his own province of Quebec, conditions exist that are on a par with any in the Third World.
Let me give a very recent example of some things that have just happened in Quebec. I refer to a report in the Montreal Gazette for June 12, 1982. The first part of the story deals

June 17, 1982
Supply
with a young Indian couple with a one-month old baby. They took the sick child to see a nurse in a nearby community. The nurse gave the baby a very cursory examination and told the couple to take the child home. That night the baby died. This young couple went to bury the baby on the reserve. As they were doing this, provincial police landed in a helicopter. They took the baby away and told this couple that they were not allowed to bury the child because there was no death certificate. A month later the police returned the child in a carnation milk carton to the parents. There was no explanation whatsoever about what had happened.


Frank Oberle: And this is Canada in 1982.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I shall quote one sentence from the newspaper article in the Montreal Gazette. It reads:
It's commonplace, Savard says, for the bodies of Indian children to be returned to their parents in pieces, in green plastic garbage bags or in boxes.
That is Canada, that is Quebec, in 1982. We have 74 members sitting across from us who come from Quebec, yet some of the worst horror stories which were told before the standing committee came out of that province. I cannot understand the Prime Minister letting these kinds of things happen in his own province. I talked with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about this particular situation, and she assured me that it was true. Also she assured me that she would investigate it and do her best to ensure that it did not happen again. These were the kinds of situations about which we heard time and time again. It is just completely unacceptable.
An important part of the motion before us today deals with the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. The last part of the motion reads:
-and for the minister's contempt of Parliament as manifested by his deliberate refusal to comply with the statutory obligations which legally require him to report to the House on the progress of the implementation of the James Bay agreement.
Before getting into the James Bay agreement in detail and that particular problem, let me explain how the agreement came about and what it entailed. It was signed on November 11, 1975. It is a 454-page agreement full of promises to the Indian and Inuit people of northern Quebec. It is a contract signed by two governments, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. Also it was signed by the Cree and Inuit people of northern Quebec. It promised that, in exchange for about half the land mass of Quebec and for $225 million over a period of 20 years, the Indians and the Inuit would give up their aboriginal title to a land mass which was their home for centuries and centuries. In return for this, aside from the cash settlement of which they only receive a bit every year, they were promised improved government services, the allotment of 5,000 square miles of land, limited autonomy for the Cree and Inuit, and many other specific things. For instance, they were promised improved health care, better housing, community infrastructures such as sewer and water, air strips, improved educational facilities, roads, fire protection and many more things. They were also promised, because they were so far behind and in such bad shape, that there would be
a catch-up and a continuation of the programs received by native people across the country. For all this they gave up their aboriginal title. Five years later, by August, 1980, it was a certainty that the agreement was not working.
The Cree and Inuit people appeared before the standing committee in the spring of 1981 with a litany of financial and social complaints, such as the death of children. Situations were documented by very respected doctors from the Montreal General Hospital. One such report was given to us by Dr. Gary Pekeles, a highly respected pediatrician at the Montreal General Hospital. I should like to quote a few lines from his report on April 16, 1981:
The purpose of this report is to describe an epidemic of infantile gastroenteritis among the native population of the Hudson Bay and James Bay regions of Quebec that occurred in the spring and summer of 1980. This disease affected many children under two years in the villages in this region. In several villages a majority of such children became ill. At least 80 children were hospitalized because of it, many with long and complicated courses; almost half required transfer to children's hospitals in Montreal. At least seven children died with gastroenteritis. This occurred in a region that certainly has less than 1,000 children under two years old.
We heard testimony from one community at Rupert House where the raw sewage from the local medical clinic was being discharged upstream from the native people's water supply. This community experienced an outbreak of gastroenteritis among its population. It was just an endless cycle-the children went to hospital, sewage was discharged in the river above the water intake, and around and around it went. We were told in committee that this would be looked after by a representative of the Quebec department of health and welfare. Several months later when the minister visited the community to look at the situation, he found, much to his dismay and to our disgust, that it had not been dealt with. It has been dealt with since. That is the type of story we heard in the committee hearings.
During all these health problems which the Cree and Inuit were having, the federal Department of National Health and Welfare decided to pull out of the area, to take out all its health support services because it misread the act. What was supposed to happen is that when the Cree and Inuit were ready to take over their health services, the federal government was to withdraw. But reading between the lines of the agreement, it withdrew and left the native people high and dry.
What has this led to? Since the Indian people have not received any help in the area of health, they have been required to spend money that was to go into such things as economic development on health, welfare, sewage and water systems which were supposed to be provided by the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. It was well summed up in testimony before the committee by Grand Chief Billy Diamond, when he stated:
It is true that the Crees have received compensation moneys. However, these compensation moneys were in partial exchange for their aboriginal rights and were to be used as basic heritage funds for future generations of the Cree people. This was unquestionably recognized by both the governments and the Crees during the negotiations and at the time of signing of the agreement. What has
June 17, 1982

instead resulted is that the Crees, because of the critical health and sanitation problems and dramatic absence of accommodation and infrastructures in the Cree communities, have been forced to spend over one-quarter of their compensation revenues on housing and infrastructure.
The committee, on hearing this, was so outraged that it did something it had never done before. It drafted a report which was attached to the estimates report tabled in the House. It asked the minister to take immediate action. The action which the minister took was to appoint a commissioner to go up there to look over the entire situation. He was to return with a report and recommendations which would go before cabinet. Last fall he returned with an 87-page report which documented most of the situations in the area. Some time in January the report was put before cabinet, but we are still awaiting a decision.
Approximately 11,000 people in the area have been waiting since 1975 for justice. A safeguard in the act was the fact that the minister was to report to the House 60 days after January 1 of every year. The last time we had a report was March 31, 1980. These reports should emphasize the problems with the implementation of the agreement. There is probably no way the minister could submit a report, because it would document all kinds of terrible situations and it would be an embarrassment to the government.
The fact that the minister is legally supposed to table reports and has not done so for two years put him in contempt of Parliament. This was brought to the attention of the Speaker last year by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on a question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that there is no way she can sanction a minister's action or make him accountable. She said we would have to find other recourse. There does not seem to be any other recourse to make this minister responsible to Parliament. Maybe it will have to be public recourse.
Nothing happened after we heard this terrible story a year ago last spring. The Cree and the Inuit returned this spring with more of the same stories, most of them even worse. The Inuit told us about the great inadequacies of the education system in their area where 1,500 or 1,600 children can only go as far as grade eight. In many communities there are no opportunities to go to school at all. Sometimes school is held in small shacks.
Housing standards are completely unacceptable and hundreds of new houses are needed. We have heard stories of contaminated water and children who are still becoming sick. Tuberculosis is still raging in the area. A year ago I brought to the attention of the House the fact that there was T.B. in the area but virtually nothing has been done about it. Chief Diamond told us at the hearings a month ago that since we heard from him last year his wife has contracted T.B. I would like to quote a small sentence about the problem to let you know how bad it is. A Mr. Therien, a research agent from the community health department of the University of Laval, testified as follows:
Supply
Active or reactivated cases on the Hudson coast. The problem has been more or less eradicated in the Ungava Bay area, although there are, to my knowledge, one or two cases at present.
Before that he said:
There is a T.B. problem on the Hudson coast. To my knowledge, there are about 30 to 40 active or reactivated cases prevalent right now.
It is commonly known that tuberculosis is a symptom of very poor health conditions. It is a Third World disease and should not be acceptable in this day and age in Canada.
When the Inuit delegation came before us they even added a new dimension to their disturbing testimony. They told us of double standards where white people who came to work in their communities were put in good houses with running water and sewage systems while the native people had to live in shacks, many times with two to three families in small 14 by 18 rooms. Interestingly enough, just to illustrate the attitude of the department in its implementation of this act, I found out today that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has launched a legal suit in Quebec City against the James Bay Cree, and the school board in particular, for failure to pay their electrical bills. The Cree have launched a counter-suit against the department for not fulfilling its obligation to pay for the board of students who go out of the area to attend school.
This is an example of what is happening. An act was passed which was intended to prevent all this from happening. It was supposed to provide schooling, health care, housing, fire protection and air strips. 1 suggest that it is unacceptable for all of this to occur.
Last week i received a letter from a law firm which represents the Inuit people. I quote from it:
On behalf of the northern Quebec Inuit, and, in particular, Mrs. Mary Simon, president of Makivik Corporation-
And he mentions other people.
-I wish to express our thanks for your continued interest in the implementation of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and for your support for federal measures which would ensure its implementation.
While disappointment was expressed concerning the small turnout of members at the appearance by the northern Quebec Inuit on May 19, the importance of the standing committee's role in the review process is readily acknowledged.
We would, therefore, again urge that the Committee make the strongest possible intervention at this time in light of the testimony by northern Quebec Inuit and the James Bay Crees concerning conditions in their communities resulting directly from the lack of implementation of the letter and spirit of Canada's obligations under the agreement.
This agreement was supposed to be a landmark agreement which would set the stage for all the land settlements across the country. It has not done that. Instead, it will make it more difficult to settle land claims.
Hon. members have heard my colleague from Prince George-Peace River refer to the standing committee hearings in Vancouver last month. As an illustration of how the department works, evidently some of the native organizations which appeared before us gave testimony about the department that was rather derogatory and have had their funding cut by as much as 30 per cent or more since those hearings. That was to keep them in line. I find that completely unacceptable.

June 17, 1982
Supply
I have spoken of the situation in Quebec but the same problems are rampant in my own province. Time and again I have drawn to the attention of the minister and the bureaucrats the problems of the Mount Currie band in my riding. This band consists of approximately 1,000 people who have not had any new homes built for about four years. The reason for that is that the village sits on a flood plain at the present time, and it would require approximately 11 feet of fill to bring it above the flood plain. Since it is on a flood plain, CMHC will not give that band any money for mortgages. Therefore, the native people decided to move up on to a bench above the village and build a new subdivision. They have been working on this plan for years and had decided not to build any more houses on the lower area until the subdivision is ready. In the meantime there have been 13 fires and a number of deaths. The school has been condemned three times. They are still waiting for this subdivision to be approved. They have been promised it time and again. These are the same people who were instrumental in starting the sit-in at the regional office last year in Vancouver because of their frustration.
1 received a telex from them three days ago which I do not have time to read now. Nothing has happened despite the assurances 1 have had time and time again from the minister and his officials that they were going to address this serious problem.
These situations exist all across the country. I urge the minister to accept his responsibilities and do something about them. We are willing to help. He must keep his commitments to us and the native people of Canada because, if he does not, 1 am fearful that real trouble will erupt with the Indian people. They will no longer stand for the treatment they are receiving from this minister and this government.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in today's debate in response to a moral obligation to be involved in an area of our nation's business from which it is all too easy to remain aloof. It is very easy for politicians and the public in general to dismiss responsibilities of the nation with respect to the aboriginal peoples as somehow less important when judged in the light of the total Canadian problem. I have myself had a very peripheral concern for this area of national affairs, and I say this to my shame, not my credit.
National apathy has demonstrated itself in the indifference which has permitted the unchallenged development of a selfcongratulatory attitude within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which unfortunately has resulted in neither addressing the interests of the native people nor the interests of Canadians. This is the great tragedy.
We see that the dominant interest being maintained and promoted is that of the bureaucrat to increase and expand the influence of his own empire which, in some instances, is a very large empire indeed. This is an agency of government in which the minister carries tremendous trust responsibilities for the wellbeing of a group of people who are generally threatened by a social and economic system which is opposed to their own traditional values. It is an agency of government whose failure in its purpose and its visionary but difficult opportunity is borne out by the repeated testimony of failure which came to
the standing committee and was spoken about by native people across the province. This is a very sad commentary on the conduct of the minister acting as a representative of the Crown. The final responsibility does rest solely on his shoulders. This is an essential part of the portfolio. If there ever was a time when there was a requirement for parternalism for native people, that time has passed. The time now is for assisted autonomy in which an advisory, financial and management-oriented autonomy must characterize the departmental thrust.
There is no place in it by which directives are impinged upon responsible decisions of band councils and chiefs. On the other hand, there is equally no place in a departmental policy that places unrestricted and undisciplined autonomy in the hands of those local band authorities without any final degree of accountability to the minister for their actions.
I am not impressed by the minister who shelters himself from his responsibility by saying, "I have given that responsibility and that authority to the band council to accept in any way they see fit. I have no responsibility for their actions; I only sign their bylaws. It is really not up to me after that."
The minister just cannot wash his hands of liability for events occurring on Indian property which comes under his charge. I just cannot accept it that the minister has no accountability for the carrying out of the terms of contracts made with the Crown. It is entirely convenient for the minister to say, as he did in a letter to myself dated June 3, 1982, the following:
It is up to the courts to determine when a band council has exceeded its authority.
The minister does not appear to understand his responsibility to individuals and enterprises which have entered into lease agreements with the Crown on the assumption that contracts made with the Crown would be managed by the Crown with an element of good faith. At the very least, the minister, through his department, must monitor the administrative faithfulness to the terms of each contract. Certainly when the minister has extended agent-of-the-Crown status to others, he must be responsive to grievances raised by either of the principal parties. Otherwise, the Crown itself will be brought into disrepute.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Frederick John King: Yes, Mr. Speaker, after I have completed my remarks.
Let me quote some excerpts from a message I received yesterday from one of the aggrieved parties who has a contract with the Crown for use of Westbank Indian property. He states in his message that the band is relatively wealthy by standards of other reserves in Canada. He asks why they are so fortunate. Then he answers that the Crown, acting as a leasing
June 17, 1982

agent for the band at their request, consented to lease parcels of these lands to other Canadians who are willing to gamble their expertise and moneys in various ventures for their own mutual benefit and that of the band.
This gentleman says that businessmen are normally wary of any lease partnership arrangement, but the head lease invariably begins with Her Majesty the Queen. They rely completely on the integrity of the Crown, and quite rightly so. Likewise they rely on the integrity of the minister of the Crown, also quite rightly so. They know full well that neither he nor the Queen can personally administer the lease. He says in his message that the administration has to be done by an agent of the minister, usually at the nearest office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said that although dealing with the somewhat distant bureaucracy is not always the best arrangement-and I would like the minister to listen to this-the lessee can draw comfort from the fact that a certain uniform policy would be applied by competent and honest civil servants who have nothing to gain financially in exercising their duty. Now comes the crux of this man's complaint.
He says that suddenly this past policy has changed. He says it was changed without a word having been said to those Canadians who have invested millions of dollars in land projects. It was changed without their opinion being asked, without their thoughts on the matter being sought and, in fact, without any reference whatsoever having been made to it.
This gentleman said that it became known in 1981 that the minister had assigned the administration of these leases to the local band. He adds that he has handed over the administration to people who have a vested interest in every dollar they can obtain from those who have invested their lives in these reserve projects. He says there is without doubt a direct conflict of interest involved in this matter.
This gentleman then states that the confidence he and other businessmen had in the integrity of the Crown and of the minister is not being experienced in the relationship with the band council which the minister has appointed as the agents of the Crown. The minister is aware that some very serious allegations were made to him in a letter from that gentleman dated February 17, 1982. It is a very lengthy letter in which he went into great detail. Unfortunately, he received no response. That letter includes the following statement:
As long as the lease was being administered by the department, there were no problems. There was a good working relationship without conflict of any description.
All that this gentleman and others with similar perceived grievances are asking is that they be provided a forum, private and discreet, in which they can relate their experiences with confidence that their statements will be evaluated and that an appropriate response will be taken by the minister.
This is not unreasonable. It is not asking that the circumstances and the response be pre-judged and pre-arranged. It simply says to the minister that people are being hurt. They think they have a legitimate grievance. They want to tell the minister and his officials personally that they do not think it appropriate or practical to take every instance to the courts.
Supply
They think that the minister, representing as he does the Crown, the very basis of democracy, has a duty to hear them and a duty to fulfil his responsibility as it relates to Indian people and to those with contracts which involve native people.
I do not know whether the allegations which have come to me from lessees of Westbank Indian band properties, allegations of grievous wrong being done to them through tactics of harassment and intimidation by the chief and council, are sustainable in law. I do not have the means and the opportunity to find out. The minister does not know, but he does have the means and opportunity to make that determination. He has had that opportunity for months and months, those months since he was first made aware of the grievance. I want to state in favour of the minister, because I have been hard on him, that he has set up a review procedure. It raises my optimism and my esteem for the minister a great deal. 1 believe that that review mechanism has the possibility, if allowed to proceed unimpeded, to resolve all of the difficulties to which I have pointed. It should have been done six months ago, and I want to thank him for putting it in place. People of Westbank who are affected, also want to say a word of appreciation to the minister.
I want to refer now, Mr. Speaker, to the committee's fifth report, which comes out over the signature of the Chairman, the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) tabled in this House on June 1. I want to read into the record the recommendation that is made. It reads:
(11) The members of the committee further recommend an independent inquiry, specifically with regard to all activities carried out by the regional office in conjunction with Indian band members and officials of the Westbank Indian Band in British Columbia, as well as all other governmental economic development ventures affecting Indian people in the British Columbia Region.
This is the recommendation coming from the committee. It is a committee which, as has been stated, was fully attended. It was dominated by Liberal members of this House, so it came as a totally non-partisan expression of concern. I am somewhat disappointed that the type of inquiry that is set up is internal, within the department. I would have liked to have seen the independent type of inquiry that was requested. But I am not depreciating the efforts that the minister has put in. I have great respect for the people who are going to conduct this.
I must express the great feeling of relief, Mr. Speaker, that is coming from the people in the Westbank area who are grievously affected. They want me to obtain from the minister the assurances that this review will go forward without impediment and with all of the confidentiality that is required in this situation.
Should anyone consider that I am displaying some type of anti-native bias, let me point to the petition which I have here. Here is a petition which was forwarded to me by a group of Westbank Indian Band members with whose spokesman and others of that group I have met at their invitation. This petition was forwarded to the minister many months ago. It requests an investigation of the spending of the Indian revenue

June 17, 1982
Supply
funds. A letter attached to it begins "Dear Mr. Fred King", and ends up with these words: "I would appreciate your help in this matter." I helped by forwarding the petition to the minister. It ends up with this: "1 am good to my word." I say to those who signed that petition: "I will attempt to be good to my word as well."
My word has been to seek to have the minister take an interest and take action appropriate under his responsibility. I am going to be very persistent in pursuing this. So are my colleagues on this side of the House. I am confident that our colleagues on the other side of the House will be just as insistent that the minister report back to the committee on the progress made.
The parliamentary secretary is indicating that 1 am out of time, and 1 have only just got started. 1 have not dealt with other aspects of the Westbank Indian Band. It is a complex and alarming situation which has caught the attention of a number of unrelated persons.
Among those showing anxiety are departmental officials themselves who have undertaken certain reviews and investigations. Some of these concerns were explored and vented in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development held on May 26, 1982. I would urge all hon. members to read the proceedings of that day. They make very interesting but disquieting reading. It is important, I think, that much of the information provided at that time came from internal documents marked confidential. In one case a document was marked "Confidential" "Confidential" "Confidential" "Confidential". I do not know the implications of that.
I want to read some excerpts from these two documents, simply to substantiate to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that my calls for an intervention by the minister have not been irresponsible nor politically motivated. The obvious alarm felt within the department is simply a reflection of that felt by those who have asked for my intervention on their behalf to the minister. It says:
owner Toussowasket Enterprises Ltd.
N. C. Derriksan, President and Director.
This is an internal paper of the department and it says:
This project was developed primarily as a retirement fund for the locatee N. C. Derriksan .. . No jobs have been created by this project.
It goes on to describe him as a millionaire and says:
The only factions to benefit from the project are the subject (Derriksan) and perhaps the various management/supervision/construction parties.
On January 24, 1982, there was a document which says, in part:
1 have examined the various documents you have provided to me regarding the contribution arrangement between Her Majesty the Queen and the Westbank Indian Band ... 1. Contribution arrangement between HMQ and Westbank Indian Band dated: May 5, 1981 -
The amount of the contribution is $300,000.00-
The legal documentation supporting this arrangement is skimpy, to say the least . . . I would say, from a legal point of view, that the contribution arrangement itself is hopelessly inadequate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on a point of order.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the rearrangement of the furniture that we are about to have a visitor from the other place, summoning us there for Royal Assent. I would therefore seek unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) to complete his remarks in the time that is remaining.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen.


Frederick John King: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be but a few minutes. The amount of the contribution is $300,000 and the conclusion reached after four pages is:
-from what I have seen, it appears that Indian money is being used in a most inappropriate way, to benefit one Indian, and a number of non-Indian creditors . . . Insofar as this money is Indian money the very transaction may be a breach of trust. Alternatively, we may be able to establish other "considerations" for the loan.
On March 30, 1982, the current situation is described:
In May, 1981, the B.C. region approved a three-year, $300,000 contribution to the Westbank Indian Band ... for the purpose of purchasing a 50 per cent interest in the leasehold interest-
Pursuant to this contribution arrangement, the department disbursed to the Westbank Indian Band in July, 1981, the first of the three $100,000 payments. On October 1, 1981, $100,000 was received by the department from Mount Boucherie Trailer Park as payment-
As a result of the impropriety of making a contribution for the purpose (direct or indirect) of repaying an IEDF loan, the headquarters economic development branch has undertaken an investigation to determine the appropriateness and authority for the May, 1981, contribution. Pending the outcome of this review-
The director-
-has been instructed to cease all further disbursements against this contribution arrangement and to forward the necessary documentation to facilitate the abovenoted review.
Suggested response:
Considering that the department is of the opinion that a contribution is not an appropriate vehicle for reducing an IEDF loan, steps have been taken to ensure that the two subsequent $100,000 payments for 1982-83 and 1983-84 to the Westbank Indian Band will not be made. An in-depth review is currently being undertaken to determine what further action, if any, is required by the department.
If we read the testimony given in that committee meeting to which I referred previously, we see that, subsequent to the recommendation that no further payment be made, both payments were made on an accelerated basis between the period March 30 when this recommendation was made and May 26 when we met in committee. The whole $200,000 has been paid despite this recommendation.
I will respond to the question of the minister now.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the hon. member saw any inconsistency at all in his approach

June 17, 1982

in terms of what he feels I should do as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development vis-a-vis looking behind the activities of a chief and band council when they wish to take some action with reference to the affairs on their reserve. Should 1 go in and second guess them, as the hon. member suggests, and examine what they are doing with reference to the decision-making exercise? Does the hon. member find any inconsistency in that approach compared with what some of his colleagues said earlier about the deplorable type of paternalism which is being exhibited by the minister in the department, which, they say, should cease? I just wonder if the hon. member sees any contradiction there?


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I think I pointed to a certain inconsistency in my speech. I said I did not think there was room for interference in the day to day responsible decisions made by individual band authorities, but that there had to be an overview responsibility on the part of the minister. When things get out of hand-as they are out of hand with respect to the Westbank Indian Band area-someone has to take responsibility, and 1 suggest it is the minister who has that responsibility. Again, I am not asking for action, and neither are the people involved. They are asking for a forum in which they can speak to departmental officials. They would like to speak to the minister, but that is not always possible, in view of the minister's busy circumstances. However, there are officials who could provide that forum. If I understand the minister's decision correctly, I am pleased to note that that forum will be provided. That is all that is being requested.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is just a little unsettling to begin a speech when one is aware that at any moment there will be a knock at the door, so I will avoid getting into the heart of my speech.
Let me begin by saying a word about the operation of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has been said by other hon. members that this is not a highly partisan committee. It is made up of Members of Parliament from the three political parties, but these members have been able to work together very effectively and concentrate on areas which concern them all very deeply. This is the tradition of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At the moment I have the privilege to be the chairman of that committee, but the tradition of being concerned about the issues and the testimony brought before that committee was established long ago. It was carried on by my predecessor, for example, the hon. member for Chateau-guay (Mr. Watson), who still serves on the committee, and also by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who ably chaired that committee during the administration of the Conservative government.
Your guest has arrived, Mr. Speaker.
Supply


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-l 17, to amend the Criminal Code, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this hon. House in the Chamber of the hon. the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-l 11, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority-Chapter 98; Bill C-l 17, an act to amend the Criminal Code-Chapter 99.

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.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motin of Mr. Schellenberger:
That this House condemns the Government, and in particular, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for its failure to meet any of the objectives for which the Government continues to seek authority to spend in excess of one billion dollars in this fiscal year on behalf of Canada's Aboriginal
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1982
Supply
Peoples, for its tolerance of the miserable conditions existing in native communities throughout Canada which are of a standard vastly inferior to those found in most Third World Countries, for the Minister's failure to exercise his obligatory trust responsibility, and for the minister's contempt of Parliament as manifested by his deliberate refusal to comply with the statutory obligations which legally require him to report to the House on the progress of the implementation of the James Bay agreement.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, when I began my speech a few minutes before six o'clock I was expressing a word of tribute to the hard-working and dedicated Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They come from all three parties, and without exception they serve on this committee with the very best of motives. They understand and care about the issues and concerns brought before us. This is not a committee which can be manipulated or used by anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: This committee is not a tool of the government or the opposition, nor is it a tool of any one Indian organization or group of organizations. The members of this committee are more than sympathetically disposed to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, but we make our own objective evaluation of matters we should pursue and issues into which we should inquire. Let me say parenthetically that I hope that before this Parliament has concluded its work there will be very significant reform of our committee system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: But within the limits imposed upon all committees we have shown ourselves to be determined and independently minded. There may be, Mr. Speaker, committees of this House which are as good, but I doubt there is a committee which is any better.
The Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development now has a national constituency of aboriginal peoples who see it as a forum in which they can receive a fair, open and sympathetic hearing, and from which positive action can result. We can and do respond. For example, consider the case of the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement. Last year the committee heard telling testimony of the failure of two governments, Canada's and Quebec's, to implement fairly the terms of this major historic agreement. It is futile here and now to argue whether strict legal obligations were or were not met; but clearly there was a failure to implement the spirit of the agreement. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) concurred in this conclusion. He, of course, was not the minister who either negotiated or signed the agreement, but his concern over this failure, in my view, merits full recognition. The minister agreed there were shortcomings, and he did something about them. He assigned senior officials to examine the problem in-depth and prepare a report. In addition, he went to the communities of James Bay in the company of the committee chairman and the local Member of Parliament, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), who also serves as the vice-chairman of the committee. He saw for himself what the conditions were, and the disappointments in
this area where the agreement was supposed to have brought a new day.
In preparing the report I mentioned there were consultations with the James Bay Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit, and finally the so-called Tait report emerged with recommendations which are now awaiting cabinet approval. The James Bay Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit are anxious to know what moneys will be provided to fairly, decently and fully carry out the provisions of this historic agreement. It is most important in my mind and in the minds of all members of the standing committee that this cabinet decision be announced soon.
The standing committee, in its fifth report, Item No. 12, stated:
Recalling your committee's earlier report to the minister respecting the implementation of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement, your committee is dismayed by the delay of the federal cabinet in reaching a just decision based on the recommendations of the department's review, providing for adequate funding according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
We, on the committee, are anxious to see a fair and just settlement of this agreement for its own sake, but also because we know that it will have a significant effect on other land claims negotiations. There are important lessons to be learned from the James Bay agreement. Those who settle future claims will want to be assured of an adequate and workable implementation process. They will want to know that there are sufficient moneys to carry out the commitments expressed in these agreements or settlements. The comprehensive claims under negotiation north of 60 will require substantial sums of money. One way to ensure that these moneys are available would be to set aside a share of northern resource revenues in a trust fund for the future settlement of the very large comprehensive claims. This approach, among others, requires careful examination.
The motion of my friend, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) mentions the miserable conditions that exist in native communities across Canada. The government acknowledges that these conditions do exist and they are serious. The progress made in alleviating these conditions has been dismally slow. Today in Canada there are 300,000 Indian people in 573 bands. About 65 per cent of the Indian population is located in rural or remote communities. It is true that expenditures such as this year's commitment of $1 billion have, to some extent, improved Indian living conditions in material ways.
Those of us who have Indian reserves in our constituencies know that there have been some improvements. Housing has improved somewhat. Water and other community services are better and more plentiful. Health care and social services are more accessible to those in need. But in saying that, we must also be cognizant of the fact that the standard of living of the people of Canada as a whole has improved at an accelerated rate, and the gap between national standards and those of Indian people has not narrowed. For example, the life expectancy among Indian people is ten years less than the national average. There are more violent deaths and suicides among
June 17, 1982

Indian people. The number of Indian people on social assistance has increased.
Many of these conditions are described in a 1980 Department of Indian Affairs study entitled "Indian Conditions: A survey". In the area of housing, which has been of great concern to the standing committee, the study indicated that there was a backlog of 11,000 new houses. The study also stated that an additional 9,000 houses were desperately in need of repair. Last fall in a discussion paper on Indian housing, the department expressed the need for the same number of new houses, that is 11,000, but the number of houses needing renovation has also risen to 11,000. At the present time, one in every three Indian families lives in unacceptably crowded conditions.
Why do these conditions exist? I am sure a long list of reasons could be given, but they exist partly because there is a lack of an independent economic base in many Indian communities. That is so because so many of these communities are located in isolated and remote regions of this country. What of social assistance? Much of that $1 billion is directed toward social assistance, but social assistance is both a blessing and a curse. It provides for life's necessities, that is true, but at the same time it reinforces a sense of dependency. The Indian people do not like that sense of dependency any more than any other person in this country who does not want to be dependent upon someone else, on handouts, or to be beholden to the government for his or her wellbeing and existence.
Constitutionally, it is now recognized that there are aboriginal rights. The treaties are one expression of the unique relationship Indian people have with the Government of Canada. That relationship needs to be defined, it needs to be expanded. Our new Constitution calls for this to be done on a priority basis. I hope the aboriginal people of Canada will not be disappointed in the result of that endeavour because the Government of Canada has obligations to meet and grievances to settle.
1 have already referred to the comprehensive claims north of 60. There are the specific claims in the provinces which result from a long list of treaty violations. There is also the obligation to foster economic development and to restore self-reliance among Indian people. The latter calls for us to work with Indian leaders toward the establishment of effective Indian government for Indian people within the context of the Canadian confederation. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River when he said we are not talking here about a state within a state. We are talking about Indian government for Indian people within the context of the Canadian confederation. But we seem at times to be moving at a snail's pace, and the impatience with this slow progress is growing. The time is now for what the Chinese people once referred to in their development as a "great leap forward". That is what we need, a great leap forward in the area of government-Indian relations in Canada.
A few years ago I was reading an interesting book by Theodore H. White entitled "In Search of History". Incidentally Ted White is an author and a newspaperman who made
Supply
his reputation by doing an in-depth analysis of U.S. presidential elections. In the final chapter of White's book "In Search of History", he dealt with the administration of John F. Kennedy. The chapter is entitled "Camelot". I was struck by White's description of the manner in which President Kennedy advanced the cause of civil rights in the United States.
In 1963, President Kennedy announced to the American people that he had drafted a new civil rights bill. His speech to the nation had a single message: the need of new laws for new times. According to White, that legislation carried the concept of civil rights light years forward. The civil rights bill which became law in 1964 was revolutionary in a legislative and social sense.
In Canada, our relationship with our aboriginal peoples needs a similar momentum, that is, a great leap forward. We need to move light years ahead, even to be revolutionary. Instead, from our observations in the standing committee where a lot of frustration and impatience is absorbed from those who appear before us, we seem to be moving with reluctance and lethargy; without courage, imagination and vision. Our approach to Indian people and our relationship with them as a government, as we all know, has evolved from one of internal colonialism to attempted, but failed, assimilation, to the now cautious uncertain recognition that some form of limited, prescribed self-government must be accepted. In the past, giving Indian people special status and having them settle on specific land areas known as reserves really derived from a perceived need to protect Indians and Indian lands from exploitation by non-Indians. That was the motivation. It had nothing whatsoever to do with an understanding of, or a respect for, the treaties. In fact, it was nothing more than a policy of internal colonialism.
In 1969 the policy which had been with us for so long was changed, and the much-heralded white paper on Indian policy was tabled in the House. In case hon. members do not know or do not remember, I remind them that politicians from all political parties thought that the paper represented very significant progress. The spokesmen for each political party, if hon. members check the record of Hansard, thought that it was a step forward.


Mr. Blaikie:: We will look.


B. Keith Penner: Please do.


James Douglas Manly: We have learned since then.


B. Keith Penner: Hon. members opposite have learned and we have learned, but let me remind my hon. friends how we have learned. We should not pat ourselves on the back. We learned because the Indian people themselves perceived that this was a policy of assimilation which meant for them cultural genocide.
Over the past several years, self-government has emerged as a pivotal concern in the quest by Canada's Indian peoples for a redefined role within confederation. For them self-government is inextricably linked to the achievement of self-determination and the preservation of their cultural heritage. Increased political activity by Indian associations has forced federal officials to move Indian policy a little more in line with actual

June 17, 1982
Supply
political, economical and social development of many Indians in Canada. But, according to a recent study, the bringing of Indian policies more in line with current development has been espoused in order to head off larger and more intense challenges in the future. There is something of a stalling tactic involved here.
These new uncharted waters to which I have referred are being avoided because it is known that additional moneys will need to be appropriated. When we have a large and growing federal deficit, that is not a very appealing idea. It may require the reallocation of funds and resources within government, and we all know the kinds of difficulties which that can create. What would happen to the present control mechanism operated by the department? How could accountability be assured? My committee believes that we should confront these issues squarely, not run away from them or hide. Therefore, we requested in our famous fifth report a special reference from Parliament to examine the total financial and other relationships of the Government of Canada with Indian and Inuit people. It is my conviction that the committee, if given this responsibility, could very greatly assist the government by indicating what the desirable goals are and what new directions we must follow in order to get there.
All the wisdom in the world does not reside with our public officials.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I have already extended to him the grace of a couple of extra minutes. Perhaps the hon. member might seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I assume the hon. member would recognize that he has unanimous consent to continue for one or two minutes.


B. Keith Penner: I appreciate the graciousness of the House in giving me a few more minutes to conclude.
As I was saying, those of us who have dialogued with Indian people for many years could, given the time and with thoughtful consultation, offer some acceptable and exciting new policy options which would be genuinely progressive.
The language of the motion before us this evening is in the traditional partisan, adversarial mould. I do not think it upsets any one of us too much. After all, this is Parliament; it is not a club for ladies and gentlemen. This is not a place for Mr. and Mrs. Milque-toast. This is Parliament, raw in tooth and claw, so no one is easily upset or disturbed. It is true that it condemns the government and the minister. It speaks of tolerating miserable conditions and of failures to meet objectives and to comply. If we put that somewhat offensive phraseology aside, it can be agreed that we must make a new beginning. We must make a fresh start and we must do so with some vigour and conviction.
Earlier I said that the constitutional conference on aboriginal rights could be such a commencement, but 1 say to the House that the standing committee could be of service in moving us light years ahead in the renewal of government-Indian relationships. Indian people and their leaders are ready and willing to get the process under way. Enlightened Canadians from across the country are looking to us for results. Finally, the world is watching and our credibility in the international community is at stake. We must not fail to act decisively and to do so without delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak to the motion tonight. There are many things to say when one rises to speak on a subject which is not often discussed in the House at a time when many groups and individuals from bands across the country have come to Parliament to indicate the difficulties with which they are faced. Before commencing the speech I should like to give this evening, I say to the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) that we appreciate the way in which he conducts the committee. If we have a chairman who assists the committee in its work, it is easier for all parties to do the best job possible in helping people. That is really what this debate is all about.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has a difficult job. In a sense, he is always dealing with people, and he has a restricted budget which has not grown perhaps as fast as we would like, given present difficulties. Of course, he must work within that budget. Many of us on this side honestly believe that there are ways of improving the expenditures of the minister and his department.
We have mentioned in our motion a number of things which are upsetting to us as a party. One area which is constantly a problem is the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is still in place and that the minister, because of that, has a distinct trust relationship with native people. Because of that trust relationship, one would think that the Indian people themselves would have a certain trust. However, we find instead many cases of Indian band representatives across Canada coming to Ottawa day after day, week after week, coming to the House to tell us, Members of Parliament, that they do not in fact trust the manner in which expenditures are being made on their behalf. They are spending their money to travel here because promises have been made but have not been fulfilled.
Conditions on reserves are worse than conditions in Third World countries. Native people are coming to Ottawa in the hope that we, as Members of Parliament, the minister and his officials, will listen to their plea and act upon it. Native people who do not have much money hire consultants to help them with their pleas. They are spending millions of dollars each year. Why do native people have to hire consultants? The

June 17, 1982

department is supposed to be there, surely, to fulfil that function itself and assist the native people in expanding their livelihood. The natives do not hire consultants to advise them on how to build houses; they hire political consultants to help get the minister's attention to deal with things that they believe are essential to their reserves. Native people themselves are worried about the necessity of hiring consultants. Last year, political advisers in one province took up more than $1 million of native funds to help with such things as conducting marches and preparing briefs. They do this because when they go to the officials in the capital cities or the regional directors in other areas to ask for commitments they usually get no for an answer. However, when they deliver those requests in the form of a concise report or attractive brief they often get yes for an answer. Therefore, they spend money on obtaining the assistance of consultants. Much of this money is wasted, something which they cannot afford to do.
I would like to read a comment by a chief of an Indian band. This appeared in the Edmonton Journal. He was asked why they do this, and he said:
Take a band that has lived through 50 years of frustration. If you go in there and give them hope of any kind, they'll ride that hope right down the tube.
That is why they hire consultants.
1 have been speaking of a trust relationship wherein the minister has certain funds. There must be a trust that he will spend that money properly. Many native people in Canada do not believe that it is being spent properly. The department should be working itself out of a job instead of increasing the numbers of people working in the department and using funds which are desperately needed to assist native people.
Since the minister is a lawyer I realize that he wishes every word to be taken strictly in the legal sense. There is now a new funding procedure for the use of the bands own money. Instead of the traditional method of Indian bands' presenting a yearly funding proposal to the minister for the use of their own money, they now have to present that proposal every three months. The minister has said that this must be done because it is in line with his trust responsibility. No business can operate when it does not know what its funding will be three months in the future. In fact, in order to have the three-month spending requisition, they have to send in a new requisition each month. In my opinion, instead of assisting native people, we are moving back to the ancient concept where the department knows best how native people can fund themselves with their own money which is in their trust funds. There is some $500 million in those trust funds which should be used to assist native people.
Why has this funding proposal been changed? The department has said that the management system has encouraged the department to place a sharper emphasis on structured, formalized planning than ever before. Believe me, departments of this government know best how to structure and how to formalize planning. This is one of the difficulties that the native people have.
The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior defined some of the health and social problems that native people are facing as compared with those faced by the non-native society. He said
Supply
that the mortality rates were significantly higher. This was mentioned as well by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) with respect to the health problems experienced in northern Quebec. The death rate of infants due to infectious disease is very high. Indians use hospital facilities two to two and a half times more often than the national average. In 1977 there were 1,200 families living in condemned houses. One out of every four reserve houses are in need of repair. Incomes are half the national average, and welfare dependancy on some reserves reaches 70 per cent. Is it any wonder that we suggest that conditions on many of our reserves are worse than in many Third World countries which we are, quite properly, helping?
I reviewed the recommendations of CIDA to see if assistance could be made available by that organization. It is interesting to note that CIDA is capable of operating also in Canada under its terms of reference. It is common knowledge that CIDA carries on successful projects in other countries. Perhaps it might be incumbent upon the minister to ask CIDA for assistance in order to improve the poor conditions which we have described. Perhaps funding could be provided through their expertise to assist native people, instead of providing them with such things on new housing as the so-called J circulars.
When there is a shortage of some 11,000 homes in Canada for native people, with almost as many homes that are condemned or in desperate need of repair, we now see a new housing policy which says that the government will provide $18,000 to $22,000 on condition that a certain amount of the natives' own money is added to finish building the homes. It does not makes good sense to tell a native family who is on welfare and barely able to feed and clothe itself to add its own money. Where will they get the extra money from?
Some chiefs and councils have said it is impossible for them to build a home on that amount of money, but since they have been allocated money for the construction of ten or 12 houses they will pool the money instead and build five houses. But the government says, "No. If you do that, we will take all the money back.'' This is the situation which results from the new J circulars which are being handed out throughout Canada. As a result, no housing projects, or very few, are proceeding this spring.
If we look at the budget that has been spent for housing in Canada for the last ten years, we see that it adds up to some $700 million, if I read the estimates correctly. If that amount were divided among the number of native families in this country we should have been able to build one house for every family. Yet we are behind by 11,000.
There are some serious questions which must be asked about the housing policy and why house construction is so far behind. The minister has access to something called the Western Development Fund which is supposedly to be used to help in the construction of houses. Western Canada is happy to provide that money if, in fact it goes to building houses since many native people reside in the west. It is my hope that this

June 17, 1982
Supply
money will quickly be put to use and that this new circular being distributed will be amended.
The department also has something called "paper houses". Officials of the department indicate how many houses are to be built under this plan. In many cases the bank is in debt. They do not have a sufficient amount of money to fund other programs. Therefore, they pull it out of the housing project. The department tells them to pull it out of there. No one mentions that the homes are not built. Unless they are actually counted, the department assumes the homes have actually been built. As a result, we have something called "paper houses". Perhaps we are short even more than the anticipated
11,000	homes.
We are not being given a lot of time to speak today. That is good because it gives more members an opportunity to speak. I would like to deal with one other subject before closing. It is important to the Indian people of this country. They have their rights entrenched in the Constitution. A great deal of time was spent on this in the last year before the Constitution was brought home to this nation. Within a year of last April, a conference must be called to deal with the definition of aboriginal rights. Because there is only one year, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about this. It is a difficult question. I wanted to know what the federal government feels it ought to be doing. Have the federal government and the minister been in touch with the Indian leadership in this nation to have preliminary meetings so that there are no surprises when the conference is called? If the conference fails, does that mean the constitutional requirement has been settled? If we have no definition, do we carry on as before? When I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said no. He felt that the first step would be to consult the provinces to get their view as to a date for the meeting and as to what groups they would like to see invited.
That simply is not good enough. The minister ought to be meeting with Indian groups across this country now. He should be stating what his position is with regard to this constitutional conference. The provinces should be made aware of the direction in which the government and the native people feel we should be going. At the present time, we have not heard anything about the position of this government on the constitutional conference and the role it feels it should play in it.
Members have spoken of difficulties. They have appreciated having the opportunity to do that. I would point out that education is essential if young people are to help their bands. Many accomplishments have been made in this area. Economic development is essential to get people off welfare so that they can be productive and have pride in themselves. Economic development spending involves some SI00 million. Social assistance spending is almost $300 million. The hon. member for Cochrane-Superior spoke about that. It is important that we get more money into the economic development area so
that people can carry out productive work and again take pride in themselves.
It is not often that we get to speak on the issue of our Indian people. This opposition day has provided us with that opportunity. I hope the minister is now aware of some of the criticisms being laid at his feet and some of the responsibilities he must carry out in the next number of months.


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this debate, especially since part of the motion now under consideration deals with the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement, an area which is part of my constituency. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall briefly the background of this question in order to better understand how the James Bay agreement came about and the problems caused by its implementation. It will then be easier to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the James Bay area, which is nearly totally included in the Abitibi riding which I represent, is different from every other region in Canada. These differences explain the philosophy under which this unique and unprecedented agreement was negotiated.
As we all know, the James Bay territory was purchased by the Government of Canada from the Hudson's Bay Company. The region was then called Rupert's Land. I have here an order in council from 1898 which gave part of this territory to the province of Quebec. In 1912, the rest of the territory was handed over to Quebec. To give you an idea of its geographic location, my native town of Amos was given to the province of Quebec in 1898. This territory extended to the middle of the Eastmain River. In 1912, the territory of the province of Quebec was extended to include the entire territory from the upper part of the Eastmain River to the northern boundary. However, at the same time, Quebec had to take responsibility for territorial matters and other issues concerning the native people, their interests and their claims, which were completely non-existent in the Abitibi territory from 1898 until quite recently, around 1960. It is only at that time that the province of Quebec decided to integrate Abitibi into its administrative map.
In the report of the Dorion commission on the integrity of the Quebec territory, Mr. Justice Dorion recommended: That the Quebec government take action immediately to honor the commitments made toward the Indians in the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912. He also recommended: That this commitment be kept by means of an agreement between the Quebec government and the duly appointed representatives of the Indian bands of Quebec, to be ratified by the government of Canada. I emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, to show what problems we expected when this agreement was signed. Around 1970, the province of Quebec started to show some interest in northern Quebec and to build dams and roads, and it is only with the James Bay dam project that, following
June 17, 1982

representations by the Crees and the Inuits, Quebec agreed to sit down, after all the problems caused by court proceedings, land claims and work shutdowns on the James Bay project, and try to negotiate an agreement.
That agreement dating back to 1975, that is contained in this document, was negotiated from 1973 to 1975. Who were the parties to that agreement? We find on page VII that the agreement was between the Government of Quebec, the Societe d'energie de la Baie James, the Societe de developpe-ment de la Baie James, the Commission hydroelectrique du Quebec (Hydro-Quebec) the Grand Council of Crees and Inuits of Quebec, and finally the Government of Canada. It will be remembered that Mr. John Ciaccia was Premier Bourassa's official representative at those negotiations. We find at the beginning of the agreement certain facts that are quite amazing in the light of today's situation. Mr. Ciaccia explained to members of the National Assembly in Quebec, on November 5, 1975, the philosophy of that agreement which clearly shows the shared responsibilities in the development of James Bay. 1 would like to quote excerpts from his speech that are very telling. On page XI, Mr. Ciaccia stated, and I quote:
That agreement enables us to accomplish two great tasks to which our government was committed.
"Our government" means the Quebec government.
It enables us-
-the agreement-
-to fulfil our responsibilities towards the people in our northern areas and finally to have a Quebec presence in all the territories included within our geographical boundaries.
Those geographical boundaries, Mr. Speaker, are those that were established in 1898 and 1912.
Mr. Ciaccia went on to say:
But along with that acquisition, Quebec assumed the responsibility to settle a number of land claims and other issues involving the native people, such as their interests and claims.
It was a recognition that the province of Quebec was involved in the James Bay Indians' claims. I said earlier that the province of Quebec had not included that territory in its administrative map. It should be kept in mind that the province of Quebec had nothing to do whatsoever with the James Bay and Hudson Bay territories. Schools were under federal jurisdiction, contrary to the Constitution. The federal government was responsible for health and police services and, to further quote Mr. Ciaccia:
People in northern Quebec need schools like everyone else. They must be able to rely on health services. They must be in a position to bring their differences before fair-minded judges and have the institutions needed to enforce the law. The agreement meets these various needs and provides the necessary structures. We-
-the Government of Quebec-
Supply
-will establish local school boards, social services and health boards, police and fire departments, municipal courts, and these institutions will come under the relevant departments of the Government of Quebec.
And he went on to say:
And all those services will be provided through the facilities of the Quebec government.
In other words, any services such as schools and hospitals under federal jurisdiction which the native communities may have already will become Quebec's responsibility. The Quebec government will take over some of the existing federal programs. Mr. Speaker, 1 think I have said enough to show that the implementation of the James Bay Agreement is not strictly a federal issue. In the last pages appear the names of the signatories, while the parties to the agreement are listed at the beginning. As I said earlier, that agreement was unique and unprecedented. It was inspired by principles which I tried to single out in the remarks of Mr. Caccia whom I quoted a moment ago, there were problems in its implementation, and a great many terms in the wording of that agreement were rather ambiguous. There were certain steps which Hydro-Quebec as well as the governments of Quebec and Ottawa were supposed to take. So after six years we ended up without any implementation mechanism.
When I was elected in 1980, I was contacted almost immediately by Mr. Billy Diamond-who was and still is Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees-and Northern Quebec Inuit Association President Charlie Watt. Both had signed the James Bay Agreement and they wanted to try to set that agreement straight. In 1981, in February or March,
I believe, I was a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development when spokesmen for the Grand Council of the Crees and the Inuit of Northern Quebec appeared before us to submit a brief in which they claimed that some things needed improvement in the implementation of the James Bay Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind that the agreement had been signed in 1975 by the Bourassa government and that on November 15, 1976, a whole new team took over in Quebec City. Most of the contents of that document flowed from an agreement and discussions between the federal government, the PQ government which was then in power, the Crees and the Inuit. There is no need for me to spell it out, Mr. Speaker. Let us recall the situation in 1976 and it will be readily seen that the discussions aimed at implementing that agreement were rather strained because of the Quebec-Canada policies. The Quebec government was not paying much attention to native culture. It had no expertise in native matters. And, following these claims, I am grateful to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) who agreed to lend one of his senior officials to look into the James Bay development problem.

June 17, 1982
Supply
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say, because of my privileged position both as a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and as member for that riding, that the government has responded favourably to the concerns of the committee as well as to those of the Crees and Inuits of the James Bay area. The enquiry, consultation and decision-making processes, which started in March, 1981, proved long and sometimes painful to all parties involved, but I feel that it was not an exercise in futility. On several occasions, the minister indicated in this House that a decision concerning the James Bay question was forthcoming. During its proceedings, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Affairs raised also the issue of an annual report to be tabled in Parliament on the implementation of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. People are aware that such a document has not yet been tabled by the minister. Surely the committee is right in stressing that that obligation has not been met. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, people are also aware that the tabling is undoubtedly linked with the completion of that study. Why table only part of a report on the implementation of the James Bay agreement if the study of this implementation is not yet completed. I am sure that the government intends to remedy this situation and will make sure that all future annual reports are tabled on time.
Hon. members opposite should appreciate, however, that since this very meticulous study was carried out over the past 18 months, it would have been difficult, if not outright impossible, to table a report which would reflect a rapidly changing situation. I know that the minister has asked for the understanding of Indian groups and the House in this respect. Hon. members are indeed aware that the Standing Committee has been looking into this matter for quite a while and that it issued a special statement in March, 1981. I can now inform the House that the minister will contact the Cree and Inuit leaders within the next few days or very shortly to examine with them the Standing Committee's findings.
Briefly, I would like to draw the attention of the House on the process-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as I have already pointed out, the time alloted to him has expired. If he gets the unanimous consent of the House, he could perhaps continue with his speech.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue for a moment or two?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


René Gingras: I wish to thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I still have about a minute and a half to go. I mention the fact because I consider such an approach as a typical example of the co-operation which can exist between
the government and native groups in finding common solutions. Of course, this analysis of the James Bay agreement is not and was not intended to be a magic formula. No doubt some other obstacles will crop up. However, I think that if we maintain this same attitude, this openmindedness, we will finally find a more adequate response in a more serene atmosphere. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the congenial spirit of this House and I will now end my remarks.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to all hon. members in the House who have spoken on behalf of natives. I too would like to give my support to this motion. The only problem I have is in knowing where to begin. I have the feeling that with a department such as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wherever one chooses to shoot, one can likely hit a target. For an opposition critic looking for ammunition against the government this department emerges as a veritable ammunition dump. Because the department is open to criticism on so many fronts, it would be impossible to touch on everything in one brief speech.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The barn door of Canadian politics.


Peter Ittinuar: Or an igloo! What I will do, then, is to focus on one aspect of DIAND's mandate which is of particular interest to me and the people I represent. I will leave it to my colleagues in the House to address the many other issues which can legitimately be raised.
What I would like to focus on is this government's policy on native land claims, a matter for which DIAND is responsible.
I would like to give a brief history of how and why the government's policies on claims have failed to serve the needs of northern peoples as well as other native peoples in this country.
Before dealing with the situation as it is today, let me explain briefly why the government even deals with the issue of claims and how it has handled them in the past. In the first place, the government has been obliged to deal with claims because the British legal tradition requires that native interests in any lands be recognized and dealt with before any nonnatives begin to use it. The way the federal government has always done this has been to make treaties with the native peoples and extinguish their rights in exchange for some type of compensation. When we look back over the history of treaty making, it is easy to see patterns emerge. It is easy to see, for example, that the treaties were designed to serve the needs of other people more than the needs of the natives themselves. The government's primary motivation for dealing with native peoples has always been to clear the way for development, either agricultural, non-renewable or otherwise. This was the pattern which prevailed across the prairies in the years immediately after confederation, with the construction of the CPR and the opening up of the west for farming. That is not to condemn those vocations. Indian peoples were pushed aside in
June 17, 1982

the quest for land, and the treaty-making process was meant to give it a semblance of legitimacy.
The economic and renewable resource base of the native people on the prairies, the buffalo, was eliminated, and the native people were left with the option of either being assimilated into the new society or being segregated onto reserves. Either way would leave them marginalized, culturally, economically, politically, socially and otherwise.
Perhaps the most painful lesson that native people learned about the government during this period was the fact that it was prepared to use military force to quell any resistance to this marginalization process.
Only a few such treaties have ever been signed in what can properly be called the north and, unfortunately, the same pattern has emerged. Treaty No. 8 was signed in the Upper Mackenzie Valley in 1898 in order to accommodate the influx of non-natives attracted north by the Yukon gold rush. The government felt no need to settle any other claims in this area, until oil was discovered at Norman Wells in 1920. Within the year, Treaty No. 11 was signed. The government's interest obviously had more to do with securing legal control of the oil resources at Norman Wells than it did with protecting the interest of the local residents. By the 1920s most of the likely areas of settlement or development in Canada were covered by treaties, and so the process came to a halt for about 50 years.
By the late 1960s the tragic consequences of this type of approach were painfully obvious to most Canadians. Native people suffered from the highest rates of infant mortality, school dropouts, unemployment, alcoholism and, not surprisingly, suicide. This situation continues today.
While the strategy of pushing native people aside had served its short-term purpose in the nineteenth century, by the midtwentieth century its social consequences were proving to be enormous. One would like to think that, when faced with the prospect of opening up yet another frontier area the government would now be willing, if not eager, to find an alternative approach to the land claims-an approach that would not have such tragic consequences for the people involved or such enormous long-term costs for the country as a whole.
One would like to think that the government would be interested in learning from its past mistakes, but as a close observer of the government's action in this field I have to report that it has not. This is what the government must be condemned for-not being willing to alter its modern-day approach to the issue from the one it pursued in the past, despite its obvious long-term consequences.
When 1 speak about the government's latter day approach, I am referring to the policies it has adopted in this last decade to deal with outstanding native claims, primarily in the north. The 1970s witnessed the dawn of a new era of frontier expansion and exploration in Canada. The north has become the focus, and the search for energy has become the driving force. As with the earlier frontiers, this drive to open up new regions
Supply
carried with it the responsibility for dealing somehow with the northern peoples' claim in the lands in question.
At the outset of the 1970s, when development pressures were just beginning to emerge, the government actually felt that it could ignore the whole issue of native claims because it felt the concept of aboriginal title had no legal basis. It was content to operate on this assumption and to let the native people use the courts to prove otherwise, if they could. In January 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a historic decision on a question of whether the native rights of the Nishga had ever been extinguished. The fact that that court split 3-3 on this vital question gave the concept of native rights much more legal validity and it also rather stunned the government of the day. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) reacted to the decision by telling the Niska, "Perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had".
What this decision did was cause the government to reevaluate its approach to the whole claims question. It could no longer ignore the fact that native people might actually have a legal claim to the land, and that any future court case could now just as easily favour the native people. Instead of leaving it up to the courts then, because they were proving unreliable, the government had to take control of the settlement process itself so that it could control the timing and the results more effectively. This is what the 1973 policy statement was designed to do.
The government's whole approach to the settlement of native claims was conditioned by its other main priority, which was to clear the way for development. As long as ownership of the land remained uncertain, investors would not be attracted to the north. So, if the government wanted to get a pipeline built, it had to take responsibility for clarifying who owned the land. Extinguishing aboriginal claims was a way of doing that once and for all.
Faced, then, with having to settle claims, the government simply dusted off the policy that had been used so effectively in the previous century, and set out to repeat the same process all over again, this time in its last frontier, the north.
The 1973 policy statement established the policy which remains in effect to this day. Let me point out exactly what it was designed to do from the government's point of view, and I would suggest that if it is allowed to proceed, it will lead to the eventual marginalization of native people in the north as well.
First, the 1973 policy statement said that settlements of comprehensive claims should be achieved through negotiations. As I said, this was designed to get the issue out of the courts where decisions were not proving as favourable as the government would have liked. Second, it said that the complete and final extinguishment of native title would be the only acceptable outcome of the settlement process. Third, the sole purpose of the negotiation process would be to determine the type of compensation to be paid for the loss of those rights, plus the amount.
I am taking the time to go into detail on this because this policy reflects a great deal about the government's approach to

June 17, 1982
Supply
native peoples. While it is couched in much more sophisticated language, and there are much more elaborate structures in place for negotiating settlements than in the last century, I fear that its fundamental goals have remained essentially the same-to extinguish native peoples' rights to their land. And I also fear that if the policy is allowed to be repeated, so too will the consequences.
It is interesting to note what has happened between the government and the native groups in the north since this policy was introduced. The northern peoples have been quick to reject the premises of the 1973 policy, recognizing it for what it is- merely the nineteenth century policy resurrected. They have refused to accept their intended fate passively; they have rejected the government's approach and demanded that the door be opened to alternatives.
We realized early on, for example, that some land base was essential for our continued viability as a distinct people. Instead of having our rights to the land extinguished in a settlement, why could we not have them entrenched? Instead of having to choose between a traditional economy and a modern industrial one, why could we not have enough control over the pace of development that we might enjoy the benefits of both? Instead of having political decisions made for us, why can we not make our own, and have structures which reflect our own needs and values, and work these out with other people?
Throughout the 1970s the government did not prove very receptive to these kind of questions. It consistently refused to broaden the mandate of its negotiators, for example, to include questions of political rights. It preferred to keep it at the level of a simple real estate transaction, where a certain amount of money is exchanged for a certain amount of land, with some hunting and fishing rights thrown in. It has even gone so far as to set up separate commissions such as the one headed by the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Drury, to ensure that such matters as political development cannot be discussed in the same forum as claims.
Despite this resistance, the native groups have gone ahead and developed their own alternatives to the "land for money" approach. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, for example, has submitted a proposal for the creation of Nunavut, a new territory in the eastern Arctic which would evolve into full provincial status over a period of up to 15 years. Support for this proposal is running high in the region right now, as illustrated by the overwhelming vote in favour of division in the recent plebiscite held on April 14 in the Northwest Territories. It is hoped that some action will be taken shortly to implement the results of that vote.
In the western Arctic, the Dene and Metis have also developed a vision of how things should be if their culture and economy are to be allowed to thrive. Their Denendeh proposal calls for political structures which would recognize the permanence of the native community in the area in the face of a
growing population of non-natives who may stay for only a short time.
Despite our consistent demand that new models for settlements have to be found, the federal government has still not really indicated much willingness to do so. In fact, in its first update of policy since 1973, the statement entitled "In all Fairness", the government seemed dead set on holding on to the policy objectives it outlined in 1973. Even though it now prefers to speak of an "exchange" of undefined rights for concrete rights and benefits, it still amounts to the same thing: extinguishment. Given the consistent opposition to extinguishment throughout the 1970s, one wonders where the government has been. It is this kind of stubborn insistence on the old way of doing things which is preventing speedy settlements in the north, and it is this stubborn refusal to seriously consider the alternatives which is greatly frustrating the people I represent, and which causes me to support this motion.
Evidence of the federal government's continuing bad faith I believe exists in the recent wildlife agreement, in principle initialled in Frobisher Bay on October 27, 1981, by federal government negotiators and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. For over seven months now the Inuit have been waiting for official endorsement of this agreement. But that is only the first stage in a comprehensive land claims agreement between the federal government and the Inuit of Canada, and we will be watching closely to determine whether the government is willing to act in honesty on our behalf. Therefore, I support this motion of the hon. member for Wataskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger).


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings of the House but I have something which is of some importance and I think the House will be interested. In the provincial byelection in Hamilton West this evening the New Democratic Party won by over
2,000	votes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: That is the first time that the NDP has ever held that seat.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I did want to intervene on the motion this evening, Mr. Speaker, but I will not have time to do so.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think that had to be one of the most superficial and juvenile exploitations of the rules of order that I have heard for some time. I am sure the hon. member of the NDP who just spoke must have shrugged in utter embarrassment that we could be discussing the plight and poverty of the native peoples all day, and then the NDP, the sole possessor of social conscience, just dump their terrible concern and abuse the rules in order to interject something which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 17, 1982


John Carr Munro: If the NDP can contain their glee for about 20 minutes while 1 make my remarks, I would appreciate it. I can only assume that they, like the official opposition, wish to hear the reply to questions they themselves have raised, so here they are.
First, Mr. Speaker, 1 feel very strongly that the standing committee has been a good committee. It is made up of members of all political parties, and therefore political life being what it is they will of necessity politicize their feelings and get the maximum impact as a result of the political position they take in the never ending partisanship which takes place. But in my experience that committee, perhaps more than in any other, has had a common theme amongst all members, one of very deep concern indeed for the wellbeing of the native peoples. It is shown by a basic sort of bipartisan approach when it really counts as far as achieving a given objective is concerned, and I think that speaks well not only for the committee but for Parliament itself. There is a very vivid and stark example of that, which is the James Bay matter which the committee wished to have rectified. I think all members will be happy to know that matter is probably soon to be rectified.
Having said that, I do not wish to attempt to correct a whole multitude of inaccuracies, but I will deal with some. I think some of these inaccuracies probably were stated in the exuberance of the point hon. members wished to make. If I thought that every Indian leader and every Indian person in Canada and the general public were going to read today's Hansard and study all the figures that were quoted, I would probably go to some considerable pains to correct each and every exuberance uttered. But I do not think I will do that. Of necessity, though, I should deal with some very briefly before making my other remarks.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) talked about administration, and about how funds are allocated not only generally but in the B.C. region. The reason I want to deal with that is that some of the charges are serious. I think the figures he has quoted show a lack of ability and capacity to understand the most basic facts about the bandfunding process. The hon. member is not here, so I trust some of his colleagues will make him aware of my reply to some of his serious charges.
We have tried to explain to the hon. member in committee the band-funding process for some time. Maybe he just wants to persist in the distortions despite these endless efforts to correct him. However, for the benefit of other members let me explain some of the major faults. As many members know, program services to any one band can be provided in three basic ways. First, bands can administer the entire program. This now covers about 50 per cent of the entire budget of the department. Second, some programs, and for a very few bands nearly all programs, are still delivered by the Department of Indian Affairs. This comprises about 25 per cent of the department's budget. Incidentally, that figure includes, in addition to a wide range of educational, social and other programs, all the department's administration costs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, some 25 per cent of the budget consists of
Supply
funding provided to provincial governments to provide education and social services to a large number of Indian communities. If you look at the dollars administered by the band, then, anyone can see that this will be very low indeed for bands which receive services directly from the department. They are not getting all the money for all the programs because the department is directly providing the services or the provincial governments are doing it. On the other hand, the figures will be very high for those bands who administer their own school and all other costly programs. If in a certain year they are building a large capital facility such as a water system or a school building, it will be very high. So if an analysis is done in a reasonable and fair way, without a calculated effort to distort, it will show that funds are allocated on a fair and equitable basis.
The blatant inference of the hon. member that somehow some bands, who have more influence than others have the ear of the department, and get a very high amount while other bands get a very low amount was made without taking into account the three different possible ways of delivering funds. What hon. members think of generalized distortions of the type resorted to by my friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is for them to decide. Needless to say, I do not think very much of them.
As to the other question raised by some hon. members with respect to the principle of local government, let me just say that I think the department and 1 would carry out the concept of local government for Indian bands. This concept is one we heartily endorse. We endorse it in the sense that would cover a whole range of local governmental responsibilities to be taken over by a band council and not just in certain areas such as education and cultural activities with rather limited emphasis that I detected in what the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River said. We have had some considerable work done in this area. Along with the standing committee as an aid I hope to ascertain the feelings of the native people. I hope to discuss the matter at some future time with the chairman of the standing committee, and I hope to look into this whole question of consultation with respect to the ultimate devolution of far more responsibility at the option of the bands who wish to exercise this full range of government responsibility.
May I now move on to another area. Again, I think another very serious distortion was made, and it should be clarified. I believe the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River indicated that some bands had money for per capita distribution and that some evil, paternalistic minister of Indian affairs was residing some place and refusing to have per capita distribution made to minors under the age of 21. I think the hon. member used the word "starving" in that respect. That is ridiculous. What happens when a band has the money and its chief and band council, wish to make a per capita allocation under the act? There is no degree of volition on my part; it is subject to the advice of independent law officers of the Crown. Any minister would have to abide by the advice because of the

June 17, 1982
Supply
Canadian system of parliamentary government, whether he be an NDP minister of Indian affairs, a Conservative or a Liberal one. He would have to take that advice because ministers cannot give themselves legal advice. That legal advice is that the Canadian government and the minister of Indian affairs would be held accountable legally by any minor upon attaining the age of majority if the individual does not discharge his responsibility in a legal and proper way along the lines of the concept of a trustee. If a minister of Indian affairs turns over a per capita share to a minor as if he were an adult, perhaps turning it over to the parent, that child, upon attaining the age of 21, if the parent has misused the money and did not make it available to the child in the way it should have been made available, that child can sue the government for irresponsibility in turning over his per capita share to someone else when he was a minor, and recover it when he attains majority. Not only is the government held accountable for irresponsibility in the allocation of the per capita share legally, but the minor may not receive the money at all.
We have been able to find a compromise in the situation, with legal endorsement, in limited amounts of per capita share for minors, that is $250 a month or $3,000 per year per child. That can be turned over to parents and charged off against the per capita share of the minor. There is nothing paternalistic about this. There is no desire to starve some innocent Indian child, as was so exuberantly distorted by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. It is certainly not based on any motivation to be paternalistic; it is based on a solid legal opinion.
1 must say that if there is a desire on the part of the standing committee or of members of the House to change that, they can change the Indian Act. Parliament can direct the Ministry of Justice to give legal opinions based on a legal statute. We do not have a different statute right now. We have the statute that Parliament last passed. I take it all hon. members want the statutes passed by this Parliament respected until they are changed.
I am now moving on to another area, again dealing with some of what I think are unfortunate distortions that arose relative to the British Columbia region. Again, I am referring to how serious some of the charges are. The following figures should be noted as far as the B.C. region is concerned. The region of B.C. has an on-reserve population of approximately 34,500 Indian people. In the year 1981-1982 a total of $101.2 million in grants and contributions, $4.7 million in capital facilities on reserves, $9,266,843 in child care and $21,322,615 was used for education payments under the master tuition agreement. These four items total $136,489,458, which, as anyone here would be prepared to acknowledge, represents a substantial commitment to the Indian people of British Columbia.
In order to indicate what is happening in that region with respect to the topic which the member opposite wishes to stress, that is, the level of program operation being undertaken by Indian bands themselves, let me tell you that in 1976, the department had over $20 million in British Columbia under
band control and less than 100 bands were operating programs. In addition, we have reduced, not increased, the department's regional staff to 559, while the number of band employees has grown less than 300 to 970. This rapid transfer of services is clear evidence that the region is not only sensitive to the needs and wishes of native people but is providing them with the needed tools for self-overnment.
Can we not take into account some of these additional factors before making some of the wide sweeping and I think dangerous allegations, almost bordering on smear, covering a whole group of people? Many of them are civil servants, both native and non-native, who should be given the benefit of the doubt, whose good intentions should not be doubted. Many of them are well motivated, as perhaps many Members of Parliament are, and because they are public servants they cannot defend or speak for themselves.
It is getting to be rather ritualistic. If my predecessor in this portfolio were here with a Liberal opposition criticizing him, and indeed if the minister were an NDP minister of Indian affairs, he would be defending the public servants who are under attack and cannot defend themselves in the House. That is how obvious it is that this type of charge can be made for political exploitation, but it is purely ritualistic and has no substance. We all know, if the roles were changed, what they would be saying in the House if public servants were charged in this way.
This is why I find it so unfortunate that we, as adult politicians, resort to a rather phony process and ritual through which we go each time the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development come up in the standing committee or are debated in the House.
I could go through other areas which some hon. members raised about staff, for example. I think the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) asked about teachers, and so on. I will send him figures tomorrow which clearly show, without boring the House, that there has been a diminution in the staff of my department. I realize how obviously disillusioning it would be if we took a teacher from the Department of Indian Affairs and transferred him to an Indian band to take over an educational program, and then said that it was a reduction in our staff. Taking away that factor, there has been a diminution in the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs.
I opened my remarks by complimenting the committee on its work. As some hon. members have mentioned, I visited the James Bay area. When I returned I assigned one of my major advisers in the department, Mr. Tait, to follow through on the matter, to visit the communities, and to assess the James Bay areement, not in its strict legal context. I already had legal opinions. If we wanted to take it from a strictly legal point of view, it would be very difficult to establish in any court that there has been a breach with respect to federal obligations under the James Bay agreement. That was not the preoccupation of the committee, as I understood it. Certainly it was not

June 17, 1982

my preoccupation as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am concerned with trying to deal, to the best of my ability, in an equitable and fair manner with the native people of the country. If they clearly perceive that an agreement is not fair or is not being implemented in a fair and equitable manner, because we are taking advantage of legal technicalities to their deprivation, it discredits governments generally and is unfortunate. Of course it is something which should be avoided.
I asked Mr. Tait to look at it from the perspective of the spirit of the agreement, whether the general intent as opposed to the legal interpretation had not been lived up to in any way.
I asked him-and it was not a very hard, objective standard by which to assess an agreement-to do the best he could and to try to assess where there were shortcomings within the terms of reference. Also I asked him to try to put a dollar figure on it and to try to rectify the situation, so that basically more moneys could flow to the communities to improve the health conditions to which the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) referred and many other areas referred to in the agreement.
That exercise took a long time. There is no doubt about it. He had to assess the situation and to report. I directed that the report be sent in draft form to Bill Diamond, the Grand Chief of the Cree, and to Charlie Watt of the Inuit people. I wanted them to see whether they felt that the report was a reasonable one. I wanted them to suggest changes which, hopefully, we would be prepared to adopt. It was to and fro with the draft before I took it to cabinet.
I went to cabinet. I assessed the costs. I have been working it out with my colleagues as to where we could find the money. All hon. members will be glad to hear that the process is just about completed. I hope to be in a position in the forthcoming week to ten days to meet with the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), with Billy Diamond and with the Inuit people to resolve the matter. I should like to thank all hon. members for their help. I think it is a real achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: On the economic development front, I can only say that there has been some very real achievement. The Indian people have said to me-and I do not know what they have been saying to a lot of opposition members-that the panacea, almost in those strong terms, for all social ills from which they suffer is economic development. The social ills from which they suffer, such as alcoholism and the spin-off deleterious effects of unemployment-demoralization, marital life problems and so on-could be corrected overnight in a preventive way rather than in a curative way after the damage is done, if emphasis were placed upon economic development so that Indians, through their own initiative, could create jobs and employment. That is the area upon which they would like emphasis placed in terms of correcting the many social problems identified by hon. members today in the House. Indeed, these problems were identified in the document dealing with Indian conditions which I
Supply
published when 1 first became minister. I am talking about high mortality rates, high suicidal rates and so on. These are all signs of the stark and abysmal poverty of the Indian people in some parts of the country.
We have seen the commitment and will of the goverment to do something about it. Perhaps we could talk in positive terms with respect to our native people. We have indicated that we are prepared to commit moneys to native economic development. There were such moneys included in the budget of October. Over the next four years, in addition to the moneys which are already committed in the estimates of our department, $345 million is committed for the native people of Canada. This is a major commitment and it is indicative-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nickerson):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired. He will need unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: I thank hon. members. I might indicate that that money will be added to $8 million for last year for major imperative projects and an additional $5 million this year. Also there are the ongoing programs in the department. I am talking about an approximate $8 million to $10 million in direct guaranteed loans for economic development. There is a $35 million contribution in terms of economic development moneys which we have already allotted. They are not counted in the $345 million, or in the special allocation of $8 million to $10 million, or in support services of $15 million. We are now getting some substantial money to put emphasis upon the much-needed area of economic development.
Let me touch upon another area to which hon. members referred, the area of education. Some native people would like us to touch upon some of the positive areas rather than the negative ones constantly and incessantly. There has been very impressive upgrading of standards and achievement by native peoples in the educational area. There are now more than
10,000	students and 157 band-operated schools. We expect- and the figures show that it is true-that the enrolment will reach at least 20,000 by 1986. Similar impressive improvements are being made in post-secondary enrolment. As recently as 1969 only about 800 Indians, as opposed to the present
10,000,	were pursuing courses in post-secondary education. This is something from which all of us can take some satisfaction. Indeed, we congratulate native people for placing emphasis upon the educational system. It is some reflection of our desire and commitment of funds to provide the facilities for them to achieve those much needed numbers.
I can only conclude by again indicating in terms of equity and fairness the tremendous emphasis which has been put on comprehensive and specific claims in the last two years as well as much added expenditures by this government over what has ever been done in the past. I am also talking about my immediate predecessor government. Negotiators have been put in place in all the comprehensive claims north of 60 and they

June 17, 1982
Supply
have been given the research moneys. When 1 first became minister there were no negotiators in place. There was very little research money to allow them to even approach a state of readiness to negotiate as well as to settle any specific claims made by the provinces, such as the most recent claims by British Columbia and the maritimes.
I could go on with a list of accomplishments but just let me say that, with the commitment now in place in the Canada Act to the recognition of treaty and aboriginal rights plus the political will shown in the allocation of needed funds to meet the priorities of the native people, perhaps we have entered a new era. Perhaps more has been done and more emphasis has been placed on the concerns of the native people in the last year and a half to two years by this government than in any other comparable period in the history of Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ask one very short and important question of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member has sought unanimous consent and unanimous consent has not been granted.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Due to the interest shown in the minister's presentation this evening, and being a member of the standing committee I know that committee members from all three parties always welcome the appearance of the minister before the committee, I wonder whether it would be permissible, as it is nearly ten o'clock, to ask if the minister would be prepared to continue his presentation and to give his views and explain the operations of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his involvement. I wonder if all members would agree to that?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand the point raised by the hon. member. I hear some members saying that it is not a point of order. However, it is quite acceptable practice that if an hon. member seeks unanimous consent he is given enough time during a point of order to do so. Having said that, the issue is whether or not the hon. member has unanimous consent for his proposal that the minister continue to be available for questions. Before I recognize the hon. minister I have to seek unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to continue his participation in the debate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) on a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, the Chair has no difficulty. I have to recognize the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). There was an hon. member from the New Democratic Party who just spoke and I have to move to another party.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I believe my name was on the list.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In due course, perhaps I could discuss the matter privately with the hon. member and explain the procedure to him.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to pick up the shreds of a 20 minute speech when I originally had 17 minutes and now, with points or order, I have six.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Summarize.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will have to. First, I come from a riding which has a very substantive native population. Indeed, I think that in terms of the global and the native community it is a very fortunate and successful community which has good selfgovernment. I think that some wonderful Canadian citizens are coming out of the universities and other institutions who were produced by that community.
Now that the Liberal Party is so proud of the negotiations that were started by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), in terms of the settlement in the Penticton cut-off case, I would hope that they could now proceed with the IR No. 5 lands cut-off problem because we could not proceed with that in the thirty-first Parliament until the Penticton matter had been settled and that process of evaluation had been established.
In his address, the minister spoke rather extensively of the legal point of view. I suppose it is because of his professional background. He talks of spirt and legal intent. It is this area of communication between the Canadian community at large and the communities of our native people, particularly with the community and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with which I have some concern. I keep repeating that Solzhenitsyn, in addressing the western world, has warned us about what we are getting into as we increasingly drift into a legalistic type of society where everything becomes dependent upon legal interpretation. As I see it, a behavioural and attitudinal problem has developed within the department that is at odds with what I have always considered to be the Canadian sense of fair play and morals and the rough give and take of the business community.
Since I have been a member I have had to deal with the economic development that has been attempted in Bella Coola where an entrepreneur builds a marine way and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development builds a
June 17, 1982

marine way beside it, and neither are economic so they collapse. Another example is a hotel being built by one entrepreneur and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development building another hotel, and both collapsing because of being uneconomical.
I have had to deal with the Ehattesaht matter where the department poured $5 million into a logging operation, which was a very sound economic development project for the Indian community. However, the students were paid the full trade rates in the forest industry so that within six months $5 million went down the drain and $1.7 million of receivables were lost by the industrial community around it.
If there is to be economic development in the Indian community, which I agree with the minister is their way out of many of the social and human problems they have, surely we must apply the basic rules of the marketplace and the balance sheet to that area.
I have arrived at the minister's point on legalistic terms and sense of legal intent. The minister wrote me a letter on April 29 concerning the Toussowasket problem. In my riding there is an engineering and contracting firm which has gone into receivership as a result of the legalistic games that have been played by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the band chief in the area. Donaldson Engineering Company is a firm in my riding which has now gone bankrupt and had received a Supreme Court judgment against Toussowasket Enterprises. The minister wrote me a letter telling me to have that firm proceed, that another $300,000 had been arranged to be paid to the band, and that the FDBD receivership claim, which was prior, had been paid off, so my constituent could proceed. I went to seek legal opinion on how accurate, on a legal basis, the minister's letter telling us to proceed was. I could not believe the game had been played. Obviously, a good part of my time here has been used up to prevent me from putting on the record the disgusting game, in terms of legal technique, that has been played to avoid the settlement of a Supreme Court judgment on behalf of a contractor who had performed legitimate and complete work in the Westbank Indian Band, Toussowasket Enterprises. The band chief, with the assistance of the legal department of this government has created the shell behind which there are no assets on which that judgment can be made. It has been done in one of the most shameful ways that I have ever witnessed in a lifetime in business. I have never in my life seen such legal trickery being used. I am sorry I have to use such extreme language, but I did not have enough time to put this properly on the record of the House. If I have been extreme, it has been because of the pressure of time. I see that it is ten o'clock and my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), even though the hon. member is my twin, but it is ten o'clock.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, this week, I put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) regarding a matter that is causing some concern to a number of mayors in Canada, namely, soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. For some weeks we have been receiving letters from the mayors of various municipalities including Vancouver, Niagara and the Quebec City area, urging us to amend the Criminal Code so as to make this a more serious offence and thus enable the police to carry out more arrests.
Mr. Speaker, it is my humble opinion that our mayors are making a serious mistake if they want to use the Criminal Code in order to correct a situation that is causing traffic problems or a disturbance on the sidewalks of their municipalities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen that there are a number of activities that take place on municipal sidewalks and these may include selling religious objects, selling other products that are not altogether legal, such as drugs, or soliciting with a view to prostitution, and I think that if we want to use the Criminal Code to regulate all the activities that take place on these sidewalks, the Code is, in my view, sufficiently clear in this respect. In any case, in one case in Alberta, in Calgary the Westendorp case which is now before the Supreme Court of Alberta, the municipal bylaw of the city of Calgary which prohibited activities related to prostitution on sidewalks was upheld. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am opposed at this time to any changes in the legislation and in the Criminal Code. I feel that, now we have adopted a charter of rights which guarantees equal rights for women, we cannot allow this kind of discrimination, which has already been with us for too long, to continue.
Recently in this House, we tabled a report on battered women and we know what the response of some of our colleagues was in this House. Statistics also show that two thirds of working women in Canada are paid the minimum wage. Then, I ask myself this question. Why should we victimize any further these women who, whatever we may say are practising a profession as old as the world itself and which was not of their own choosing? Reports of inquiries all indicate that these women are exploited persons, that they are victims and more cruelly beaten than the others. These women are at the mercy of people who exploit them as far as drugs and money are concerned. They are the victims and we want them today to be still more victimized.

June 17, 1982
Adjournment Debate
1 think, Mr. Speaker, that we are shifting the problem and when I referred to the statistics provided by Statistics Canada on offences dealing with prostitution, the legislation was amended in 1972, and since 1972, I noted that there has been no dramatic change. Indeed, from 1976 to 1980, there has been a decrease in the volume of offences and I think this is merely due to the fact that the law is not enforced. Moreover, as I mentioned it to some of the mayors in connection with other activities such as pornography in public places such as theatres and elsewhere, there are no statistics on arrests, no offences reported. The number of reported offences with respect to pornography is so low that the Canadian statistics do not even take them into account. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I wanted in the first place to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) the views of several women's organizations which appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs whose proceedings unfortunately are not televised.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have sections in the Criminal Code that deal with indecent acts, nudity, loitering, disturbing the peace, procuring, bawdy houses. For procuring we have penalties up to 10 years, and looking at the statistics in that area, out of 1,520 charges laid, 60 males and 18 females were arrested in 1980. Where are all the people exploiting Canadian women in such distress, what did the provincial governments do? What do municipalities intend to do? I would invite all those prudish mayors and authorities, all those police officers, all the people charged with enforcing the law, to look at the Criminal Code and find out that sections dealing with these matters are already in it. Section 195.1 already deals with soliciting and arrests can be made. But let us not prohibit women from walking the streets thus increasing discrimination. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I hope the committee on justice and legal affairs and also the Minister of Justice will at least and at best maintain the section as it is. And if we have any courage, let us recommend that this House repeal that section because I feel that those who exploit that trade should be very severely punished. Our statistics should not report for a whole year in Canada only 60 cases of people convicted of such a serious offence, as exploiting. In other countries mention is made of white slavery. These things happen to young people. Currently I am told that in Vancouver, young people are involved. The Young Offenders' Act provides for severe penalties for abduction of a minor, and 1 wonder what provincial attorneys general are doing, 1 wonder what provincial authorities are doing, what police officers and judges are doing in those cases.
Looking at statistics I tell myself that once again we are the most victimized members of society, and it is not by changing the law or by putting teeth into it that we will correct the
problem. I see that what concerns our colleagues is a case heard in British Columbia, where a police officer used as bait could not get one of those girls convicted. The facts of the case are clear, I think that the police officer simply did not do his job properly or should have been better informed, because I think that if we want to enforce the act as it is, it is very easy to do, but let us not be hypocritical and tell people that because this is a federal act and the Criminal Code, that the federal government is doing nothing in this matter when in fact the blame should be put on local authorities.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), I shall reply this evening to a question asked by the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), who has just spoken on the same subject. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice told the hon. member in the House yesterday, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs are now considering the issue of solicitation for the purposes of prostitution. As a member of this committee, I have myself attended all the proceedings on this matter and on Bill C-53.
As the hon. member has just stated, the mayors of Vancouver, Calgary and Niagara Falls, as well as the mayor of Etobicoke, in his capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, have appeared before the committee. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Vancouver asks that the Criminal Code be amended. He would like the offence of solicitation not have to be qualified as insistent or persistent. He would also like the customers who solicit prostitutes to be charged, but on the other hand, the mayors of Calgary and Niagara Falls would be happy to have the problem dealt with by municipal bylaws. The mayor of Calgary even urged the members of the committee to do whatever is necessary to guarantee that these bylaws cannot be considered ultra vires.
Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted authorization to appeal the issue of the legality of the Calgary bylaw, and this appeal will be heard only in September, 1982. According to the testimony, it seems that the municipal bylaws of Calgary, Niagara Falls and Vancouver deal effectively with prostitutes and their clients, whether men or women.
To my knowledge, no change in the section of the code which deals with this matter has yet been suggested to the members of the committee, in the event it should be established that this section no longer meets present needs. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. members that the committee is still considering ways to settle this difficult issue and that it should be able to comment on it and to bring forward suggestions by next fall.
June 17, 1982


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-ROLE OF PAROLE BOARD OFFICER. (B) NATURE OF SUPERVISION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise tonight to speak about a very serious matter. I know all members of the House agree it is serious. I think it is appropriate for me to point out the question 1 raise is within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who, and this is quite an uncommon occurrence, but one I commend, is here tonight. I understand he will be replying to my remarks. I know the Solicitor General is here because he is deeply concerned about the matter my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), and I raised on Monday. It concerns the terrible case of a man named Kocurek who was convicted recently in British Columbia of the killing of a 15-year-old girl on August 2, 1981. The tragedy, and that is all that it can be described as-a terrible tradegy-is made more terrible by the fact that Kocurek was out at the time on what is called mandatory supervision.
Kocurek had been convicted of indecent assault on a four-year-old girl, but after he had served two-thirds of his sentence, he was out on mandatory supervision. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, this is a matter of law. It is very interesting that the federal authorities are reported in the press as having said that Kocurek could not have received ordinary parole because he was considered dangerous. He was denied parole, apparently, because reports said he liked to choke women during the sex act. One psychiatrist's report warned that he would kill if he went untreated. He was released on June 22, 1981, as the Solicitor General knows, after he had served two thirds of his sentence. I agree with the Solicitor General that in law that was all that could happen. He had to be released, but justice officials then warned provincial authorities and the local mental health authorities that, and I quote from a press release:
Kocurek should be carefully monitored and reports made to his parole officer.
Unfortunately and tragically, when he missed his appointment at the mental health clinic, apparently nobody told the federal authorities. Apparently the federal parole authorities were not able to keep close enough supervision on Kocurek, so his activities were not in fact monitored.
The matter of mandatory supervision has been raised before, and 1 want to remind hon. members that on October 29, 1981, the Solicitor General said in answer to a question in relation to mandatory supervision put by my Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
When I got the study in July-
This was in relation to a study on mandatory supervision.
-I circulated it through the criminal justice constituency across the country. I indicated that 1 would wait until the end of October for their comments on these recommendations.
That was October of last year.
Adjournment Debate
I expect to close the book on receiving comments from these groups shortly. I hope that within a few months I will be able to go to cabinet with proposals for change and for improving the mandatory supervision system.
Later, on January 27, 1982, another colleague in my party, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), raised the matter with the Solicitor General, and the Solicitor General said, as recorded in Hansard:
-and I am planning to go to cabinet shortly with proposals for change.
On June 14 the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and I raised this matter in the House. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asked:
Why was Kocurek allowed to be lawfully at large, carrying a pistol and handcuffs, after failing to show up for his first scheduled visit to the mental health unit?
Then 1 asked:
Was there in fact a parole board officer to whom Kocurek was supposed to report? If there was, why was that parole board officer not keeping track of what Kocurek was supposed to be doing? I refer especially to his refusal to turn up at the mental health clinic? Why did no one know about this?
The Solicitor General replied:
-I would like to have the opportunity to look into that further before answering the question.
It is interesting that a paper was delivered on November 13, 1981, by Graham Stewart, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Kingston. With respect to mandatory supervision he said:
I would like to add here that in addition to mandatory supervision not being able to either offer control or substantial assistance, the report acknowledges that staff involved in the mandatory supervision are not able to identify those who are likely to be dangerous even if they could assert this control.
It may or may not be appropriate to maintain mandatory supervision-I am inclined to think that it is not-but what is certainly of importance is that as long as it is maintained in the law, and I understand the difficulties the Solicitor General has with this because it is mandatory, then surely he can do something to tighten up the so-called supervision that goes with it.
I know the Solicitor General is deeply concerned about this case and others, as are the people in the part of British Columbia in which this happened, and as are all hon. members. I would ask the Solicitor General to give us some assurance tonight that the report to which he referred many months ago will be dealt with. I know it takes time to get cabinet decisions but I hope that even before that is forthcoming the Solicitor General can give us some assurance that supervision is taking place and will continue to take place. I hope he will do more than tighten up the system, but will improve it considerably.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the kind words said about me by my hon. friend. In three short minutes I should like to talk about this case and, what is more important, about the system of mandatory supervision.

June 17, 1982
Adjournment Debate
As 1 said I would, 1 have inquired into the matter and have learned that Kocurek was reporting to a parole officer. He was supposed to report every two weeks and he did. Between his reports there were telephone calls. I can assure the hon. member that if there had been any knowledge at all of the alleged facts-that he was carrying handcuffs and a fire arm with him-he would have been in violation of his mandatory supervision and it would have been suspended.
In addition, he was to report for psychiatric attention regularly. He missed one of those appearances and phoned the mental health unit to inform them that he had the flu. That may well have been true-he may well have had the flu. No further check was made into the claim that he had the flu and before any further visits were to take place, the tragic murder occurred.
A terrible dilemma is presented by dangerous offenders who are reaching the end of their sentence. The simple fact is that as they reach the end of their sentence it becomes inevitable, because the sentence is limited, that they will be on the street. The question which is presented to society and the question upon which I ask my hon. friend to reflect and upon which he will be called to vote when, shortly, I hope, tougher legislation will be introduced in connection with mandatory supervision, is do we as a society get a better handle on these dangerous offenders by having a period of time when they are on the street but still under warrant? In these circumstances they could be watched and be subject to conditions and be guided by psychiatrists, social workers and parole officers.
On the other hand, is it better to keep them in until the very end of their sentence? I wonder if the extra eight or nine months of incarceration, which is about the average, would make them less dangerous or less of a threat? Is it better to keep them in until society has no more right to claim their attention or give them direction, and then let them out cold turkey into society?
We have always had the theory in our country, because we have had early release for decades, that it is better to get the individual into the street for some period of time, recognizing the risks but having the benefit of being able to control and direct them. That is one of the arguments for mandatory supervision and I ask my hon. friend to reflect on that when my proposals are brought forward, which proposals preserve mandatory supervision but considerably toughen it up.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF LAYOFFS. (B) NOTIFICATION OF UNIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on May 20 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) a question about the CN announcement of lay-offs in Tran-scona, Point St. Charles and Moncton. At that time CN announced a six to eight-week shutdown in addition to the usual summer shutdown; six on the "motive" power side and eight on the car side. Since then the lay-offs have been extended to ten weeks past the summer shutdown, thus adding to the problems of many of my constituents who work in those shops,
and further compromising the role of the CN as a service and not just any other out-for-a-quick-buck business enterprise.
In answer, the minister said that it was not his policy to interfere in the day to day affairs of CN. I reminded him that he did not have any qualms about interfering in the activities of VIA Rail when he saw fit, and surely the lay-off of thousands of people could not be rightfully regarded as simply a day to day activity. Now, when he has the opportunity to do something intelligent with regard to the railways, he sits on his hands and says it is none of his business.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that it is his business. The CN acts upon the instructions of the government, and since 1975 has been instructed by the Liberals to make a profit at all costs. Indeed, up until 1982, it was doing just that. Then, because of traffic reduction and subsequent revenue loss-thanks in part to the economic mismanagement of the Liberals themselves-it has not made a profit and this has led to the lay-offs; not because there was no work or no future for the railway, not because there will be no need for the equipment which will go unrepaired during the lay-off, but only because they did not make a profit. In my view, this is the ultimate in shortsightedness and social irresponsibility; the kind of thing only Conservatives could be happy with. By that I mean the Tories have always wanted Crown corporations like CN to operate only according to profit and to hell with the lives of the workers.
I have nothing against an efficiently run railroad, Mr. Speaker. All railroaders want to feel they are part of an efficient and admirable enterprise. To this extent they also have been glad that the CN has redeemed itself in the public eye, even though most of its historic debt was due to inheritance rather than operating deficit. But no one is in favour of the short-term profit motive when it comes to transportation. Transportation is not a need which is going to go away; it will always be with us. The railway will always be an important part of that transportation system, especially as we move into the energy-scarce future.
The CN must be given the money it needs for capital expansion and expansion in general, but this money must not come from Canadian farmers through changes in the Crow rate, or from railway workers themselves in the form of layoffs. It should come from general revenues as an investment by the Government of Canada in the future of this country, a future in which the Canadian National and other Crown corporations will be used as instruments of the public interest and not as isolated meaningless profit centres.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members are aware of the facts. Faced with a first quarter loss-not a profit as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) would lead the public to believe-of $34.7 million and no immediate improvement in the economic outlook, CN Rail announced an extended close down of its three main shops, in Moncton,
June 17, 1982

Montreal and Winnipeg. The close down will be in addition to the normal four week summer break, July 12 to August 6, 1982, and will affect locomotive and freight car repair operations. Both operations will re-open October 15.
Lay-offs in the railway industry as a result of a decline in traffic have taken place before and are not considered an unusual response in times of slow economic activity. For example, in 1975, CP temporarily laid off 3,000 workers for seven weeks in the post-holiday period. In 1977, CN instituted a four-week extension to the normal holiday period for some workers.
The hon. member said that workers could be working and repairing existing equipment. At the moment, CN has 240 locomotives and 8,000 freight cars sitting idle. I am confident that CN is maintaining its fleet adequately. It is simply a case of there being fewer cars and locomotives to maintain.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Not all those cars are repaired. Eight thousand are waiting for repair.


Jesse Philip Flis: I am surprised that the hon. member encouraged the minister to interfere in CN operations by directing it to cancel the lay-offs. As the minister explained to the hon. member, the role of a minister with respect to Crown corporations is to indicate general policy guidelines. It is not to dictate
Adjournment Debate
how many people should be laid off over what period of time. He did not say, as the hon. member mentioned tonight, that it was none of his business. That is not what he said at all. He said his role is to set policy. Why have Crown corporations if the minister is going to be involved in the day-to-day operations of these Crown corporations?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 1 am complaining about policy.


Jesse Philip Flis: Decisions regarding lay-offs are not easy ones to take and are not taken lightly by railway management. I share the hon. member's concern for the employees affected in this difficult period. However, it should be remembered that employees with at least two years' service enjoy 80 per cent of their normal take home pay as a result of UIC payments and the provisions of their collective agreement. Employees with less than two years of service are entitled to normal UIC benefits.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House is now adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 18, 1982